Talk:Aethiopia

Totally Unsourced Statement

I remember reading an explanation for this odd use of "Ethiopia" – but unfortunately I can't remember the source. At some point in the 8th century BCE Egypt and Israel were ruled by the 25th Dynasty, which was of Nubian origin, and hence of "Aethiopian" (Sub-Saharan) origin in the antique sense of the word. The Perseus/Andromeda legend therefore supposedly refers back to a period when Ioppa was ruled by a 25th Dynasty/Nubian/"Aethiopian" governor. I also remember the author admitting this explanation was highly speculative. I hope this helps. 70.108.167.47 (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support the Perseus/Andromeda legend supposedly refers back to a period when Ioppa was ruled by a 25th Dynasty/Nubian/"Aethiopian" governor. :-) Angar432 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Refimprove

This article is so poorly referenced that it really should be deleted. It needs both examples of mentions of Ethiopia in mythology and reliable sources regarding the subject. Fred Talk 17:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Joppa

The odd explanation for 'Ethiopia' might be attributed to some later sources misconstruing the Greek name Cassiopeia that was linked to "Iopeia/Ioppa" with "Aethiopia" and the obscure ancient geography of the times. Now as to where the mythical kingdom is on a map? Good luck trying to establish that location. Between the obscured references and different interpretations through out the centuries you also have to factor in the very different obscure geographical locations of the ancient world through ancient eyes that is vastly different from our modern geography. For example the Red Sea (Erythra Thalassa), were some sources stated Perseus fought the monster, they place somewhere in the vicinity body of water around Asian Babylonia and Persia. http://www.antiquewebsitecompany.com/map-page/map08.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Herodotus_world_map-en.svg/788px-Herodotus_world_map-en.svg.png

No matter its obscure location never the less ancient Greeks believed the Phoenician city of Ioppa/Joppa in the Middle East to be the location of King Cepheus mythical kingdom. They traditionally linked Queen Cassiopeia's name to Iopeia/Ioppa and Pliny the Elder associates the name with Jopa, the daughter of Aeolus, god of wind. [1] Ancient sources [i.e. Pliny, Pausanias] talk about the Greek inhabitants of Joppa worshipping Perseus and holding him in high honors in the city because they believed the legend of Perseus/Andromeda took place in Joppa. According to Pliny the Elder the people of Joppa could point out the very rock that Andromeda was chained too. But in 140 BC the inhabitants of Joppa were driven out by the Maccabeus. The Greek inhabitants of Joppa fled to the nearest Hellenic controlled city at the time which was Ptolemais where apparently Perseus continued to be worshipped among them and early imperial period accounts speak of shrines dedicated to Perseus. This migration of the Greek inhabitants and their myth from Joppa to the port of Ptolemais, that was located on the shores of the current geographical location of the Red Sea, might also explain why some later sources started to associate the mythical kingdom of King Cepheus with the location of modern day Ethiopia.

Ancient references:

One of the earliest accounts is given by Lycophron, Alexandra a Greek poet from the 3rd B.C., at the kingdom of Cepheus is Hermes who was watching over Io (the Argive Princess) together with Perseus. The place was kicked by the foot of Hermes ("Hermou pternê") that caused a spring to burst forth. Some late sources identify this place with Aethiopia, but much earlier sources identify the place with cities from the Near East. Some sources have Hermes watching over Io in the ancient Greek city of Byzantium, in the foundation of which Argive colonists had taken part, and where the Bosporus derived its name, from the cow Io having swam across it. From the Thracian Bosporus the story then spread to the Cimmerian Bosporus, Panticapaeum, and as well as the city of Joppa. The Phoenician city of Ioppa/Joppa seems like a good candidate given the fact that Io was further said to have been in Joppa where her descendants the Phoenicia Cadmus and Danaus would thus "return" to mainland Greece.

1) "The towers of Cepheus and the place that was kicked by the foot of Hermes Laphrios, and the two rocks on which the petrel leapt in quest of food, but carried off in his jaws, instead of a woman, the eagle son of the golden Sire--a male with winged sandals who destroyed his liver. By the harvester’s blade shall be slain the hateful whale dismembered. The harvester who delivered of her pains in birth of horse and man the stony-eyed weasel whose children sprang from her neck. Fashioning men as statues from top to toe he shall envelop them in stone--he that stole the lamp of his three wandering guides" ~ Lycophron, Alexandra 838 ff (trans. Mair) (Greek poet C3rd B.C.)

2) "Joppa (now the Hebrew town of Jaffa) is said to have existed before the flood; it is situated on a hill, and in front of it is a rock on which they point out the marks made by the chains with which Andromeda was fettered; here there is a cult of the legendary goddess Ceto (the Sea-Monster)." ~ Pliny the Elder, Natural History 5. 69 (trans. Rackham) (Roman encyclopedia C1st A.D.)

3) "Red water, in color like blood, is found in the land of the Hebrews near the city of Joppa. The water is close to the sea, and the account which the natives give of the spring is that Perseus, after destroying the sea-monster, to which the daughter of Kepheus was exposed, washed off the blood in the spring." ~ Pausanias, Description of Greece 4. 35. 9 (trans. Jones) (Greek travelogue C2nd A.D.)

4) “Seeing the heap of Andromeda’s broken chains beside the Erythraian Sea, and that rock lying on the sand, Earthshaker’s [Poseidon’s] monstrous lump [the Sea Monster turned to stone by Perseus].” ~ Nonnus, Dionysiaca 31. 10 ff (trans. Rouse) (Greek epic C5th A.D.) Angar432 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopia: What we know

Scholars have agreed that in an ancient context, Ethiopia refers to a region extending from Aswan Egypt (1st Cataract) to where the Blue and White Nile meet (6th Cataract). This is effectively the location of the Kingdom of Kush, including Meroe and the previous Nubian centers at the cities of Napata and Kerma... Now, according to Richard Lobban, "Greeks referred to Nubia as "Ethiopia," including sometimes parts of "Libya Interior." " - This effectively gives the impression that Ethiopia was a loose term for a geographical region that the Greeks did not fully appreciate until they entered Egypt, but one that they knew to have been inhabited by Black Africans. In reference to Egypt, it is first described in Greek writings as having been inhabited by and founded by Ethiopians. In other words, they knew that Egypt was first established by people from Ancient Sudan.

The point I'm trying to make is that the majority of writings point to Ethiopia being the geographical region described above, Memnon being a King from either Kush or Egypt, but of Black African descent nonetheless. It was far removed from Modern-day Ethiopia, which is a modern-day misnomer.

As for the thought of Aethiopia referring to regions outside of Africa, this is also possible, because the reach of African rule has at times extended outside of Africa. For instance, the Kingdom of Sheba encompassed an appreciable part of modern-day Saudi Arabia as well as modern-day Ethiopia. Such a kingdom might have been mistaken as being a part of the Upper Nile Valley (ie. Nubia), since it too was inhabited by black Africans. Essentially, it seems that in antiquity, the term was used wherever the Greeks encountered black peoples. It's much like how today, we refer to indigenous North American peoples as "Indian", sometimes, regardless of where in the Americas they're from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktheconjurer (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Scholars have agreed" to no such thing, my friend... Did you read the entire article? Lobban may represent one western school of thought on the meaning of all these classical Greek references to Aethiopia, but certainly his POV does not enjoy a monopoly. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the prevalent view is also the more correct one, that Herodotus, Diodorus and Strabo's words clearly described "Aethiopia" as including ALL of Sub-Saharan Africa -- even as far as the Atlantic Ocean which was therefore called the Aethiopian Sea. They also clearly described the kingdom at Meroe (the Kushites) as but one of several entities within the vast region of "Aethiopia", ie Black Africa. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is no clear consensus by Classical scholars as to where Ethiopia was or WHO were the Ethiopians. Many times Herodotus and others applied the term to South Indians and other Asian populations as well. If we go by Classical sources they are as obscere as ever.

Actually there is no clear consensus by Classical sources as to where Ethiopia was or who were the "Ethiopians". If we go by Classical sources they are as obscure as ever in regards to 'Ethiopia'. Herodotus and other ancient sources even applied the term to South Indians and other Asian populations as well.

"The eastern Ethiopians in Asia have straight hair; while the African Ethiopians have the most curly hair of all the nations." ~ Herodotus (Angar432 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC))

You're forgetting that at it's root, "Ethiop" or "Aethiop" means "Burnt skin". So... in their view, the peoples of India had burnt skin.. just like the people of Africa and other parts of southern Asia. It's really not a geographical term at all. It only became geographical once the Greeks decided to start referring to these lands of dark-skinned people, collectively, as Aethiopia, a region that changed in size as they explored. When the Greeks went to India and saw black-skinned people they called them "Aethiops" (Ethiops) (meaning burnt-skinned people). When they went to Egypt and learned it's history, they referred to Nubians as "Aethiops" - notice the trend? If the Ancient Greeks were alive today, they would go to Jamaica and call the Jamaicans Aethiopians as well. Once again, it's not geographical term based on it's etymology. It refers to skin colour.

look, the aithiopes are just "the blacks". It's what the word means. As the black skin is the most salient feature of Sub-Saharan Africans to anyone from the Mediterranean area, Africa is full of country names that mean "land of the blacks". It's the meaning of the name "Ethiopia" just as much as the meaning of the name "Sudan", not to mention "Niger" and "Nigeria".

There are some trolls on Wikipedia who are trying to perpetuate the falsehood that it is a "Modern European hypothesis" that the name Aethiops means "burnt-face". Sheesh, if the Greeks are European, sure, the name is of European origin, but it certainly isn't modern. Nor is it a "hypothesis" that it means "burnt-face", it's simply what the Greeks chose to call Black Africa, the end. By digging out early modern sources which state the obivous by translating the Greek name, they are not, of course, establishing that these authors are voicing a "hypothesis"; they are simply doing the service of glossing a Greek word to such readers as might not be familiar with Greek. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

DBachmann, I am not a troll. Before you come out with your arms swinging and spewing personal attacks in all directions, do the research. Can you find ANY source promoting the "burnt face theory" that is older than c. 1600 AD? Because I have looked hard, and found none. The ONLY etymology given by ALL sources before 1600 AD is that it comes from someone actually named Aethiopis. The burnt face theory was unheard of before 1600, and if you can prove otherwise, you might have a case, but we cannot go with what contentious,semi-racist falsehoods you are pushing without verifiable sources proving otherwise. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• • FACT: Classical Greek and Roman writers loved etymologies, and never failed to give one, if they thought they knew it.
  • FACT: The only etymology they ever gave for "Aethiopia" in pre-1600 sources is the one saying that the land took its name from an individual. No suggestion of any connection with the Greek word "burnt" was ever provided.
  • FACT: The folk-etymology proposal that it comes from AITHO "I burn" and OPS "eye" was UNHEARD OF IN PRINT until ca. 1600 when it was first suggested by European scholars.
  • FACT: Ethiopian language accounts still tend to favor the earlier idea, that the land took its name from an individual. Of course, this will fail to impress certain white supremacists today who think historical records left by non-whites are worthless and don't count, and these people couldn't possibly really know anything about their own heritage, so let's suppress it and promote all the opposite POVs as if there were no controversy about it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Herodotus's Histories quotes: Corresponding AEthiopian/Egyptian Gods

Using this translation as example:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-history.txt

We can read: Since the Egyptian name for Jupiter is Amun.

We can also read: Osiris is named Dionysus (Bacchus) by the Greeks.

I propose to add the names of the corresponding AEthiopian/Egyptian Gods in parentheses, so the Wikipedia text could read: "He describes a capital at Meroe, adding that the only deities worshipped there were Zeus (Amun) and Dionysus (Osiris)." DrLewisphd (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, Herodotus apparently used these native names but surely he wrote Zeus there and not Jupiter as translated into Latin! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I would think so too, but do you have any sourced translation of The Histories which use the term Zeus and Bacchus for that particular quote? I will add the corresponding AEthiopians/Egyptians gods but leave the Greek's names. DrLewisphd (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopia = to Aethopia?

I've changed it from being an Africa stub to being a Middle Eastern history stub. Phoenician Ethiopia wasn't in Africa, unless you view modern Israel as being an African country. M-Henry 18:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but wasn't Memnon a black king of Ethiopia during the Trojan War? Albmont 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to say. Some sources say he was black, but other's have him as the son of Tithonus, a Trojan king, Eos, a Titan goddess. Anyway, it is probable that the Ethiopia mentioned by Homer (Memnon's Ethiopia) is separate from Cepheus' Ethiopia. "Ethiopia" seems to have been used by Greeks of different times for several different lands. Besides, we're not talking about a single moment in history, we're talking about the period of several centuries. Orecalimo 10:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And the whole matter is further confused by connection of Memnon with the twin statues of Amenhotep III in the Theban necropolis. Orecalimo 10:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopedia Britanica, Comon (the source listed for this article) has no surviving works. I'm having problems understanding how he can be considered a credible (and sole) source for this alternate version of Ethiopia when there is no way to check his work. This idea of the "Phoenician Ethiopia" seems very far-fetched. Muhrasheed 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

the ethiopia they mean is ancient sudan and not phoenicia, so unless m-henry or anyone else can provide proof it means phoenicia i will change the article when im next on Viola76 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC) viola76

This article needs a little reworking. Ethiopia (or Aethiopia, or Aithiopia or whatever regional spelling you want to use) different things in different myths (and histories) of the ancient world. In the Andromeda myth, there are different theories as the location of Cepheus and his family. Conon of Samos (Yes, there are surviving works Muhrasheed, but no complete book with an English translation) provided a historical basis of the Andromeda/Perseus legend, basing Cepheus' kingdom around Ioppa (=Joppa, =Jaffa, =Tel Aviv). And there are other theories. What would actually be worthwhile would be to use this page to discuss the different theories and different meanings of Ethiopia in the ancient Roman and Greek sources. I'll make a start on it soon when I have time. Orecalimo 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Orecalimo

The word Ethiopia can be loosely translated to mean 'people of burnt faces'. This generally refers to dark peoples of the world who in ancient civilizations (and to an extent to this day) live in the area that encompassed Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Australia. If you're really interested in getting to the bottom of this issue, this http://www.nbufront.org/MastersMuseums/JGJackson/EthiopiaOriginOfCivilization.html would be a good place to start reading. If not, I guess alternative history that puts the white man on a pedestal will suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelinglayers (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If ancient Ethiopia is modern day Isreal, and its ancient capital, Joppa, modern day Tel Aviv, how do you put in context the wars that have gone on between Ethiopians and Isrealis as recoreded in Hebrew history? These are wars apart from the Isrealis were invovled in with Philistines, so don't attemt to paint the Ethiopians as Philistines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelinglayers (talk • contribs) 11:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Aethiopia (Classical Greek term) → Aethiopia – There is only one article about an "Aethopia" in Wikipedia, and some Roman/Latin usage is discussed as well. A {{for}} or similar template can distinguish this article from Ethiopia. Qwertyus (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support: Seeing as it is a Classical Greek term, currently not in use by anything else the redirect kind of loses its function.Bahnheckl (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Unnecessary disambiguation. I'll add a hatnote now. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support; seems reasonable to me. A hatnote should be sufficient, although it would really help if we could build a little prose which tied together the old and new terms... bobrayner (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support and agree with Bobrayner on explaining. The scope of this article ends with medieval literature, and there's a slight issue in making a hard-and-fast distinction between Aethiopia (or Aithiopia) as the vague Classical geographical area, and Ethiopia as the modern country, if "modern" is broadly anything post-medieval (the terminology of periodization in which the Renaissance is the "early modern" period). A search limited to publication dates from 1600 to 1900 will get tons of results that are hard to sort through (a lot of them Latin, and about Aethiopia in the sense of this article), but the spelling Aethiopia seems to have been used for the modern country in some older English sources, like this one. Just needs a brief explanation, as Bobrayner said. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Ancient Aethiopians considered Perseus and Andromeda the progenitors of the black race." - preposterous

We have a new editor who probably doesn't understand about our rules against edit warring, and how he is required to justify his changes with discussion on the talk page, rather than keep edit warring his version in. The quality of the article has gone downhill rapidly. Most egregious is the fraudulent assertion that "Ancient Aethiopians considered Perseus and Andromeda the progenitors of the black race." His source for this "information" is a blog webpage, and also a now-defunct page retrieved from the wayback machine entitled "African girls' names".

• NOTE - New editor Tertltank wants it to say the "Ancient Ethiopians thought they were descended from Perseus and Andromeda" because he read it on this page: African girl's names (2010 version from wayback machine). He is insisting that this source trumps everything that actually is in Strabo, Pausanius, and Josephus on the subject, that he removed.

"Ancient Aethiopians" did NOT consider Perseus and Andromeda the progenitors of the black race. Please desist from making a mockery of facts on wikipedia with sloppy, non-specialist sources. Perseus and Andromeda are characters from Greek mythology, not African mythology. Even the "standard" Greek mythology made Phaeton the progenitor of the black race, not Perseus - but that is irrelevant to what Africans themselves believed. You have removed correct information quoting the actual statements on Greek mythology in Strabo, Pausanius, etc. and replaced it with this nonsense. You also need to read WP:CW as you have added "citations" to other wikipedia articles, which is also not allowed. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to backup mythology that has no citation and hasn't for some time. You threw in citation from four other unrelated references. At least the references I provided where both factual and supported in three references.

Plus, your assertion that Ethiopia was considered "Asia" is just plan absurd. I know that you've been happy with no one challenging your changes for some time, but let's either keep the facts straight or don't post anything at all.

Or, how about you create another section that reads, "The History of Ethiopia as Asia" instead of highjacking "Aethiopia in the myth of Andromeda" section. Which I would also like to remind you that you added nothing to with your comments. You may want to read [http://www.amazon.com/Black-Athena-Afroasiatic-Civilization-Fabrication/dp/0813512778 Black Athena] which should give you a broader view.

Your assertions are unfounded and borderline racist:

Ethiopia is mentioned several times in The Iliad, The Odyssey and the Histories; The primary city of Ethiopia was Meroe which was, according to the historian, Herodotus, forty days on foot and twelve days by boat south of the city of Elephantine on the Nile River; in another part of his narrative, Herodotus says that the Ethiopians lived in Libya towards the southern sea.

The exact location of Ethiopia was, at best, nebulous to the Greeks of Herodotus’ time; there seems to have been two conceptions of Ethiopia: one was the historical land coveted by the Persian Empire and the other was a mythical Ethiopia that Poseidon (lord of the Sea) favored with personal visits.

Homer says that the Ethiopians were the most distant of men and lived in two separate lands that were identified as where the Titan, Hyperion, rose and sat; when the Greek hero, Menelaos (Menelaus), was making his meandering way back to Sparta after the sack of the city of Troy, he said that he traveled to Egypt, Ethiopia and Libya which only implies that Ethiopia was somewhere in Africa.

Dionysus, the god of wine, was born on Mount Nysa which, according to Herodotus, was in Ethiopia. Furthermoore, if you are going to berate me for posting links to a blogpost, stop posting links to books no one can read, and therefore can't verify your claims. Lastly, you yourself are bringing down the quality of the article with your unsupported claims and supremacist ravings.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tertltank (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 July 2013

You are making a totally unjustified accusation against me of being some kind of racial supremacist, and this is showing no signs of becoming a coherent or rational discussion. Please call me a supremacist again, so we can get this over with. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Euhm well, Til, aren't you being a bit harsh on the guy? (I mean apart from the fact that his sources are unsupported). Bahnheckl (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We could have a long discussion on who was harsher to whom in the above exchange, but I feel it would be more productive to discuss the sources themselves. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome by the way. I see why Wikipedia has a hard time finding donors, I know I'd find it difficult giving money to an organization that supports such drivel and closet supremacy.

After reading much of this talk thread, it seems you are stoic in your perception as Ethiopians being white Asians I see this page being nothing more than just a playground for for Til Eulenspiegel /talk. You posted unsupported facts with no citations, then quickly ran in to support them with both pages from other Wikipedia articles, and journals no one could read or verify. Then you claim to have a problem with my sources which were readily available for your reading pleasure, and grounding on one of the leading books that goes against the racist model of ancient Greece.

The same author suggest much of what I am telling you now. You either have to have proof, solid proof of your claims, or leave it as it stands, which is Ethiopia was not in Asia and did not mean some mythical location that included blonde hair blue eyed individuals. Try reading Martin Bernal's response to another such racist assertion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tertltank (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 July 2013

File name: Kushite Empire in 700 BC

I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but there seems to be so much confusion here, I don't even know where to begin. The Greek mythographers located the Perseus and Andromeda story in Joppa. For whatever reason they did so, it is an unassailable fact that they did so. Perhaps they were confused themselves, after all it is mythology. I don't think this has anything to do with anyone today asserting either that Ethiopians are really Asians, or that Ethiopia is really part of Asia. On the contrary, it seems that Ethiopians (Kushites) from Africa actually did exercise some political control as far north of Joppa at least once in history (Shoshenq, anyone?) and it doesn't seem to much of a stretch to suppose that the later Greeks could have preserved some memory of this when they made assertions like Joppa was named after Ethiopia (Stephanus) or that the whole Levant at one time used to belong to part of Ethiopia (Strabo) etc. But the best thing to do is let the authentic sources speak for themselves, and we run into other problems when we start using sources of the quality you added, for assertions that the "Ancient Ethiopians" themselves believed in the Greek myths of Andromeda and Perseus. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that originally led to this thread: Til's absolutely correct that such a statement would need to be referenced from a reliable source, and preferably a reliable secondary source. I doubt that one will be found. I don't know if this helps or just muddles the issue, but the only ancient text I've been able to find that makes anything approaching the assertion that "ancient Ethiopians" regarded themselves as descended from Perseus and Andromeda is Heliodorus, Aethiopica 10.6 (Mogan's translation, p. 561 in the Reardon volume):

There was a second pavilion close by, where, on an elevated dais, had been set images of their national gods and likenesses of the heroes whom the kings of Ethiopia regard as the founders of their house: Memnon and Perseus and Andromeda.

The scene being described is in Meroe. But this is the Aethiopica, and evaluating a fictional work like this really does require a reliable, secondary source.  davidiad { t } 17:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

To Tertltank: realising that Bernal (let alone a random archived web page) is neither a Classicist, a Hellenist, an Egyptiologist, an Aethiopiologist or a in any way serious scholar on the subject or field (he'd be a joke were it not for the dangerous and deleterious effect his BS writings have had on some people, predomintantly I think, of some Western hemisphaere country...) might help you... A thing that might also help you, citing -if I recall correctly- and paraphrasing Lefkowitz whom you indirectly and foolishly called a racist, is to realise that there still exist Greeks and a Greece somewhere out there towards whom Bernal has been at minimum oblivious, and in effect a racist...
P.S.Btw and apropos: Have you asked any (or many) Egyptian(s) whether he/she considers himself/herself black??? ;-)

To Til Eulenspiegel: Til then, Till (:p) I think you're wasting your time...Thanatos|talk|contributions 09:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

16th century etymology?

It has been suggested that "Pliny the Elder ... stated that the term "Ethiopia" was derived from an individual named Aethiops, said to be the son of Hephaestus (aka Vulcan). This etymology was followed by all authorities, until around 1600, when Jacob Salianus in Tome I of his Annales first proposed an alternate hypothesis deriving it from the Greek words aithein "to burn" and ops "face". This is according to a Spanish priest by the name of Francisco Colin (1592–1660), in his book "Sacra India" which includes a lengthy chapter on Ethiopia. Colin mentioned Salianus' opinion as one tentative new hypothesis for the source of the name. The 'burnt face' derivation next appeared in works by German authors Christopher von Waldenfels (1677) and Johannes Minellius (1683), and was soon adopted as standard by most European scholars."

This looks interesting but it also looks like original research from primary sources. Does anyone have any RS for this? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a case in which a reliable source supporting such a narrative would be simply incorrect. The ancient etymologica s.v. Αἰθίοψ all include a version of the "burnt-face" etymology, and a few grammatical texts do, too. There's also a bit of logical break in the paragraph: the identification of an eponym is unrelated to the etymology of his name and the land which was said to be named after him.  davidiad { t } 16:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is just deliberate misrepresentation on the part of "Til Eulenspiegel", an ancient troll in these topics. It is complete nonsense. The reality is that Aithiops, son of Hephaestus is the eponymous ancestor of the "Aithiopians". In Greek, this means "Burnt-Face, son of the Smith-God is the ancestor of the 'burnt-faces'". Obviously you don't see a Greek source saying Aithiops means "burnt-face", because aithiops already means "burnt face", you would have to say that "aithiops means aithiops". This is completely insane. The thing about European scholarship pointing out the translation of "aithiops" to people who don't speak Greek and may be interested to learn it means what it means has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of etymology, it is merely interesting in the sense that it illustrates the time when modern scholars first started to discuss ancient Greek sources in the vernacular.

Til Eulenspiegel knows all of this perfectly well and still has it had explained to him numerous times, and this is simply a case of his opting to try and mislead readers into believing some random kind of nonsense for reasons best known to himself. He has done this many, many times on related topics, and I can only marvel that he has not been permanently banned from editing Ethiopia-related topics by now. I am sure this user can manage to make the wiki-bureaucracy waste vast amounts of time on him, but the time will be simply wasted as he has no case whatsoever. But his constant playing of the "racism" card will ensure that lots of people will pore over this and give his complete nonsense the benefit of doubt. Well, that's just how it is, it doesn't change that he is wrong, and has been acting a complete crank for years on end. I am just warning everyone here that any time you invest with this guy will just be wasted on angry trolling with no content. --dab (𒁳) 16:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

References

"Aethiopia = burnt face"?

Emperor Haile Selassie I was on the record throughout his career that Ethiopia was the proper name for his country instead of Abyssinia for a variety of reasons. He shared the traditional records that show Ityoppis as the name of a king who ruled the area around 2000 BC. All Ancient Greek sources and all European sources until the 16th century also stated that the derivation of the word is from a person, NONE of them presented the folk etymology of "burnt face" before then, and to pretend otherwise is easily proven a lie. Haile Selassie I's autobiography is also full of warnings about how people like the fascist Italians published all kinds of lies about Ethiopia such as the assertion that Ethiopians eat horse meat. Since Ethiopians basically follow a kosher diet, this is just a typical racist lie. This sort of thing continues even today; I have encountered voices preaching on the internet the fraudulent POV that Ethiopians are all illiterate, never had any writing system or kept any record, and therefore all of the mediaeval architecture, rock-hewn churches etc. in Ethiopia and even Zimbabwe must have been built by white Knights Templar since "everyone" knows non-whites were incapable of building architecture. As a bureaucrat at the Amharic wikipedia, I am tired of these endless European lies being foisted on Ethiopians by English wikipedia editors and admins. There has to be arbitration. Haile Selassie's viewpoint must be regarded as representative of a significant viewpoint, and Ethiopian viewpoints about themselves and their own origins must be neutrally treated along with other views. It must be easy for any observer to see how it seems the Ethiopian views are backed into a corner by these aggressive editors who come into Ethiopian-related topics and do not suffer the Ethiopian views to be mentioned or heard anywhere. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not pretend that Ethiopians are idiots, or I must say the "racism" is entirely yours.

You may argue it was "racist" of the ancient Greeks to name the people of Nubia "burnt-faces", but it is als a historical fact, and Wikipedia is simply reporting it. Your views are not "Ethiopian views", they are simply the views of a single confused individual out to claim things that simply are not true. Good luck with that, but please do it elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 16:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Til, after being called a racist and a supremacist above for making a sensible edit, you should know that it's uncalled for to do the same to others. I reinstated Dbachmann's edit because it was correct, and you insinuate that both of us are engaged in racist revisionism. That's completely unacceptable, and made even more offensive by the fact that you have absolutely know idea what you're talking about. Watch your mouth.  davidiad { t } 17:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK Davidiad. Take the challenge. See what the earliest assertion to "Aethiopia" coming from "Aether + ops" you can find is. The Ancient Greek writers almost never failed to give etymologies, including for "Aethiopia", and that is NOT the etymology they ever gave. If the Greeks thought any such thing, it would be easy to prove. If you can find ONE Ancient Greek source making any such claim, you will prove the point. There are copious Latin writings mentioning "Aethiopia" and books about "Aethiopia" in every century of the Middle Ages up to 1500. Every single one of them repeats the Greek etymology without mentioning anything about "burnt face" until well after 1500. Then it first appears mentioned as a new theory (More like a typical folk etymology). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

One is the Etymologicum Genuinum (dependant upon Choiroboskos) s.v. Αἰθίοψ: Αἰθίοψ ... ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴθω ... διὰ τὸ ἐπικεκαῦσθαι τὴν ὄψιν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. ἀρὰ τὸ αἴθω, τὸ καίω, <καὶ> τὸ ὄπτω ὄψω παρῆκται ὁ Αἰθίοψ ὡς ἐπικεκαυμένος τὴν ὄψιν. It shows up in some other lexical and grammatical works, along with Eustathius on Homer.  davidiad { t } 17:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Nec Hercules contra plures, I will be quick to concede that it appears you met the challenge and pushed it back a few centuries... I am obviously interested in tracking precisely where it appeared first, so I will try to find out about these sources to get a clearer picture. As far as I can tell so far it looks like that is the 10th Century. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what the earliest text is that makes the etymology explicit. Geminus, Elementa astronomiae 16.27 employs a figura etymologica: ὥστε τοὺς πλησιάζοντας τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ τῇ δύσει Αἰθίοπας ὑπελάμβανον γίνεσθαι καταιθομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. Servius on Aeneid 4.481 offers: et dicta Aethiopia a colore populorum, quos solis vicinitas torret: Graece enimcode: lat promoted to code: la αἴθειν dicitur calor,code: lat promoted to code: la ὀπτεῖν torrerecode: lat promoted to code: la , which, like the etymologica and Eustathius, will ultimately derive from the work of Hellenistic grammarians. Not that any of this belongs in the article, as it's original research and the LSJ reference is all that's needed.  davidiad { t } 20:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the question of 'what can we make English wikipedia say', one could probably pull out English wiki-rules saying that anything over a certain age is automatically a "primary source" simply because it is so OLD and anything it shows us can be ignored. As for the other question, 'Are you actually proving anything?' - yes, you are. The Servius mention is from ca. 400 AD and shows a similar etymology that seems like an inchoate form of this idea, instead of 'to burn' plus 'face', it claims the origin to be 'to burn' plus 'to roast'. The Geminus version (100 BC) doesn't seem to say anything that explicit at all, though I'm having trouble with a couple of words. I would still maintain that the overwhelming majority of sources up to around 1600 purporting to give the etymology of Aethiopia, and there are plenty, don't mention anything like this at all, however that etymology does seem to have slowly spread to win acceptance with the Byzantine and later German and French etymologists. And that is the demonstrated true historiography of the idea, whether we can say so here or not. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW I found the Geminus quote in a parallel Latin text, but it doesn't say anything that all the earlier mythographers didn't say when relating the Phaeton myth, and doesn't explain the name 'Aithiopes'. The Servius quote certainly should seem relevant (more commonly used texts such as Isidore follow Pliny as I'm sure you know) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I will graciously accept it as evidence of good faith of Til to have said "I am obviously interested in tracking precisely where it appeared first". This may be due to ignorance after all. Arguing that "this etymology has only first been put forward in 1500" is ludicrous, of course, Til is here researching teh history of etymology itself, not the actual etymology of "Ethiopia" (which is completely undisputed). This is like challenging the descent of Man from earlier hominids because "it is a lie", because it has only been proposed "by westerners" in the 19th century. There was no etymology in the systematic, scientific sense before the modern period. Hell, there hasn't been any scientific method before that. You could shoot down pretty much all of established human knowledge, not to mention any etymolgy whatsoevecr, by calling it "lies made up by westerners after 1500". Because the etymology of "Ethiopia" is perfectly obvious, it has been noted as early as during the Renaissance. It isn't so much an "etymology" as simply a translation from the Greek. You cannot translate ancient Greek into any modern language prior to the modern period because by definition there were no modern languages prior to the modern period. This doesn't change the fact that Greek words have modern translations that are perfectly evident. --dab (𒁳) 11:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, "I am obviously interested in tracking precisely where it appeared first". For one thing Ethiopians would naturally be interested in a more detailed and thorough answer to the question based on actual sources, and I am active on the Amharic wikipedia version of this article where we do try to go into more thorough detail based on proof rather than simply accept anyone's bald assertions. Davidiad so far has proved that it appears as early as ca. 850 AD in Byzantine etymological dictionaries, so if you will note I immediately dropped the 1500 claim (the earliest appearance known to us before that surfaced.) He has also found a Latin source from ca. 400 AD that teaches the derivation as "to burn" + "to roast". No convincing argument has been made that it was ever "to burn" + "face" until 850 AD, just an assertion, which is about as good as the assertion that Ethiopians called themselves "Ethiopia" before the 4th century AD, this is considered "hearsay" because it can only be proven as established from the 4th century AD.

It is false to suppose that Ancient Greek etymologists never gave the derivation of Greek words and names because they already knew what they meant and where they came from. On the contrary, the Ancient Greeks and Romans were obsessed with etymologies from the beginning of their known literature. Do they ever give any derivation for Ethiopia? Yes, they do, they consistently derive it from "Aethiops son of Hephestus". If they had any such explanation for "Aethiops", it is very curious that none of them wrote it down until finally around 400 AD somebody writes that it comes from the verbs AITHEIN and OPTEIN "to roast". So no, a convincing case has not been made that this was self-obvious to the ancient Greeks. Also plenty of other examples could be given where the Greeks took an indigenous or autochthonous name and eventually converted it into a folk etymology based on what it sounded like in Greek. That's how folk etymologies work, not the other way around. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Case in point: The earliest Greek references to the tribe said to live along the Red Sea, call these people "Trogodytae" (with no L). This is considered to be based on an original, indigenous or autochtonous name. It's only later that the Greeks altered this to "Troglodytae" by adding an L, because of their tendency to folk etymologize things and assume it had something to do with the Greek word Trogle, cave. There are many more examples of this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Til, your point is on the one hand not without merit, on the other hand problematic. There are no, at least I don't think so..., attested etymologies of every single Greek word (or ethnonym) either from ancient times or from the exact time they have first been attested; demanding from other editors to provide such a thing for every given etymology (in this case of the specific word(s) before us) is utopian and counterproductive. But since your objection is indeed of merit I propose to you and to others to note after the etymology (e.g. inside a parenthesis) that the stated etymology is of a later or of such and such time-date or to provide e.g. an explanatory sentence that burnt face is the accepted etymology and meaning of the word from x time onwards (or anyway something similar). Would anyone object to this???Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple points: "Aethiopia = burnt face" has never been "the accepted etymology" much in Ethiopia, although I understand it has become the accepted etymology in Europe. So then we get into a question of "Are Ethiopian viewpoints significant to Ethiopian topics?" The colonialist answer would be "No, of course not." Secondly, you claim that there are not attested etymologies of every single Ancient Greek ethnonym. But this one DOES happen to have an attested etymology, that is given by Pliny, and the facts show that Pliny's was the standard etymology appearing in the majority of all later sources until ca. 1500, when it slowly began to be replaced with the "burnt face" etymology first attested in 850. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

1.You're playing around with dates at will.
2.A tribe, a nation, a group of whichever kind having in mythology an eponymous hero-founder-patriarch-.. does not exclude a (be it valid or not) more linguistic etymology of the group-name be it one that corresponds to attributed ((near-) pragmatic-real or not) characteristics (of whichever kind) of the group (members) or not; cf Macedonia (Macedon the founding hero, the tall people or the highlanders), Aigyptos (Aigyptos the founding hero, the land under the Aegean Sea), Pelasgians (Pelasgos the founding hero, the stork-like migrants), Rome (Romulus the founding hero, strength), Heracleidae (Heracles the founding hero, the glory of Hera) etc; i.e. Aithiops being presumably the mythological founder of the Aithiopian people according to... does not negate or exclude Aithiopia and Aithiopia being understood in ancient times as the land of the burnt face people... In other words the dark skinned people being named presumably after their dark skinned patriarch whose name has been and can be understood as meaning dark skinned is not incompatible with these people being named presumbably after their patriarch whose name has been and can be understood as meaning dark skinned (more and different compatible permutations possible)...
3.In any case even if the first try at an etymology of word or ethnonym was done long after the first act of naming itself, it's highly impractical and counterproductive for us (wikipedians or people in general, even scholars) to do something other than present what we can, what we have attested before us, what we can deduce based on some hypotheses, data and logical arguments...
4.Aithiopia's etymology being not accepted thus in Aethiopia is something that can be added to the text. But the merit of this belief-view will be judged when the Aethiopian linguists or historians or ... present their case to the scientific community; we'll then report herein the conclusion...Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

−

"Aithiopia being understood in ancient times as the land of the burnt face people" is just a bald, empty claim. The actual evidence that has been turned up is that nobody understood it in this sense until ca. AD 850, however in AD 400, at least someone understood it to mean "burnt roast people". I'm not playing around with dates - that is the concrete evidence we have to date, and no amount of spin-doctoring and hand waving will efface that evidence. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this is your view; you have been presented with much older quotations (let alone other arguments), i.e actual evidence, that refute it.Choosing to ignore or demote them is not an argument. You've just pushed back in time (slightly, not far enough) your own claim that the aforementioned etymology is a relatively recent western belief. Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What "much older quotations", I must have missed them? Show me one "much older quotation" that indicates anyone before 850 ever thought Aethiops meant "burnt face", and that will, erm, put an entirely different complexion on things. Until then I have to be convinced by what I have seen so far. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Dadiviad has provided some quotations, i.e Geminus' and Servius'. Waving your hand won't make them disappear or become trivial... Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I already saw them and commented on them. I would have thought you could read Greek at least as well as I can. But in case you didn't know, Geminus does NOT say the name is from "aithein - ops". So no dice there. He doesn't actually say anything about Ethiopians that wasn't already said in the Phaeton myth. (Didn't I already point this out?) And I have already updated the Amharic version of this article with Servius' etymology, which is the one dating to AD 400. Unfortunately, what he says does not support the proposition that it was obvious to the ancient Greeks that the name came from "aithein - ops" because evidently this did not occur to him; he instead derives it from "aithein - optein" (I could have sworn I pointed that out above somewhere). So once again, when you find some actual evidence (as Davidiad did) and not a bunch of the usual doubletalk, you will have convinced me of something. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I had already seen your pointing; but it's of no real importance;Opto instead of ops is irrelevant in this case.
1.Most importantly because what you're claiming in essence is that Aithiops
a.didn't mean (not just refer to) black people to the ancient Greeks (and Romans)
b.that the word isn't Greek in origin
c.that more specifically it didn't mean burnt (or somethign similar) by the sun people in Greek and to the Greeks(and Romans)
d.That it's derived from the eponymous founder; the superficial meaning of this is the founder part about which who cares, it's mythology?!?! The only really significant part in this case about the founder would be that he would be Aethiopian in origin and would have an Aethiopian name whence we get to: Its essence is the a., b. and c. parts serving to prove an Aethiopian name origin of whichever kind the modern Aethiopian people want.
So let's see the passage before us:
et dicta Aethiopia a colore populorum, quos solis vicinitas torret.
This by itself suffices...
Then even after analysing it into aithein and optein, the meaning is in effect the same; we simply have added Greek etymology-origin. And finally at the same time we have completed the circle of the passage's meaning in Latin being elaborated in the Greek.
But even if hypothetically the word wasn't derived from aithein +x but from some unknown word(s) who would care??? In essence they (Servius and others) say it meant (not just referred to) black people; moreover they say it was Greek in etymology; finally they said it meant burnt, scorched (or something like that) in appearance people due to the sun.
2. Other versions-editions 1 2 read ops. Thanatos|talk|contributions

That confuses things much more, because Servius apparently wrote his manuscript in ca. 400, and it was re-edited in printings that appeared over 1000 years later. So some versions say it came from OPTEIN (to roast), and some OPS (face). I would venture to guess that OPS is the emended version, though. This is significant to the actual argument that "everybody knew" it was from OPS long before this. I have not made any argument that Aethiops didn't come to mean "any black person" in Latin, because that is not my position (of course I know it did). So you are engaging in a bit of a strawman there. Aethiops was the equivalent of Hebrew "Kush" that also came to mean "any black person" but that tells us nothing about the etymology or whether it was from a personal name as claimed. My only argument is about the actual derivation / etymology of the word, and the point that Pliny's etymology (deriving it from a personal name) was the only standard one that appeared in most works throughout the Middle Ages. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

1.No I'm not projecting onto you a strawman.The issue is not just whether it came to mean in Latin or Greek X or what it came to mean; it's that the Latin and Greek texts themselves read it came to mean X because of x!!! Which itself is very reasonable because of the language itself (a.deriving the word from aithein + ops (or whatever) is highly compatible with Greek, is a very reasonable thing and b. no contrary data exist, e.g. an attested older foreign language(closer to the area) name and root for the area/people from which the word in Greek could have been derived) and because it corresponds to a real thing (dark skinned people from the point of view of Greeks and Romans).
2.This is the reason I've charged you with unreasonable demands.The possibilities are endless; there is always the problem of underdetermination, the problem of induction etc.You seem to demand from others certainty.Something impossible in science.
3.At the same time you are arguing for a mythological founder hypothesis (indirectly arguing for an Aethiopian origin of the word); something even more improbable and only trivially supported by evidence. Why trivially? Because there are so many groups, places etc in Graecoroman mythology being named supposedly after an eponymous hero; it's a very common mythological theme; which is what?? Mythology!! One needs many and much more concrete evidence to back up, to support such a claim and hence to support the indirect, the more down to the earth claims, i.e. in this case the Aethiopian origin of the name; of which you've provided none...
4.Even if we were to accept the founding father hypothesis you would still need to provide additional evidence to support you indirect essential claim, i.e. the Aethiopian origin of the name. Cause we could again reasonably claim that the myth and the name could be regarded as having been created in Greece by the Greeks themselves out of thin air in order to explain the Aethiopian people. Again you have provided no such evidence.
5.Compare Aithiops/Aithiopia to the case of Aigyptos: a. Aigyptos, the eponymous founding hero. b. Etymologised as "the land under the Aegean Sea". What's the problem with these two? a. is just mythology; pretty worthless, trivial by itself and b. is i)linguistic creative acrobatics compared to derivation of Aithiops and ii) Under the Aegean Sea is a dubious notion that relies on at least a dubious convention of under (more accurately upside down, reverse, etc) as south, something that when compared to burnt by the sun people, i.e. dark skinned people, seems fantastical, utterly far fetched. Then we have real attested evidence of an older Aegyptian word-name; something not available,present in the case of Aithiops/Aithiopia on which moreover we have attested sources using it in various periods, apart from referring to a region/people overlapping with Aethiopia/Aethiopians proper, as a synonym of dark-black skinned people(and/or land thereof) wherever they might be or come from... Thanatos|talk|contributions 11:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You are projecting a strawman, because you are totally redefining my argument into one I did not make. According to you, I am arguing that the Greeks and Romans did not use the word Aethiops to refer to black people in general, even those from India. I am arguing no such thing. My argument strictly concerns the derivation of the word, but the indisputable fact that Greeks and Romans used the word for blacks in general does not effect this. After constructing a strawman, all the rest of your inferences based on that strawman get even further off track. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not. I have explained this ad nauseam. Something that was not necessary for me to do since, as others have explained to you, you haven't provided any real secondary or primary sources supporting your claim(s). Sorry but I can't do anything more; I've tried to be open, helpful and reasonable but you keep on coming back with the same claims...Thanatos|talk|contributions 13:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You aren't being open, helpful, or reasonable. Please stop trying to "logically" recast my position into something else I'm not saying. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me spell it out clearly to and for you: No I'm not claiming that you're "arguing that the Greeks and Romans did not use the word Aethiops to refer to black people in general, even those from India"! I've explained and highlighted the crucial difference between 1. to mean as to refer to entity X and 2. to mean as to refer to entity X AND as to really mean x referring to real or "real" property χ; i.e. Greeks and Romans using these words as far as can we reasonably tell, didn't call the black or dark skinned people or their land(s) by the names Dadada/Dadado, they called them instead Blackman-Blackmen/Blackmansland. You have constructed this strawman because you cannot reply in any serious manner to the many counterarguments. And now you're being rude. I'll now say farewell to you so that your attitude won't make me reply in an appropriate and well deserved way! Chaire! Thanatos|talk|contributions 13:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The spelling used nowadays in English for the modern country is Ethiopia, not Aethiopia. The idea that Ethiopians have to submit their traditions about what their name means to the "scientific community" for approval or they cannot count for anything is the very epitome of modern day neo-colonialism. I'm sure Mussolini would be enthralled with this turn of events. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

So? I prefer, if and when possible, the "older" or older, the British or "British" spelling(s). E.g. I also spell sphaere, not sphere. I'm a crazy Greek; I like my diphthongs despite them having being demoted to digraphs... :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but what the modern Aethiopians or Greeks or whoever believe in general or about whence their ethnonym (or whatever) is derived in particular though important in some other fields is most of the time irrelevant when dealing with science in general or when trying to find a scientific etymology of the word in particular. Most modern Greeks for example think that Plato pronounced Hellen as Elin; who cares?? They're wrong...Thanatos|talk|contributions 22:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems "scientists" nowadays don't have to follow the "scientific method" any more, all they have to do is formulate a hypothesis, skip all the rest such as experimentation and evidence, and make that hypothesis their final conclusion that anybody disagreeing with will be blacklisted. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No you're the one that has done something like that.
You have neither verified your claim nor falsified the opposing one(s).
You have also been presented with empirical data and logical counterarguments to your claim that this etymology is a post 1500 baseless western construction. To which you've replied with the same old claim only slightly altered, an argumentum ad Hitlerum (ok not Der Fuehrer per se but Il Duce) and in effect an appeal to cultural relativity; even your change of date from circa 1500 CE to circa 850 CE is arbitrary...
Moreover from my personal perspective, I've tried to be sensible cause I repeat imo not all of your objections are unfounded, yet still... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 23:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Even if hypothetically a Greek quote were to be found from 400 BC unequivocally stating that they all thought the name came from "burnt face" (and let's be clear, nothing remotely like this has been established so far) it still would not disprove that this is just a typical case of Greeks folk etymologizing indigenous names according to words in their own language, much like "Troglodyte" and so many others. And the case for the Ethiopian pov for the name of their country, rests on traditional royal records of kinglists preserved in the palace including the reigns of two kings in the 2nd millennium, Ityoppis I and Ityoppis II, which is also not provable, but is still a significant pov. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Til, we have multiple sources describing, for readers of other languages than Ancient Greek, the etymology / plain meaning of Aithiops / Aithiopia. (The ancient Greeks don't seem to have felt the need.) Now, of course, the ancient Greeks could perfectly well have heard a local ethnonym /hero's name and assimilated it promptly to what seemed to them an acceptable Greek description. (How they would have heard a name for kings a long way away in both time and space I don't know, but it's vaguely conceivable.) To assert any other etymology /meaning here, we would need to demonstrate a scholarly consensus that it is at least respectable. You would need good-quality secondary sources to insert such an assertion in the article, and they would need to be based on much better primary sources than you have so far produced. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The only such "consensus" is among European scholars. You may be surprised to learn that Ethiopian scholars do not teach that their own traditions are worthless, and that the name of their country comes from a Greek phrase for "burnt face". They have a different consensus. (After the two kings named Ityoppis I and II, their domain came to be known as Ityoppya for one of its names, yes, a place named for a person, just like "Washington". After being called Ityoppya for centuries, the Greeks learned it and rendered it as Aethiopia, and even got the idea that it came from a person name Aethiops. But the earliest archaeological proof so far the country was natively called Ethiopia dates to abt 300 AD) We could have one consensus reflected on the Amharic wikipedia, and another on the English wikipedia (I'm sure with so many language wikipedias there are numerous instances of this sort of thing.) Or we could try to make the English wikipedia truly neutral and actually be useful at explaining what other points of view are, without any systemic bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to any sources you can produce. Come to that, any demonstration that the area was called by this name before the Greeks got to it would be significant. 300 AD definitely won't do. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I will look for sources for the Ethiopian point of view. There are plenty. I have often encountered propaganda stating that Ethiopians are like 99.9% illiterate. This is not true, unless maybe for some of the remotest pastoral tribes in the hot desert regions. Believe it or not, Ethiopian academics write hundreds and hundreds of scholarly books on topics like, guess what, Ethiopian history, and they don't fail to discuss questions such as these thoroughly. I will see what I can find. If anyone wants to race me, I am going to look at the 25 history books on this page: http://good-amharic-books.com/books_category.php?ID=23 If you want to race me, being literate in Amharic will give you a considerable advantage. I'll let you know what I find on the subject of the name "Ethiopia" in these sources and the translation to English can be verified. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

'Ichthyophagi' - food for thought?

I have made a preliminary trawl of google to see what discussions of the 'burnt face' problem in Amharic could be found on the web.

I found a pdf in Amharic treating on this question, and it offers as pretty strong indirect evidence of the falsehood of the 'burnt face' derivation, the observation that the Greek term Ichthyophagi merely represents an earlier Greek attempt to folk-etymologize the same indigenous name, as "fish eaters". This point hadn't occurred to me before, but it stands to reason.

I also found an Amharic blogger, (but I'm only offering this here as evidence of the typical Amharic viewpoint, I wouldn't use it on an article as an RS), who wrote a scholarly article discussing the etymology of "Ethiopia". He posted it in May 2013, but for some reason it looks like he has taken that particular post down since then. [2] He says በዚህ ትርጉም ብዙዎችን የሚያስማማ ቢሆንም በዋናነት ግን ፈረንጆች /ነጮት/ የፈጠሩት ተረት እንደሆነ ይታወቃል። "Even though this [burnt face] interpretation is convincing to many, it is however principally known to be a fable invented by whites." He also states that the meaning of the name Ityoppis (the king) is traced to indigenous roots meaning "Jewel gift of the Nile", according to the "Book of Ibrahit" (which I've never heard of before). Finally, he points out that the 'burnt face' derivation is surely false because two of the earliest Greeks to write about Ethiopians, Homer and Herodotus, both marvelled and admired them for their exceptional beauty and not in insulting terms that came later.

When I get more time I will look for more, including checking the more scholarly books on Ethiopian history. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. It wasn't clear to me before that some modern Ethiopians take both the fact of a name with a Greek origin, and its meaning, as insults and as requiring historical revision. (To a casual non-Ethiopian reader of the name and its etymology, no insult was or is obvious, and the idea seems mildly odd to me now, but there you go.) For those points the sources you have produced may be adequate and, with consensus, they may even be worth very brief inclusion here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't use words like "requiring historical revision" to describe the Ethiopian traditions on what the name of their own country means. It shows a total bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Read what Richard said again, Til. You really need to stop making accusations about people based on a misunderstanding of what they've said. The phrase "requiring historical revision" isn't being applied to Ethiopian traditions. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If I'm misunderstanding it, can you explain what is meant here by "requiring historical revision"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Some Ethiopians think claiming a Greek origin and its meaning for the name requires historical revisionism. Something like that. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Name of Ethiopia could discuss this phenomenon. It is certainly interesting, but it would need to be based on quotable sources. I am sure there must be literature on Ethiopian nationalism discussing this meme. Ethiopian bloggers stating opinions have to be treated as primary sources of course. Needless to say, this is irrelevant for the article on ancient geography, but it would certaily bear a discussion on some adequate page. Unfortunately, Til remains unable to distinguish between his own emotionally charged "truths" and the project of writing an encyclopedia (WP:TIGERS), as is made clear by outbursts such as this. If Til can just point us to literature discussing this thing, ideally the history of historical revisionism in Ethiopia, we could write an article about it. --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

(Thanks dab for that link to WP:TIGERS, it's a wonderfull essay that I'd never seen before. Paul August ☎ 16:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC))

Inqtyoppagihon - timeline

Apparently the modern Ethiopian position that I keep finding in sources like the above has been laid out by the Ethiopian scholar Meriras Aman Belay in Metshafe Abrihit, referred to above but misspelled. I have found several secondary sources describing and endorsing his research and would like to see his actual book. He says the vast body of Ethiopic documentation attests that the name Ethiopia is derived from a term with native roots. The Semitic kings named Ityoppis, often spelled as "Etiyopus" I and II, are more originally Inqtyoppis, Jewel gift. I have seen numerous estimates for their reigns ranging anywhere between 2500 to 1500 BC. Following this, the full name in Ethiopic was Inqtyoppa-gihon (Inqtyoppagihon), Gihon being an ancient name for the Nile. The folk etymology "Ichtyophagi" meaning "fish eaters" in Greek is based on this form. Over time, the Ethiopic form becomes Inqtyoppazion, note this is just a pronunciation change and has nothing to do with "Zion", because that is actually spelled in Semitic with TS, not Z. Eventually even the -zion part was dropped in favor of Ityoppya (Ethiopia). The Greek name Aithiopia is first attested in Homer, ca. 800 BC. The account that it was named in honor of Aithiops is first found in Pliny. Around this time we also begin to see a myth that the Ethiopians' skin was burnt when Phaeton drove the chariot of the sun too close to the earth, but this myth does not explain the term "Ethiopia". The account that the Aithi- part comes from "to burn" first comes with Servius, 400 AD. It seems he also originally proposed that the -op part came from "to roast" (optein). The account that the name means "burned face" has not been found before 850 AD. However, when Servius was reedited for the printing press some centuries later, it was altered from optein (roast) to ops (face) to agree with the later theory. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am glad we have moved on from "the burnt-face lie was made up by western scholars" to "the burnt-face thing is a folk etymology due to the ancient Greeks". I have never claimed anything other than that the Greek name, recorded since Homer, means what it means. Its possible origins in folk etymology can obviously be discussed as long as it is marked as academic speculation, and based on quotable academic references. --dab (𒁳) 13:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny

71.246.148.163/Til Eulenspiegel, what exactly is your issue with the material? Here it is:

Agatharchides provides a relatively detailed description of the gold mining system of Aethiopia. His text was copied almost verbatim by virtually all subsequent ancient writers on the area, including Diodorus Siculus and Photius.

With regard to the Ethiopians, Strabo indicates that "those who are in Asia, and those who are in Africa, do not differ from each other." Pliny in turn asserts that the place-name "Aethiopia" was derived from one "Aethiop, a son of Vulcan" [the smith-god Hephaestus]. He also writes that the "Queen of the Ethiopians" bore the title Candace, and avers that the Ethiopians had conquered ancient Syria and the Mediterranean. Following Strabo, the Greco-Roman historian Eusebius notes that the Ethiopians had emigrated into the Red Sea area from the Indus Valley, and that there were no people in the region by that name prior to their arrival.

The 1st century AD Greek travelogue the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea first describes the Horn of Africa littoral, based on its author's intimate knowledge of the area. The Periplus does not mention any dark-skinned "Ethiopians" among the area's inhabitants. They only later appear in Ptolemy's Geographia, but in a region far south, around the "Bantu nucleus" of northern Mozambique. According to John Donnelly Fage, these early Greek documents altogether suggest that the original inhabitants of the Azania coast, the "Azanians", were of the same ancestral stock as the Afro-Asiatic populations to the north of them along the Red Sea. Subsequently, by the 10th century AD, these original "Azanians" had been replaced by early waves of Bantu settlers.

The previous wasn't even sourced, so I'm not sure what is your gripe here. Middayexpress (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

a ethiopia is skin color not race

I'm not sure what you mean there. What if any of the above do you object to and why? Please explain and remember to sign your name [3]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. aethiopian is skin category not race. They say india is aethiopia cause they dark. May you please edit the page to fix?166.170.32.5 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No prob. The ancients' testimony is quite interesting, as it suggests that the Meroites emigrated into the Nile Valley from the Indus Valley. The linguist Joseph Greenberg once suggested that the Meroitic script couldn't be deciphered because it was unrelated to all languages spoken in Africa, including Afro-Asiatic (which may have originated elsewhere as well). At any rate, I'll give Til Eulenspiegel a day to explain what if any of the above he objects to and why. If no valid reason is given, I'll keep the material as is. Middayexpress (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Sockpuppetry by Til Eulenspiegel

The IP using the addresses starting with 71.246 is the indefinitely blocked Til Eulenspiegel socking. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried anyway to give him the benefit of the doubt with the material since the Bible is apparently his area. But it seems like he was filibustering there as well. Middayexpress (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed "Africa" reference

It appears that in the zeal of trying to distance the blackness of the Ethiopians from the concept of Ethiopia, a troll had introduced the etymology of Africa which is unrelated. This of course causes confusion and I removed it 2604:CA00:12C:C271:0:0:1060:5027 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope that this edit removes any confusion while making clear the difference between the ancient geographic terms Aethiopia and Africa. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)