Herodotus and the Black Body

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 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 “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 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 Herodotus’ worldview because the passage does not support the polemical predispositions of the commentators.

Race, Blackness & Herodotus 2.104 in Greco-Roman 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 Greco-Roman studies ¹ (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 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 pale-brown 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 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.

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

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 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, 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 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, Greco-Roman portrayals of Black men are relevant to analysis of both race and 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 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 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.