Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Rough draft

Here is a rough draft for a new ethinicity section. Are there any objections to adding a finished version of this into the article outside of the “Alternative Theories” section, and deleting the old ethnicity section?

Race[edit]

Many writers [note 1] have described the head of the Great Sphinx as that of a black person. They claim that the Giza sphinx depicts someone who could not be of Caucasian descent, because it shows a degree of prognathism [see note 2] and other features uncommon to peoples traditionally classified as Caucasian.

Most modern scientists have moved away from using mutually exclusive races to classify humans, some favoring clines. However, many casual observers, and at least one forensic expert [note 4] have described its facial traits as "Negroid". ^[1]

In the nineteenth century, Europeans frequently used scientific racism to justify the exploitation of Africa and African peoples. It was a commonly held notion that there had never been any great black civilizations and blacks had contributed nothing of note to world civilization. The architectural and artistic achievements of ancient peoples from Africa, Asia, and the Americas often were ignored, belittled or attributed to Caucasian peoples. For example, it was believed Great Zimbabwe, an ancient city now known to have been built by sub-Saharan Africans, had been built by a lost or wandering tribe of Europeans or Mediterranean peoples, because blacks were deemed inherently incapable of such an achievement.

Many authors [note 1] cite the Great Sphinx as a refutation of such beliefs. If the Great Sphinx does depict a black African, it would ~~prove~~ suggest that the Ancient Egyptians were black, or at least one pharaoh was black, and that black people lived in Ancient Egypt and had the influence, wealth, and organizational skills necessary to create monoliths like the Great Sphinx.

[note 3]

Notes[edit]

1. Used “author” instead of “scholar” for verifiability.

2. I’m not sure if this should be “not present” or “uncommon”. A source should be provided for whatever is used.

3. This sort of an abrupt transition. Maybe something dealing with why or how race fell from favor should go here?

TMI. That belongs in an article on "race." deeceevoice 19:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. You aren’t going to get a lot of sources on the ethnicity of the sphinx from mainstream scientists, egyptologists, etc. They don’t talk about race. Unless you have a source from a modern “mainstream” scientist or historian saying the sphinx doesn’t exhibit these traits, this should go into the article.

Mainstream scholars/credible/reputable sources are sufficient. That is all that is required. deeceevoice 19:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References[edit]

I think these are a little unecessary:

Frederikse, Julie [1982] (1990). “chap. 1 Before the war”, None But Ourselves, Biddy Partridge (photographer), Harare: Oral Traditions Association of Zimbabwe with Anvil Press. ISBN 0797409610, pp 10–11 - from the zimbabwe article

Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by Richard Poe-author who asserts ancient egyptians were black, uses the sphinx, etc.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/cline - clines

http://www.asante.net/articles/ideo-rac.html 19th century racism

The diversity of origin of the human races’’Christian Examiner 49: p. 110-145.p. 144]. - 19th century racism in print form

^ [1]

[1] [1]

[1]