"Numidians always portrayed as black?" Topic

So most people I my self normaly portay numidians as sub saharan afrcian. Yet the country of Numidia was berber. And so north african(like todays Marrocan, Libyan, Eyption.

Were does the info come from that they were black(spesificaly the light cav)

Were they imports from further south? Had southerns migrated north?

Or is it based on one iffy source from 200 AD and now everybody does it?

It is based on not knowing any better.
It is based on equating Nubian with Numidian, which is what I did many years ago.

But it's not even just paint jobs, some of the numidian cav models are clearly not north afrcian or european in the faces.

John, you aren't alone. I noticed in "Gladiator" today, that Maximus' clearly Nubian mate was described as a Numidian. The film also referred to Legionnaires! :-)

Truls, my first Numidian cavalry were Garrison Greenwood and Ball. Their faces and hair were clearly Negroid, so that is how I painted them.
It was easy to add Hinchliffe Nubian infantry and call them Numidian.
In the first WRG book on the Punic wars, Phil Barker showed what I call the "Zulu hoplite", wearing a long sleeved tunic, no armor, and an ostrich plume with round shield and long spear. This was supposed to be the Liby Phoenician infantry.
The Minifigs model based on this had Negro features. Strangely, the Ral Partha model did not. The features were much sharper, but since I got them to mix in with my Minifigs, they got painted black too. The Garrison Greenwood and Ball Zulu hoplite had Negro features.
And forget about the Ral Partha Numidian cavalry. He even had dreadlocks to go along with the features, as did the Numidian foot javelinman.

I used to (wrongly) mock the Garrison Greenwood and Ball Carthaginian spearmen that were not the Zulu Hoplites, even though they were much closer to the "real thing". Why? Because they were not based on the Phil Barker book.
The Heavy Cavalry, were quite good and "accurate" though.

Can we just say that wargaming figures, and the pictures they are based upon, are not 100% accurate? Not now, and not in the past.

The dreadlocks are thanks to Trajan's column. It may be that the carver was falling into the same trap as some modern gamers and wished to show them as Sub-saharans. However there are enough dreadlocked caucasians trolling around a British city centre to show that this hair style doesn't have to go with sub-Saharan features.

So most people I my self normaly portay numidians as sub saharan afrcian. Yet the country of Numidia was berber. And so north african(like todays Marrocan, Libyan, Eyption.

A simple amount of research would disabuse anyone of that notion,

Were does the info come from that they were black(spesificaly the light cav)

People who mistook Nubian for Numidian.

Were they imports from further south? Had southerns migrated north?

No.

Or is it based on one iffy source from 200 AD and now everybody does it?

It is not based on any source, other than the misunderstanding above.

Paint them like Berbers. With my 6mm I just use the same color that I use on my Romans but I the color contrasts look nicer in the smaller scale.

Gunfreak, please paint these as Berbers!!! Mike Adams

Caucasian flesh with an admixture of yellow ochre and a little burnt sienna does it for me. And I'm an African myself, btw.

my take
link

If Ancient Libyans and Numidians were closely related then the Egyptian paintings are of use. The Libyans are shown with paler skin than the Egyptians. Their hair has the same 'dreadlock' look which may simply be long very wavy hair. The hair colour isn't clear because of the way it is shown, but they may well have had some fair or red hair as in the modern Berber population. I think there are arguments as to whether some of this is due to more modern European genes though.

There's a possibility that at least some of the ancient Libyan tribes were Sea Peoples & hence from Europe or Anatolia?

Remember that the Libyans had skin so similar to that of the Egyptians that there was trouble presenting a severed enemy hand as proof of duty done.

"Remember that the Libyans had skin so similar to that of the Egyptians that there was trouble presenting a severed enemy hand as proof of duty done."
Or it means the Libyans weren't circumcised, allowing the easier method of tallying.

Modern Numidians (Algerian Berbers):

Click here to see a whole page of pictures of Kabyle Berbers, the Berber "minority" in northern Algeria who are probably most directly descended from Numidians and their forebears.

- Ix

One other point to consider, is how much the complexions of the current inhabitants of the northern Mediterranean and Balkans owe to the various invaders from the south (and north).

Basing historic coloration on the characteristics of the current population is chancy.

I'm like many here and painted by Numidians with sub-Saharan complexions as that was what everybody was doing at the time. Not wishing to re-paint a hundred or so figures I've even recently painted some trained Numidians to match!
My "Zulu hoplites" will be replaced sometime down the road, but I've got quite a few project before then. They might end up as part of a Meroeotic Kushite army. Anyone an expert on Kushite complexions?

Juba a Numidian king

Numidian coin
link

Massinissa Numidian king

One other point to consider, is how much the complexions of the current inhabitants of the northern Mediterranean and Balkans owe to the various invaders from the south (and north).

Basing historic coloration on the characteristics of the current population is chancy.

Good point about mixing ethnicities over thousands of years and multiple conquests, but it's not really that chancy. Most peoples living in the sun-drenched parts of the Mediterranean basin are similarly swarthy, and most conquests of Mediterranean locales have been by peoples from other Mediterranean locales – especially in Numidia up to the time of the Numidians. AFAIK ancient writers are silent on the subject of Numidian complexion, suggesting Numidians looked "normal" to them. By contrast, lots of ancients made particular note of the pallor of Gauls, the dark skin of Nubians, and the very word "Ethiopian" is (supposedly) descended from a Greek portmonteau meaning "burnt face". Since the Berbers appear to have been in Africa since at least 10,000 BC, are probably genetically related to a northern European people, and displaced the existing Saharans after their arrival (not the other way around), chances are that self-identifying modern Berbers probably look similar to ancient ones. My personal preference is slightly swarthy Numidians with black hair.

On a more practical note: From 15mm on down, there are really only about 4 discernible shades of skin – pale, swarthy, brown, black. As long as your Numidians aren't as pale as Gauls or as dark as Ethiopians, you're probably good. It looks like Berbers living farther from the coast tend to be darker than Berbers closer to the coast or in cities. This could be a function of racial mixing or just exposure to the sun, but either way, Numidian cavalry could also have darker complexions. The Numidians who became cavalry were clearly very outdoorsy people (you only become an expert horseman by spending years in the saddle), and since they lived in a very sunny part of the world and don't seem to have worn much clothing, they probably had deep tans during the summer.

- Ix

"Or it means the Libyans weren't circumcised, allowing the easier method of tallying."

Which they just might have adopted with everyone else too if that had been the reason. Think, Jack.

The Great Karnak inscription specifies that hands are collected from some of the Sea People (as well as the Libyans) because they did not have foreskins. See link page 56.
Phallus collection was apparently also used on the Hittites – who are shown in Egyptian paintings as paler. It was also used by the Hebrews to tally Philistine dead.