Actually the use of black stuff atheletes use under the eyes dates back to the Egyptians, who wore thick eyeliner to deflect the desert sun.
I don’t think Andy Farkas can be coined as the pioneer to this.
Here is a link to the staff report: Why do athletes put that black stuff under their eyes?
First of all, you’d have to establish that, in fact, Egyptians of times past wore thick eyeliner to “deflect” desert sun.
Second, you’d have to establish that “modern” athletes that use eyeblack do so because Egyptians did so. Otherwise, even if others have done similar things in the past, it’s just another example of parallel development on an idea.
Fascinating. I don’t suppose you have any sources for this?
Nice report, Bricker. I guess you can never discount the “cool” factor! 
Nice report. By the way, this issue was covered recently on Mythbusters
Can anyone explain how it reduces glare, since (perhaps with rare exceptions like Cher) you can’t see your own cheeks?
I can see mine.
With respect to that statement on the website, in the absence of some textual reference contemporaneous to the use of kohl for that purpose, one would think this is an after the fact explanation.
Perhaps, but one would thinkThe University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology would be pretty careful about what it put forth as fact. From its mission statement:
I think it is a pretty good cite, not to be dismissed out of hand.
All I need now is some evidence that 1940s-era Redskins fullback Andy Farkas was a Egyptologist, and we’re all set.
Seriously – since it works, it’s not outside the bounds of reason to imagine that some humans in recorded history figured the process out at least once before 1942 – although I suspect that marking one’s hometown area code is an exclusively modern innovation. But I tried to focus on why athletes do it, and I think a clinical study showing glare reduction is stronger evidence than mentioning an ancient Egyptian practice.
Though it might be instructive to point out that athletes and Egyptians did it for the same reason.
It’s a nothing cite. It is not peer-reviewed, and it’s quite possibly based upon speculation, which is what I was saying. In the absence of something contemporaneous, it’s worthless. Sadly, we often have a habit of trying to impose our own suppositions on the past, making the assumption that we have figured things out. See, for example, any of a number of suppositions about the origins of nursery rymes.
So, any cites regarding ancient Egypt must be accompanied by hieroglyphics?
Here is a cite from Lancet, the peer reviewed medical jounal of the UK (registration required):
I regret they did not include hieroglyphics.
Again, it isn’t a reference to a contemporary documentation of why they used kohl. ANYONE can speculate why they used kohl, and the attractive assumption is that they used it to cut down on glare. But unless the ancient Egyptians themselves tell us that is why they used it, we are only speculating. They might well have used it simply to look fierce.
And, by the way, your link shows “page not found.” Further, the Lancet is a medical journal. The author of the article is not likely to be a student of ancient Egypt. The reference to the inclusion of lead makes me skeptical because I don’t easily see the makers of kohl going, “You know, if I put lead in this, I should be able to drive away the flies and organisms that cause disease and blindness like trachoma.”
So my peer-reviewed cite wasn’t written by a True Scotsman. I shall endeavor to locate one, for your continued disapproval.
As a guy who loves to be critical, I must say this article was really good. Very well written, entertaining, and informative. Of course it helps that the question wasn’t a difficult one, but that doesn’t really make the job of writing a column easy. This staff report really rivals Cecil’s recent work.