This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article in its current form treats Sun Weidong's Egyptian origin theory as an offshoot to the Sino-Babylonianism theory ( and this article from Foreign Policy does so as well), but it seems that the theory of an Egyptian origin of Chinese civilization predates Sino-Babylonianism. [1] Is there a relation between these two theories? Perhaps we should start a separate article about Egypt. _dk ( talk) 20:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

The Sino-Babylonian hypothesis is an offshoot of the Sino-Egyptian hypothesis developed by Athanasius Kircher in several books, especially "China illustrata" in the middle of the 17th century. This hypothesis was continued by de Guignes and others down to the beginning of the 20th century, when it fell out of favour with all diffusionist theories.-- 36.97.187.211 ( talk) 05:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC) The whole theory is called "heliocentric diffusionism" (cf. Trans-cultural diffusion). The original idea came from the book Genesis, where the brothers Sem, Ham and Japhet spread after the deluge. Kircher, de Guignes, Grafton Elliot Smith and William James Perry saw the centre in Egypt and Schlegel saw the centre in India.-- 36.97.187.211 ( talk) 05:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply