602182
research-article2015
JBSXXX10.1177/0021934715602182Journal of Black StudiesSamuels
Article
Herodotus and the Black
Body: A Critical Race
Theory Analysis
Journal of Black Studies
2015, Vol. 46(7) 723­–741
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0021934715602182
jbs.sagepub.com
Tristan Samuels1
Abstract
Herodotus’ view of Blackness is discussed only in relation to his 2.104 passage
where he describes the Egyptian physical appearance. This is a consequence
of the modern debate on ancient Egyptian racial identity. Inevitably,
commentators on 2.104 have been heavily concerned with defending their
predispositions about ancient Egyptian racial identity. As a result, there has
been no critical engagement with Herodotus’ conceptualization of Blackness.
This analysis uses critical race theory to address this methodological
problem. Contrary to the consensus in Greco-Roman studies, Blackness
was a factor in ancient Greek racial thought. It is evident that Herodotus’
own understanding of Blackness did not differ from the general Greek
worldview. Ultimately, this analysis shows that Blackness was a significant
aspect of Herodotus’ ethnography for particular racial groups.
Keywords
Herodotus, ancient Greece, ancient Egypt, critical race theory, racism, antiquity
Herodotus’ ethnography on ancient Egypt is a subject of frequent debate.
Among the most controversial aspects of Herodotus’ ethnography is his
description of the Egyptian body (2.104). Arguing for an ancestral connection
between the Egyptians and Colchians, Herodotus points to their common
1University
of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Tristan Samuels, Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto, 4 Bancroft
Avenue, 2nd floor, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1C1, Canada.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
724
Journal of Black Studies 46(7)
physical characteristics, melagchroes (μελάγχροες) and oulotriches
(οὐλότριχες), as one reason. The meaning of melagchroes, conventionally
translated as “black-skinned” or “dark-skinned,” immediately brings attention to the debate surrounding ancient Egyptian racial identity—Were they
Black? Consequently, discussions often focus on the debate before analyzing
Herodotus’ view of Blackness. This study explains the methodological problems in scholarly discussions and deconstructs Herodotus’ actual view. The
analysis is divided into five sections. Section I discusses the methodological
problems in commentaries on Herodotus 2.104. Section II critiques the
approaches to race, Blackness, and Herodotus 2.104 in the major studies on
Greco-Roman racial thought. Section III situates race and Blackness in an
ancient Greek context using critical race theory (CRT). Section IV discusses
Blackness in Herodotus’ perspective. Section V discusses the further implications of this analysis. Overall, it is argued that Blackness was a significant
factor in Herodotus’ ethnography for certain racial groups.
Commentaries on Herodotus 2.104
Overt anti-Black racism was commonplace in early commentaries on Herodotus
2.104 (Martin, 1984, pp. 299-306). The commentary of Greco-Roman scholars
How and Wells is an example of this overt anti-Black racism. They concede that
Herodotus’ description was “the usual Greek idea,” but dismiss it as an exaggeration of the “brown” Egyptian complexion. To explain this alleged mistake,
they suggest that Herodotus was “confused by the numerous negro slaves he
saw in the streets of Memphis” (How & Wells, 1968, p. 208). First and foremost,
the skin complexions among Black people include various shades of brown and
black. Moreover, the “negro slaves” argument is clearly an anti-Black stereotype. Furthermore, it never occurs to How and Wells that “the usual Greek idea”
was not a lie or mistake, but simply what Greeks observed in Egypt. How and
Wells’ slippery logic assumes that the Egyptians could not be Black based on
their views of the ancient Egyptian racial identity—not Herodotus’. The overt
anti-Black racism in How and Wells’ analysis does not appear in recent scholarship. However, it is significant to highlight the shortcomings of their commentary because similar arguments reappear in later interpretations.
In order to prove that Herodotus never went to Egypt, Kimball O. Armayor
(1978) uses 2.104 as evidence. He concludes,
Herodotus’ Egyptian and Black Sea blacks are merely another version of
Aeschylus’ black-limbed sailors and Pindar’s black-faced Colchians . . . Either
[he] did go to Egypt and Colchis and remained content to tell of traditional
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
725
Samuels
blacks that he and his audience wanted to find there or he never went to Egypt
and Colchis at all. (p. 63, emphasis added)
This conclusion is based solely on Armayor’s view of ancient Egyptian racial
identity. He acknowledges that Greeks and Romans saw the Egyptians as
Black (pp. 60-63), but his argument presupposes that all the Greeks and
Romans who mentioned Egyptian Blacks never went to Egypt—which is
entirely false. Furthermore, he provides no ideological motive for Greeks to
make up a “tradition” of Egyptian Blacks. It never occurs to him that this was
not a tradition but the actual Greek racial perception of the ancient Egyptians.
Armayor dismisses Herodotus’ account because it does not support his views
of ancient Egyptian racial identity.
Egyptologist Juan José Castillos (1984) disagrees with Cheikh Anta
Diop’s assertion of ancient Egypt’s Blackness. Relevant to this discussion is
Castillos’ claim that “Diop is not just justified” in using Herodotus’ testimony
as evidence (p. 17). First, Castillos claims that some of the passages from
Herodotus that Diop quoted “were referring to the Ethiopians and not to the
Egyptians” (p. 17, emphasis added). This is a straw man argument. Diop
(1974) cites 2.57 and 2.104, which are indisputably references to Egyptians
(pp. 241-243). Castillos simply assumes that the Aithiopians were the only
Blacks in Greek social relations. Second, Castillos (1984) claims that
it was natural for a white European to call “brown” or “black” people whose
skin was darker than his without this necessarily implying that they were
negroes. (p. 17, emphasis added)
Castillos provides no evidence showing that the Greek somatic norm was
White, he simply assumes it. It is also evident that Castillos sees no contradiction in ancient Egyptians looking like Black people without actually being
Black. Castillos’ faulty criticism of Diop and his contradictory explanation
show his polemical aversion toward ancient Egypt’s Blackness.
Egyptologist Alan B. Lloyd is forthright in his dismissal of Blackness in
Herodotus’ description. In his first commentary on Book II, Lloyd (1988)
argues that “there is no linguistic justification for relating this description to
negroes” because “[Melagchroes] could denote any color from bronzed to
black and negroes are not the only physical type to show curly hair” (p. 22,
emphasis added). First and foremost, it should be noted that “negro” is inappropriate terminology. Also, the “True Negro” (negroid) concept is not biologically valid (Walker, 1995). As noted earlier, Black people have a range of
complexions and somatic features—not one physical type. In addition, the
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
726
Journal of Black Studies 46(7)
“True Black” concept is anachronistic. Moreover, χάλκεος (chalkeos) is the
Greek word for “bronze”—not melas. Lloyd simply assumes that melagchroes
does not connote Blackness. In fact, Lloyd’s bronzed argument is fundamentally identical to How and Wells’ “brown” argument. Lloyd sees Blackness as
an exaggerated translation, while How and Wells accuse Herodotus of exaggeration—but both dismiss Blackness as a misinterpretation. The “curly hair”
translation for oulotriches is ambiguous and Lloyd evades critical engagement
with the “woolly hair” translation. More suitable translations for Black hair
textures will be discussed later in Section IV. Furthermore, Lloyd concedes
that these physical features would “certainly” be found among ancient and
modern Egyptians (p. 22). Lloyd’s logic is entirely circular: Ancient Egyptians
can have so-called Black features, but they are not Black.
In his discussion on Herodotus’ views of Egyptians, there is a tendentious
effort to silence ancient Egyptian Blackness. Lloyd (1990) claims,
In all his ethnographic comment there is one item lacking which most modern
observers would expect to find. Egyptian physical characteristics, as such, do
not interest Herodotus; he only discusses them in the context of the Sesostris
logos at [2.104] and even here he simply picks on the standard Greek stereotype
of Egyptian physiognomy. (p. 221, emphasis added)
This entire argument is fraught with contradictions. Herodotus mentioned the
physical characteristics of the Egyptians in 2.104 and, ignored by Lloyd, 2.57
which shows that he was clearly interested in them. Yet, Lloyd (1990) dismisses the 2.104 description as a Greek stereotype that became “the Egyptian
type par excellence” for the Greeks (p. 221, emphasis original). Lloyd does
not inquire about the reasoning for the popularity of this “stereotype.” Being
that they interacted with ancient Egyptians, could it not simply be what the
Greeks observed?
Lloyd’s (2007b) recent commentaries on the passage still have contradictions. He translates melagchroes as “swarthy” and, again, insists that “this
need not apply to negroes, as sometimes claimed” (p. 315, emphasis added).
Lloyd uses negro again which, as noted earlier, is inappropriate—especially
in a 21st-century publication. Moreover, he points to examples where melagchroes clearly does not mean “black-skinned” in order to show that Herodotus
did not mean black (p. 315). These examples, however, do not prove that
melagchroes did not connote Blackness for Egyptians (see Section III).
Nonetheless, Lloyd still concedes that Herodotus is describing a common
Egyptian physical type. Ultimately, Lloyd repeats his circular logic: Ancient
Egyptians looked like Black people, but they were not Black people.
Yet, in another commentary, Lloyd (2007a) argues, “the Colchians were
certainly not descendants of the ancient Egyptians—a notion based on certain
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
727
Samuels
points of cultural similarity” (emphasis added). A reader familiar with 2.104
can immediately see that this summation ignores the physical similarities that
Herodotus mentioned. Furthermore, it contradicts Lloyd’s previous discussions of the passage where he dismisses Blackness, as shown above. In this
case, Lloyd chooses to ignore the physical similarities in order to erase ancient
Egyptian Blackness. It is obvious that Lloyd assumes that the ancient Egyptians
could have been anything—but Black. Lloyd’s commentaries communicate a
non-acceptance of Herodotus’ Black Egypt due to contingent views of ancient
Egyptian racial identity.
Focusing on the Colchians, Kenneth Dover (1998) argues that melagchroes could not have possibly meant black-skinned. Dover assumes that
melagchroes should be translated as “dark-skinned,” referring to the deep tan
of “some” Athenian citizens (p. 223). He argues that this description of the
Colchians was simply a mistaken tradition being perpetuated by Herodotus
(pp. 223-224). He never considers this as a Greek observation and he provides no explanation for this supposed tradition. Moreover, his argument for
the “dark-skinned” translation falsely assumes that Herodotus perceived
ancient Colchians and, by inference, the ancient Egyptians as “darker”
Athenians. In addition, this argument loosely assumes that Athenian normative identity was White. Dover’s commentary reveals the intrinsic White normative bias in the “dark-skinned” translation. Greek normative identity did
not include Whiteness as it centered on tanned male body as discussed later
(see Section III).
Rosalind Thomas’ interpretation overlooks the importance of Blackness in
the passage. Thomas (1998) accepts the fact that Herodotus saw the Egyptians
as Black and acknowledges that it is a “notorious” factor in his argument (p.
316). However, she later claims that “the Colchians . . . are really Egyptians,
as he argues mainly from their custom and language” (Thomas, 2013, p. 343,
emphasis added). Customs were certainly important to Herodotus’ view of
racial difference, but Blackness was also central to his view of certain racial
groups like Egyptians (see Section IV). Herodotus clearly states that the
physical similarities initiated his conjecture, while common customs further
supplemented his position. Blackness was equally important to his overall
argument about the Egyptian ancestry of the Colchians. The importance of
Blackness in Herodotus’ conception of Egyptian racial difference is overlooked in Thomas’ analysis.
It is evident that commentaries have not fundamentally changed in their
approach to the passage. The 2.104 passage is used to dismiss Herodotus’ credibility or there is an apologetic explanation for his account. Also, Herodotus’
emphasis on ancient Egyptian Blackness is dismissed or downplayed without
substantial evidence. Furthermore, Blackness is not contextualized within Greek
racial thought. Consequently, there is no interest in critical engagement with
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
728
Journal of Black Studies 46(7)
Herodotus’ worldview because the passage does not support the polemical predispositions of the commentators.
Race, Blackness & Herodotus 2.104 in GrecoRoman studies
There have been major studies on race in the Greco-Roman world. African
American Greco-Roman scholar Frank Snowden (1970, 1983) was the first
to engage in a systematic study of Black people in Greco-Roman antiquity.
His analysis in Blacks in Antiquity and Before Color Prejudice are considered authoritative volumes. His main contention was that the Greco-Roman
world was not anti-Black like the modern world (Snowden, 1970, p. viii).
However, there is clear evidence of anti-Black prejudice in Greek texts that
will be discussed later (see Sections III and IV). Second, Snowden assumed
that the Greeks and Romans perceived “Negroid types” and synonymized
Blackness with Aithiopian identity, which was the status quo in GrecoRoman studies1 (p. 14). The notion of a “True Black” type, believed to be
biologically valid in Snowden’s epoch, is an anachronism. Furthermore,
numerous texts, such as Herodotus 2.104, show that Blackness was not
exclusive to Aithiopians.
Martin Bernal (1987, pp. 434-436) and Molefi Kete Asante (2001, p. 228)
criticize Snowden, rightly so, for being uncritical of the white supremacist
interpretations of Black people in antiquity, for example, the denial of ancient
Egypt’s Blackness. Unfortunately, Snowden never challenged this status quo.
Instead, Snowden argued that Herodotus did not see the ancient Egyptians as
Black. Snowden (1996) claims that the text is an example of Greeks describing peoples “darker than themselves”—but not black (p. 118). Yet, this distinction is absent in this text. He also insists that Herodotus based his argument
for Colchian-Egyptian ancestral connections on “similarity of cultural, not
physical, criteria” (p. 118, emphasis added). Herodotus, however, does not
reject physical criteria as Snowden claims. Herodotus provided additional
evidence because he was aware of other racial groups that had the same physical features. In fact, the 2.104 passage demonstrates that Snowden’s definition of Blackness as an Aithiopian exclusivity is clearly incorrect. However,
Snowden’s methodology is uncritically praised in Greco-Roman studies
because he dismisses ancient Egyptian Blackness (e.g., Kelly, 1991; Levine,
1992; McCoskey, 2012).
Bajan Greco-Roman scholar Lloyd Thompson’s (1989) Romans and Blacks
was the last major study on Black people in Greco-Roman antiquity, but it
focused on the Roman world. Thompson introduced socio-logical concepts
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
729
Samuels
into the discussion, which enabled a nuanced approach. Thompson pointed out
that Snowden ignored texts with anti-Black prejudice (pp. 26-27). However, he
argued that the Romans were not racist, but were ethnocentric and classist (p.
16). He equates cultural identity with ethnicity, while race is defined as the
politicization of physical characteristics (pp. 16-18). However, CRT analysis
has brought attention to cultural racism, which makes race no more or less
cultural than ethnicity and, in addition, both forms of identity overlap (Curry,
2010; Sheridan, 2003). Most important, Thompson identified the Roman
somatic reference point as “pale-brown” (albus), which showed that Whiteness
had no socio-cultural significance for Roman identity. In other words, the
Roman worldview reflected “the world of pale-brown Mediterraneans”
(Thompson, 1989, p. 11).2 In other words, Romans saw Blackness from a palebrown perspective. The somatic norm concept further demonstrates that
Blackness is a social construct, not simply an empirical observation. Section III
will demonstrate that Greek normative identity also did not center on Whiteness.
Thompson’s “Aethiops type” is equated with the “True Black” concept
that, as discussed previously, is anachronistic (p. 157). However, he argues
that not all Aethiops fit the Black African type, which contradicts his use of
the term (Thompson, 1989, p. 158). Like Snowden, he assumes that Blackness
was exclusively to Aithiopians. Yet, he observes that
even in the literate circles there was sometimes some confusion of Aethiopes
with Aegyptii, perhaps as a consequence of local experience of blacks largely
in the context of “Egyptian” . . . communities and cults and of a stereotype of
“Egyptians” (as distinct from Alexandrians) as “black” which went back to
Herodotus’ representation of Egyptians as black-skinned. (Thompson, 1989,
p. 96, emphasis in original)
It is clear, however, that the Romans saw both groups as distinct Black racial
groups—there was no “confusion.” Yet, Thompson assumes that Herodotus’
account was a “representation” rather than an observation. Unfortunately, like
Snowden, Thompson internalized White epistemological interpretations of
ancient Egyptian racial identity.
Greco-Roman scholar Benjamin Isaac revived the discussion of race in The
Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. He argues that racism was present
in Greco-Roman antiquity, which he initially specified as “proto-racism”
(2004), but he now uses racism (2009). Isaac (2004) defines race as the attribution of hereditary and unalterable characteristics, both mental and physical, to
certain groups (p. 23). Isaac does not distinguish race and racism, which is
problematic (see Section III). Also, he restricts race to a pseudo-biological
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
730
Journal of Black Studies 46(7)
concept that, as previously noted, is inaccurate. Moreover, anti-essentialism is
not inherently anti-racist as Isaac’s definition assumes (Curry, 2010). For
example, critical race theorist Tommy J. Curry (2009a) observes that the early
environmentalist theories did not advocate the equality of races, only the potential of allegedly backwards races to assimilate into White culture—Whiteness
was still idealized (pp. 12-13). Similarly, Greco-Roman theories that concede
an evolutionary potential for foreigners cannot be seen as anti-racist if Greeks
and Roman values are deemed intrinsically superior. In sum, Isaac’s definition
of racism is too narrow to deal with the complexities of racism.
More problematic, Isaac downplays the presence of Black people in the
Greco-Roman world. According to Isaac (2004),
They did not form much of an actual presence in the Greek and Roman worlds
. . . They were present in fifth-century Athens, but as a rare and expensive type
of slave which enhanced the status of the owner. This only confirms the
impression that their impact on the social consciousness of the fifth-century
Athenians was strictly limited. I have therefore excluded Ethiopians from
systematic treatment because for some authors they are clearly mythical and
this study deals with people whom the Greeks and Romans actually experienced.
(pp. 49-50, emphasis added)
Isaac’s explanation is flawed on several levels. First and foremost, the extensive research of Snowden and Thompson confirms that Blacks were relevant
in the Greco-Roman experience. Second, as emphasized throughout this
commentary, Blackness was not exclusive to Aithiopians. Furthermore,
Isaac’s unjustified linkage of the Black presence in Athens exclusively to
servitude is a stereotype of Blacks in antiquity (Haley, 2005; Lambert, 2005).
It is reminiscent of the How and Wells commentary on Herodotus 2.104.
Unfortunately, Isaac (2009) hastily dismisses the criticisms of his interpretation as emotive (pp. 49-50), rather than critically reassessing his position.
Consequently, it is no surprise that Isaac ignores Blackness when discussing Herodotus’ views of Egyptians. Isaac (2004) claims that
in a study such as this, concerned with racist concepts, it is important to note
also that the Egyptian physical characteristics as such do not interest
Herodotus. (p. 353)
Isaac’s (2004) source (p. 353, n. 10) for this inaccurate claim is Lloyd (1990).
However, in that particular discussion, Lloyd clearly argued that Herodotus used
a Greeks stereotype of Egyptian physical appearance (revisit Section I). It is
unclear whether Isaac simply assumed that Lloyd was right or if he ignored the
text because it disproves his position on Blacks. Nonetheless, Isaac completely
overlooks Herodotus’ emphasis on ancient Egypt’s Blackness.
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
731
Samuels
Greco-Roman scholar Denise Eileen McCoskey’s (2012) Race: Antiquity
and Its Legacy applies CRT methodology to Greco-Roman antiquity.
McCoskey notes that race is a social construct that determines the features that
matter for racialization of groups and, moreover, it is contingent on social and
historical forces (p. 2). She uses the concept of racial formation to refer to
these socio-historical processes (p. 3). Consequently, 19th-century “scientific”
racism cannot be distinguished from a time before race, rather previous periods of “race-thinking” have to be acknowledged and discussed (p. 5). The
concept of racial formation, understanding that race is not monolithic, encourages investigations into various Greek and Roman conceptions of racial difference. Thus, McCoskey uses an effective framework for contextualizing
race in Greco-Roman antiquity and, perhaps, other pre-modern societies.
However, McCoskey (2012) assumes that Blackness had no relevance in
Greco-Roman racial formations. She argues that Snowden and Thompson
proved that “skin color was negligible in defining racial identity in antiquity”
(p. 9, emphasis added). She insists that “race in no way pivots around ‘whiteness’ and ‘blackness’” (p. 23). To the contrary, Snowden and Thompson
assumed that Aithiopians were the Greco-Roman equivalent to modern
Blackness and, moreover, Thompson even identified the Roman somatic
norm as pale-brown. She is correct to point out that Greek and Roman identity did not include Whiteness (p. 24), but this does not negate Blackness.
Rather, it is evident that Blackness was not seen in the context of a White/
Black dichotomy and, consequently, it was not contingent on Whiteness. In
fact, she even concedes that the Greco-Roman world was not “color-blind”
and that visual representations of Black people were not value-neutral (p. 24).
Thus, McCoskey does not contextualize Blackness within Greek nor Roman
racial formation, which marks a sore spot in her analysis (Samuels, 2013).
McCoskey (2012) undermines Herodotus’ accounts of Egyptian Blackness
as “minor” and “merely passing” references that are solely of modern interest
(p. 61, emphasis added). To the contrary, Herodotus’ observation of Egyptian
Blackness makes it an ancient interest as well. She also argues that one should
not “overestimate” color terminology (p. 62, emphasis added), but she provides no philological evidence to justify such precaution. Yet, she takes no
issue with Aithiopian Blackness (p. 62), which is a glaring contradiction. This
contradiction is not surprising considering her view on ancient Egyptian racial
identity. McCoskey argues that the assertion of ancient Egyptian Blackness by
Afrocentric scholars is a “dangerous racial essentialism” (p. 180, emphasis
added). If the Blackness of the Aithiopians and ancient Egyptians are attested
in the primary sources like Herodotus—where is the danger? Clearly,
McCoskey is not concerned about racial essentialism or Herodotus’ actual
account. Instead, she is fixated on disassociating Blackness from ancient
Egypt. McCoskey’s polemical argument is a reflex of White fragility.3
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
732
Journal of Black Studies 46(7)
The analysis of race has improved, but Blackness remains a weakness in
Greco-Roman studies. First, Blackness is not properly contextualized. Frank
Snowden’s “era before color prejudice” thesis is uncritically accepted or the
presence of Blacks in Greco-Roman interaction is downplayed. Also, the
synonymizing of Blackness with Aithiopian identity is uncritically accepted.
In particular, there is a disturbing aversion to accepting the presence of
ancient Egyptian Blacks in Greco-Roman sources. Frank Martin’s (1984)
observation three decades ago is revealing:
It is impossible to use factual evidence to prove to most Westerners (black or
white) who have been inculcated with the conventional wisdom that equates
“Negro” with inferiority and ugliness that Ancient Egyptians were blacks. (p. 298)
His observation clearly applies to the aforementioned discussions. The internalization of the White gaze in Greco-Roman studies is demonstrated by the
constant attempts to erase ancient Egypt’s Blackness. Evidently, the problems in interpretations of Herodotus 2.104 reflect the general problems surrounding discussions on Blacks in Greco-Roman studies.
Race & Blackness in Classical Greece
Understanding that Blackness is a social construct, it is imperative to deconstruct its connotations in Greek racial thought using CRT. CRT is a movement
started in the United States in the 1970s that addresses the permanence of racism
and its discourse is informed by the radical thought of persons of color (Curry,
2009b; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). In this way, CRT is a common sense discourse on racism. Therefore, CRT must inform any study of race in antiquity.
Race and racism, although related, are not synonymous as explained by
Barbara Fields. Race is a symmetrical mode of identification based on a state
of mind, feeling, or being more so than a pattern of action (Fields, 2001, p. 48).
Racial identifications are tools of an ongoing dialogue between groups that, in
turn, serve purposes of domination and resistance within a racially stratified
society (p. 49). Racism, as Barbara Fields explains, is
the assignment of people to an inferior category and the determination of their
social, economic, civic, and human standing on that basis. (p. 48, emphasis
added)
In other words, racism is asymmetrical and an imposition. Targets of racism
can only challenge or navigate the obstacles that it creates. The concept of
racial formation, discussed earlier, highlights the socio-historical contingency
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
733
Samuels
of race and consequential racial categories (Omi & Winant, 1986). Thus, this
analysis treats ‘Greek’ as a racial category.
It is imperative that the Greek somatic norm is deconstructed because it is
often assumed to be White. This assumption is clearly false because, as
Greco-Roman scholar James Dee (2003/2004) observes, Whiteness was considered a characteristic of Greek women or barbarians north of the Alps
(pp. 161-162). Moreover, melas was used to describe Greek men. For example, Homer (Od. 16.175) describes Odysseus as melagchroes, which is always
interpreted as connoting “dark skin.” The “darker” skin concept, noted earlier, presupposes that the Greek somatic norm was White. Dee argues that the
“sunburnt complexion” translation, suggested by Heubeck and Hoekstra
(1989, p. 273), misreads the force of the melano-element in this context. In
fact, Blackness is associated with the heat of the sun. For example, the
Athenian playwright Aeschylus describes the Egyptians as a “sun-blackened
race” (Supp. 154-155). The “sunburnt complexion” interpretation does not fit
the connotation of melagchroes for Greek men.
The “deep tan” connotation for melagchroes, noted by Dover, is the perfect interpretation of Odysseus’ complexion. It is unambiguous and it was the
idealized complexion for the Greek male body (Bérard, 2000, p. 390).
However, instead of using “dark-skinned,” “tanned” should be used for translation because it is unambiguous and avoids White normativity. Consequently,
the passage on Odysseus’ complexion should be translated as “he was tanned
in color again” or, less literal, “his tanned complexion returned.” In short,
“tan” should be the translation of melas and it compounds—exclusively for
Greek men.
The Aristotelian Physignomica gives further insight on the Greek somatic
norm and it also shows that melas had a specific meaning for Egyptians:
Oἱ ἂγαν μέλανες δειλοί· ἀναϕέται ἐπὶ τοὺς Aἰγυπτίους, Aἰθίοπας. οἱ δὲ λευκοὶ
ἄγαν δειλοί· ἀναϕέται ἐπὶ τὰς γυναῖκας. τὸ δὲ πρὸς ἀνδρείαν συντελοῦν χρῶμα
μέσον δεῖ τούτων εἶναι. (Arist. Phgn. 6.812a)
Those who are too black are cowards, observe Egyptians and Aithiopians. And
those who are too white are also cowards, look at women. The color that
favours bravery is between the two of them.
This text explicitly demonstrates that Whiteness was not an aspect of Greek
normative identity. The attribution of Whiteness (λευκοὶ) to Greek (or
Athenian) women reveals a nuanced articulation of gender difference through
the use of skin color. Also, the passage shows that “white people” were
largely irrelevant, if not absent, in classical Greek social relations. Moreover,
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
734
Journal of Black Studies 46(7)
in contrast from the Homeric passage, the Aristotelian author refers to a
“middle color” for Greek men—not μέλανες (melanes). It is clear that melanes connotes Blackness for both Egyptians and Aithiopians. Moreover, this
is an indisputable example of anti-Blackness in Greek racial thought. Thus,
the passage shows a clear interconnection between race, gender, and class in
the normative viewpoint of the tanned Greek man.
The Aristotelian texts helps contextualize the connotations of the Athenian
Janiform (double-headed) vases that juxtapose the faces of Greek women and
Blacks (both men and women). Mary Ann Eaverly (2013), following Snowden’s
methodology, assumes that the Black faces on these vases are Aithiopians (pp.
146-147). The Aristotelian text, however, makes it clear that these images would
have represented both Aithiopians and Egyptians. McCoskey (2012) observes
that the vases present the “others” in a tamed context that reaffirms Athenian
civic identity (pp. 141-142). Comparing the racial juxtaposition in the Janiform
vases with the Aristotelian text, it is evident that Black people and Greek women
were central “others” within the normative viewpoint of the tanned Greek man.
There are key aspects of Greek racial thought shown in this section that are
important to this discussion. First and foremost, the Greek worldview must be
understood as the world of tanned Greek men. Blackness was seen in relation
to the tanned somatic norm—not Whiteness. In addition, it is evident that
melas, when attributed to people, had contextual meaning: tanned for Greek
men and blackness for Egyptians and other Black racial groups. Consequently,
the “dark-skinned” translation of melagchroes must be discarded. Lastly, the
evidence confirms that there were multiple Black racial groups in the Greek
worldview. These Black racial groups, for example, Egyptians and Aithiopians,
had distinct racial narratives that intersected in the context of their Blackness.
In short, the Greek conception of Blackness is from the perspective of the
tanned Greek man and included multiple Black racial groups. It is this normative viewpoint that informs Herodotus’ understanding of Blackness.
However, it is important to distinguish racial prejudice from racism, being
that the former is an issue of interpersonal relations. Greek are not in power,
imperial nor colonial, in any of the areas discussed in Herodotus’ time.
Consequently, his racial prejudices, discussed in the following section, do not
have any systematic effect on people in the areas that he discusses. Herodotus’
prejudices may reflect the racism that could have existed in Greek poleis
(city-states) in which he resided. Although Herodotus has prejudices, he is a
visitor, not a colonial dominant.
Herodotus & Blacks
Herodotus’ attribution of Blackness to non-Greek racial groups must be
examined and it must also be determined whether he imposes an inferior
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
735
Samuels
category upon these groups on account of their Blackness. In 2.104, Herodotus
acknowledges that there are other Black racial groups besides Egyptians.
However, Herodotus only discusses two of these other Black racial groups:
Aithiopians and Indians. Herodotus explains Aithiopian blackness (2.22:
melanes) as a result of the heat that corresponds with Greek climatic theory.
It is reasonable to infer that Herodotus believed that hot southern climates
were the source of Blackness. The obvious exception would be the Colchians
because Herodotus considered them to be of Egyptian descent. This comment
shows how climatic theory was used to explain racial difference.
Herodotus’ ethnographic commentary on Indian and Aithiopian men
shows his anti-Black views. He claims that the Indians have sexual intercourse in public like cattle and, immediately after, he emphasizes that they
are black like Aithiopians (3.101). Blackness, for Herodotus, signifies the
animalistic sexuality of Indians and Aithiopians. This sexualized racist stereotype, by inference, implicates Egyptian Black men. Herodotus then claims
that their semen is black unlike other men (3.101). McCoskey (2012) explains
this as evidencing a worldview in which geographic extremes of east and
south were seen in similar terms, but there are clear anti-Black undertones
(p. 62). The black semen stereotype certainly refers to all Black men. In other
words, Indian, Aithiopian, and, by inference, Egyptian men have abnormal
ejaculation and are hypersexual because they are Black.
The anti-Blackness in 3.101 immediately disproves the consensus view that
physical characteristics held no racial significance to Herodotus. Rosaria Munson
(2014), for example, argues that physical characteristics are “only special cases”
for Herodotus and are “not at any rate generally suitable for distinguishing Greek
and non-Greek” (p. 344, emphasis added). To the contrary, there are racial markers, such as Blackness, which are particular to certain non-Greek groups as noted
earlier (revisit Section III). It is quite obvious that Greeks interacted with different
groups of Black people. The 3.101 passage, in particular, shows that anti-Black
racial prejudice underlined Herodotus’ ethnography.
Herodotus’ 3.101 commentary is both racial and also gender-specific. This
ethnographic commentary naturalizes, implicitly, the superiority of the
tanned Greek male by sexually othering the Black male body. Moreover, this
passage demonstrates that Greek portrayals of Black men are not only generic
examples of race and, additionally, gender cannot be synonymized with
womanhood. Multidimensionality theory demonstrates that the complex
interactions between social identity categories, rather than mechanically
applicable, is contextual (Mutua, 2013). The interaction between race and
gender is mutually synergistic and co-constituting (Mutua, 2013). This ethnographic commentary, in a multidimensional lens, shows that Herodotus’ view
of gendered bodies was fundamentally linked to race. Consequently, GrecoRoman portrayals of Black men are relevant to analysis of both race and
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
736
Journal of Black Studies 46(7)
gender or perhaps such discussions should not be treated as wholly separate.
Herodotus’ otherizing of Black masculinity is a clear example of gendered
racism.4
Herodotus, as noted earlier, also highlights Egyptian Blackness in 2.57.
Herodotus compares two traditions regarding the oracle at Dodona and makes
a deduction based on the two different stories. Herodotus explains that the
dove in one tradition is a metaphor for an Egyptian woman solely because the
dove is μέλαιναν (melainan). In other words, Herodotus insists that an
Egyptian Black woman founded the famous oracle of Dodona. It would not
make sense for Herodotus to speak of a “dark dove” instead of a “black
dove.” Consequently, comparing the use of melas in 2.57 and 2.104 confirms
that melagchroes connoted Blackness for Herodotus. Also important, it is the
only time in The Histories that the Blackness of Egyptian women is explicitly
acknowledged, but there is no further connotation implied in this context. In
2.57, Herodotus emphasizes the centrality of Blackness as a marker of
Egyptian racial identity.
The translations of oulotriches need to be adjusted for Black racial groups.
The regular translation, in these contexts, has been “woolly hair” (e.g.,
Herodotus, 2007, pp. 161, 526; Snowden, 1970, p. 8). However, this is a
problematic translation. Eighteenth–century, racist, European ethnographic
descriptions of Black hair as woolly were based on the false notion that
African hair was not “real” hair which, in turn, made it more comparable to
animals than human hair (Byrd & Tharps, 2001, p. 14). While anti-Blackness
existed in Greek culture, there is no evidence that the same assumption manifested in Greek views of Black hair. Consequently, non-anachronistic terminology should be used. Greek visual depictions of ancient Egyptians
consistently show kinky hair and afro-hair textures (Ashton, 2011, p. 105;
Boardman, 1999, pp. 152-153). For example, Herodotus (7.70) description of
Libyan Aithiopian hair texture as οὐλότατον τρίχωμα (oulotaton trichōma),
the superlative form of oulotriches, could be translated as “kinkiest hair” or
“tightest twists.” Both translations emphasize the contrast between the Libyan
Aithiopian hair texture and the straight hair of the Asiatic Aithiopians. Thus,
oulotriches should be understood as denoting kinky hair textures and other
corresponding hairstyles when attributed to Black people.
Based on the above analysis, the Herodotus 2.104 passage should be translated as follows:
νομίζειν δ᾽ ἔφασαν οἱ Aἰγύπτιοι τῆς Σεσώστριος στρατιῆς εἶναι τοὺς Kόλχους.
αὐτὸς δὲ εἴκασα τῇδε, καὶ ὅτι μελάγχροες εἰσὶ καὶ οὐλότριχες. καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἐς
οὐδὲν ἀνήκει: εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ ἕτεροι τοιοῦτοι: ἀλλὰ τοῖσιδε καὶ μᾶλλον, ὅτι
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
737
Samuels
μοῦνοι πάντων ἀνθρώπων Kόλχοι καὶ Aἰγύπτιοι καὶ Aἰθίοπες περιτάμνονται
ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τὰ αἰδοῖα.
The Egyptians said that they believe the Colchians to be from Sesostris’ army.
I deduced this myself because they are black in complexion and kinky-haired,
but this fact alone amounts to nothing as other peoples look like this too, so
more conclusively, because of all peoples only the Colchians, Egyptians and
Aithiopians practiced circumcision from the earliest times.
As noted above, translating melagchroes as black and oulotriches as kinky
hair (or afro-hair) accurately captures the imagery of Herodotus’ racial gaze.
It has been demonstrated that melagchroes connotes Blackness when attributed to Egyptians. In addition, kinky hair corresponds with Greek visual
depictions of ancient Egyptians. The phrase ἀλλὰ τοῖσιδε καὶ μᾶλλον is often
interpreted as connoting degree of importance, for example, “but more
importantly” (Munson, 2014, p. 350; Snowden, 1996, p. 118). However,
Herodotus is introducing solidifying evidence that makes “so more conclusively” a better contextual fit. Herodotus cited additional evidence for his
argument because there were multiple Black racial groups in the Greek interaction sphere. In other words, rather than valuing one criterion over the other,
Herodotus used both commonalities, physical appearance and customs, to
support his argument. Thus, the above translation captures the full context of
racial difference in Herodotus’ worldview and its relevance to his argument.
Conclusion
Herodotus’ ethnography has significant implications for the current view on
the history of race relations. It is often believed that Western anti-Blackness
started with the emergence of the transatlantic slave-trade and capitalism
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2012, p. 26). These aforementioned texts show that
anti-Blackness predates those developments. Blackness was not contingent
on the emergence of Whiteness—It preceded it. Blackness was seen from the
normative perspective of the Tanned Greek Man. Moreover, Herodotus’ racist comments demonstrate the antiquity of anti-Black racial prejudice.
Snowden’s “before color prejudice” thesis is dismissible. Evidently, the history of anti-Blackness in Western racial thought has to be re-examined and,
inevitably, re-thought.
At a glance, Herodotus 2.104 seems identical to the antiquated “True
Black” (negroid) concept of early European anthropology, but it is important
to analyze Herodotus’ cultural context. The concept of a “True Black” type
is non-existent in Greek racial thought. In fact, Herodotus’ mention of
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
738
Journal of Black Studies 46(7)
straight haired Asiatic Aithiopians confirms as much. Herodotus’ passages
on Blackness show that it functioned as an important racial marker for multiple racial groups. In other words, instead of an ethnically diverse Black
race, there were Black races in Greek social relations. Moreover, the 3.101
passage shows the presence of anti-Blackness in Herodotus’ ethnography in
its gendered racism toward Black men. Evidently, Greco-Roman studies
have to include Black men and other racialized men in discussions of
gender.
Inevitably, 2.57 and 2.104 have implications for the debate on ancient
Egyptian racial identity. First, the Blackness of the Egyptians was an evident
fact for the Greeks. Greco-Roman scholars have been reluctant to accept this
because of the internalization of the white gaze in its discourse. Moreover,
African-centered scholarship has proven that understanding the dynastic
ancient Egyptians as Black, denoting various black and brown complexions,
corresponds with their visual depictions of themselves. Greek depictions of
ancient Egyptian Blackness, in contrast, were more generic as they emphasized literal black skin color and afro-hair (Ashton, 2011, p. 105). Nonetheless,
it is evident that Blackness was a symmetrical aspect of ancient Egyptian
racial identity, not an imposition by the Greeks. Consequently, the constant
denial of ancient Egypt’s Blackness is an anti-Black anachronism. Ultimately,
Herodotus’ descriptions demonstrate the centrality of Blackness in ancient
Egyptian racial identity, which was as much an ancient reality as it is a modern observation.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Sally-Ann Ashton, Guy Chamberland, Shelley P. Haley, Geoffrey
Kron, Rod Thomas, and Jacqueline Wigfall for their constructive feedback in the
academia.edu session that he held for an earlier version of this paper. The author also
appreciates Alain Anselin taking time, admist a busy schedule, to review and give
feedback on this essay. The author thanks Peter Flegel for his helpful suggestions he
gave the author pertaining to this essay and, moreover, his general support and intellectual advice. The author thanks Tabitha Williams for her helpful editing and commentary on this essay and her enthuisastic support of his work.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
739
Samuels
Notes
1. Instead of classics/classicist, this author uses Greco-Roman studies/GrecoRoman scholar.
2. For further discussion, see Haley (2009).
3. White fragility refers to the defensive moves of Whites when they are triggered
by a minimal amount of racial stress (DiAngelo, 2011, p. 57).
4. For an explanation of “gendered racism” and racialized masculinities, see Mutua
(2013, p. 346).
References
Armayor, O. K. (1978). Did Herodotus ever go to Egypt. Journal of the American
Research Center in Egypt, 15, 59-73.
Asante, M. K. (2001). Afrotopia: The roots of African American popular history.
Journal of World History, 12, 226-230.
Ashton, S.-A. (2011). Curating Kemet: Fear of a Black land? In K. Exell (Eds.), Egypt
in its African context: Proceedings of the Conference held at the Manchester
Museum, University of Manchester, 2-4 October 2009 (pp. 105-114). Oxford,
UK: Archaeopress.
Bérard, C. (2000). The image of the other and the Foreign hero. In B. Cohen (Ed.) & J.
C. Gage (Trans.), Not the classical ideal: Athens and the construction of the other
in Greek art (pp. 390-412). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Bernal, M. (1987). Black Athena: The Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization (Vol.
1). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Boardman, J. (1999). The Greeks overseas: Their early colonies and trade. New
York, NY: Thames & Hudson.
Byrd, A. D., & Tharps, L. L. (2001). Hair story: Untangling the roots of Black hair in
America. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.
Castillos, J. J. (1984). The ancient Egyptians, were they Black. Aegyptus Antiqua, 5,
14-18.
Curry, T. J. (2009a). Royce, racism, and the colonial ideal: White supremacy and the
illusion of civilization in Josiah Royce’s account of the White man’s burden. The
Pluralist, 4(3), 10-38.
Curry, T. J. (2009b). Will the real CRT please stand up? The dangers of philosophical
contributions to CRT. The Crit: A Journal in Critical Legal Studies, 2(1), 1-47.
Curry, T. J. (2010). Race. In R. A. Couto (Ed.), Political and civic leadership: A reference handbook (pp. 550-559). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Dee, J. H. (2003/2004). Black Odysseus, White Caesar: When did “White people”
become “White”? The Classical Journal, 99, 157-167.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.).
New York: New York University Press.
DiAngelo, R. (2011). White fragility. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy,
3(3), 54-70.
Diop, C. A., & Cook, M. (Trans.). (1974). The African origin of civilization: Myth or
reality. Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill.
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
740
Journal of Black Studies 46(7)
Dover, K. (1998). Herodotean plausibilities. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical
Studies, 42, 219-225.
Eaverly, M. A. (2013). Tan men/pale women: Color and gender in Archaic Greece
and Egypt, a comparative approach. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Fields, B. J. (2001). Whiteness, racism, and identity. International Labor and
Working-Class History, 60, 48-56.
Haley, S. P. (2005). The invention of racism in classical antiquity. The American
Journal of Philology, 126, 451-454.
Haley, S. P. (2009). Be not afraid of the dark: Critical race theory and classical studies. In L. S. Nasrallah & E. S. Fiorenza (Eds.), Prejudice and Christian beginnings: Investigating race, gender, and ethnicity in early Christian studies (pp.
27-49). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Herodotus. (2007). In Strassler R. B. (Ed.) & A. L. Purvis (Trans.), The landmark
Herodotus: The histories. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Heubeck, A., & Hoekstra, A. (1989). A commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol. II,
Books IX-XVI (Vol. II). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
How, W. W., & Wells, J. (1968). A commentary on Herodotus, with introduction and
appendixes: Books I-IV (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Isaac, B. H. (2004). The invention of racism in classical antiquity. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Isaac, B. H. (2009). Racism: A rationalization of prejudice in Greece and Rome. In M.
Eliav-Feldon, B. H. Isaac, & J. Ziegler (Eds.), The origins of racism in the west
(pp. 32-56). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kelly, D. H. (1991). Egyptians and Ethiopians: Color, race, and racism. The Classical
Outlook, 68, 77-82.
Lambert, M. (2005). The invention of racism in classical antiquity. The Classical
Review, 55, 658-662.
Levine, M. M. (1992). Review: The use and abuse of Black Athena. The American
Historical Review, 97, 440-460.
Lloyd, A. B. (1988). Herodotus, book II: Commentary 99-182 (Vol. 3). Leiden, The
Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
Lloyd, A. B. (1990). Herodotus on Egyptians and Libyans. In W. Burkert, G. Nenci,
& O. Reverdin (Eds.), Hérodote Et Les Peuples Non Grecs: Neuf Exposés Suivi
De Discussions (pp. 215-253). Vandoeuvres, Switzerland: Fondation Hardt.
Lloyd, A. B. (2007a). The account of Egypt: Herodotus right and wrong. In Herodotus,
R. B. Strassler (Eds.), & A. L. Purvis (Trans.), The landmark Herodotus: The histories (pp. 737-743). New York, NY: Pantheon.
Lloyd, A. B. (2007b). BOOK II. In O. Murray & A. Moreno (Eds.), A commentary on
Herodotus books I-IV. By David Asheri, Alan B. Lloyd, and Aldo Corcella (pp.
219-378). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Martin, F. (1984). The Egyptian ethnicity controversy and the sociology of knowledge. Journal of Black Studies, 14, 295-325.
McCoskey, D. E. (2012). Race: Antiquity and its legacy. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
741
Samuels
Munson, R. V. (2014). Herodotus and ethnicity. In J. McInerney (Ed.), A companion to
ethnicity in the ancient Mediterranean (pp. 341-355). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mutua, A. D. (2013). Multidimensionality is to masculinities what intersectionality is
to feminism. Nevada Law Journal, 13, 341-367. Retrieved from http://scholars.
law.unlv.edu/nlj/vol13/iss2/4
Omi, Michael, & Howard Winant. (1986). Racial Formation in the United States:
From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.
Samuels, T. (2013). Review of race: Antiquity and its legacy, by Denise Eileen
McCoskey. Electryone, 1.2, 39-43. Available at: http://www.electryone.gr/?p=486
Sheridan, C. (2003). Cultural racism and the construction of identity. Law and History
Review, 21, 207-209.
Snowden, F. M., Jr. (1970). Blacks in antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman experience. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard University Press.
Snowden, F. M., Jr. (1983). Before color prejudice: The ancient view of Blacks.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Snowden, F. M., Jr. (1996). Bernal’s “Blacks” and the Afrocentrists. In M. R.
Lefkowitz & G. M. Rogers (Eds.), Black Athena revisited (pp. 112-128). Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina.
Thomas, R. (1998). Ethnography, proof and argument in Herodotus’ histories.
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 43, 128-148.
Thomas, R. (2013). Ethnicity, genealogy, and Hellenism in Herodotus. In R. V. Munson
(Ed.), Herodotus: Volume 2 (pp. 339-359). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, Lloyd. (1989). Romans and Blacks. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1989.
Walker, J. D. (1995). The misrepresentation of Diop’s views. Journal of Black
Studies, 26, 77-85.
Author Biography
Tristan Samuels is an M.A. student in Egyptology via the Ancient Near Eastern
Studies program at the University of Toronto. He studies ancient Greece and Kemet
(ancient Egypt). His research in ancient Greece focuses on conceptions of Blackness
during the Classical period. His research on Kemet focuses on race, gender, and
Kemetian-Kushite relations.
Downloaded from jbs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016