What do you think?
Rate this book
Black Athena
Black Athena Writes Back: Martin Bernal Responds to His Critics
In Black Athena Writes Back Martin Bernal responds to the passionate debates set off by the 1987 publication of his book Black Athena. Producing a shock wave of reaction from scholars, Black Athena argued that the development of Greek civilization was heavily influenced by Afroasiatic civilizations. Moreover, Bernal asserted that this knowledge had been deliberately obscured by the rampant racism of nineteenth-century Europeans who could not abide the notion that Greek society—for centuries recognized as the originating culture of Europe—had its origins in Africa and Southwest Asia.
The subsequent rancor among classicists over Bernal’s theory and accusations was picked up in the popular media, and his suggestion that Greek culture had its origin in Africa was widely derided. In a report on 60 Minutes, for example, it was suggested that Bernal’s hypothesis was essentially an attempt to provide blacks with self-esteem so that they would feel included in the march of progress.
In Black Athena Writes Back Bernal provides additional documentation to back up his thesis, as well as offering persuasive explanations of why traditional scholarship on the subject remains inaccurate and why specific arguments lobbed against his theories are themselves faulty.
Black Athena Writes Back requires no prior familiarity with either the Black Athena hypothesis or with the arguments advanced against it. It will be essential reading for those who have been following this long-running debate, as well as for those just discovering this fascinating subject.
The subsequent rancor among classicists over Bernal’s theory and accusations was picked up in the popular media, and his suggestion that Greek culture had its origin in Africa was widely derided. In a report on 60 Minutes, for example, it was suggested that Bernal’s hypothesis was essentially an attempt to provide blacks with self-esteem so that they would feel included in the march of progress.
In Black Athena Writes Back Bernal provides additional documentation to back up his thesis, as well as offering persuasive explanations of why traditional scholarship on the subject remains inaccurate and why specific arguments lobbed against his theories are themselves faulty.
Black Athena Writes Back requires no prior familiarity with either the Black Athena hypothesis or with the arguments advanced against it. It will be essential reading for those who have been following this long-running debate, as well as for those just discovering this fascinating subject.
576 pages, Paperback
First published August 30, 2001
13 people are currently reading
209 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 3, 2024
THE AUTHOR OF “BLACK ATHENA” DEALS WITH CRITICAL COMMENTS
Martin Gardiner Bernal (1937-2013) was a British scholar who was a Professor of Government and Near Eastern Studies at Cornell University, where he taught until 2001. The three books in the ‘Black Athena’ series are Black Athena: Volume 1,Black Athena: Volume 2, and Black Athena: Volume 3: The Linguistic Evidence; he also wrote an autobiography, Geography of a Life.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2001 book, “This book … had a long gestation. [It was] conceived in August 1994 … after a panel on ‘Black Athena’ … We panelists… ate and relaxed. In the course of the conversation, I expressed my frustration that Mary Lefkowitz and Guy Rogers were not allowing me to respond in their forthcoming volume Black Athena Revisited. What is more, they had refused to include the replies I had already published to many of the pieces to be contained in their volume. I mentioned that I should like to bring out a collection of my scattered replies in a single book… After many months… Duke University Press agreed to publish ‘Black Athena Writes Back.’”
In his Introduction, he admits, “In the years after the publication of the first volume of ‘Black Athena,’ I came to realize the näiveté and logical impossibility of the idea that one could stand above or beyond the models and be given a ‘God’s-eye view.’ All I now claim is that the ‘world’ of the Revised Ancient Model is more stimulating and exciting to inhabit than that of the Aryan model. That is to say, the Revised Ancient model generates more testable hypotheses; it enables one to check parallels among the civilizations around the Eastern Mediterranean and, when these parallels are found, it provides more interesting and intellectually provocative answers.” (Pg. 11)
He explains, “My first reaction to [news of the pending publication of ‘Black Athena Revisited’] was one of dismay at having to write another article of response. Nevertheless, I dutifully emailed the senior editor Mary Lefkowitz, and asked when I could see the articles so that I could prepare my reply. She emailed back that the editors had decided not to include any response from me because, ‘most of the articles have appeared already and you have published replied to them.’ When I inquired whether my responses were to be included, Lefkowitz said no, adding that three authors had insisted that they would not contribute their articles in I were allowed to respond. My first reaction was bewilderment. I had never heard of a scholarly volume devoted to the works of a living author not containing her or his response if she or he wished to write one. Within a few days, however, my disconcertion was compensated by a sense of the double honor Mary Lefkowitz and her colleague Guy Rogers were bestowing on me. I was flattered both because they felt it worthwhile to compile a book on my work and because their refusal to include my responses suggested that they believed my arguments were too compelling or persuasive to be included.” (Pg. 13-14)
He notes that ‘some critics… have read my work carefully enough to realize that I have never suggested that the Ancient Egyptian population as a whole looked like stereotypical West Africans. Nevertheless, they find my statement that some dynasties and pharaohs can ‘usefully be described as black’ to be distasteful. They argue that such categories make no sense biologically and were meaningless to the Ancient Egyptians themselves and, further, that my raising the issue exacerbates the tense situation between whites and blacks today. As I have said a number of times, I should have preferred the title ‘African Athena.’ On the other hand, I stand by my references to certain rules as ‘usefully described as black.’” (Pg. 23)
After observing that “many American and British blacks are so eager to claim identification with Ancient Egypt ,” he comments, “I believe that they are right to be indignant at the double standards applied to them and to the Ancient Egyptians. In the United States and Western Europe, ‘one drop of black blood’ is enough to label someone a ‘black.’ However, when Ancient Egypt is viewed, no one is considered ‘black’ unless he or she conforms to the European stereotype of a West African. Very few Ancient Egyptians would have been labeled ‘white’ in nineteenth- or twentieth-century Britain or America.” (Pg. 29)
He notes, “I find contrasts between such supposed biological entities as ‘ice’ and ‘sun’ people nonsensical and thoroughly distasteful. On the other hand, the views of a tiny number of the poorest people in North America and Europe are not likely to have any significant impact intellectually, politically, or socially on the rest of the population. Indeed, I do not think that such ethnic absolutism should be called ‘racism,’ which by many of the majority and by far the most powerful element in the population of Europe and North America can have, have had, and are having devastating effects on the contemporary world. The situation is made still worse by the fact that such views are sanctioned by a substantial body of academic ‘knowledge,’ the outlines of which were established when racism and anti-Semitism were open and normal among scholars. These are the reasons I consider Eurocentrism a are more serious and pressing problem than Afrocentrism.” (Pg. 67)
He acknowledges, “One of the difficulties of this debate, for which I take most of the responsibility, is that it is taking place before the publication of the third volume of Black Athena, which will be concerned with language. Therefore, in a number of instances, my claims in Volumes 1 and 2 are merely made in passing without the full arguments behind them.” (Pg. 142)
He explains, “I did not set out to name my work ‘Egyptian Athena’ but preferred something more inclusive: ‘African Athena.’ As I have said a number of times, although I was the first to propose the title, it was my publisher who insisted on the title ‘Black Athena.’” (Pg. 158)
He clarifies, “What I state many times is that in the early nineteenth century, racism was only one of many factors behind the shift from the Ancient to the Aryan model. I maintain that the Christian reaction to Egyptophil Freemasonry, attempts to find a middle way between revolution and reaction, Romanticism, and the paradigm of progress and positivism were all influential in this transformation.” (Pg. 191)
He points out, “I have insisted… that Greek is fundamentally an Indo-European language, though with massive lexical influence from the two Afroasiatic languages, Ancient Egyptian and West Semitic… I was referring to two crucially important and neglected sources of Greek culture. I have never suggested… that they were the ‘sole’ foundations of Classical civilization. There were also Into-European, possibly Indo-Hittite roots as well as other influences.” (Pg. 199)
He again clarifies his position on the ‘race’ of the Ancient Egyptians, “I would now modify the passage [pg. 242-242 in Vol. 1] in the direction of a greater continuity of the physical types in Egypt and stress that North Africa was the source of the Mediterranean populations rather than the other way around. I also admit that… I used the term ‘black’ in a more restrictive way than at some other places. This problem points to the fundamental difficulty surrounding the semantic field of the word ‘black.’ I have never employed it to suggest that the Ancient Egyptian population looked like the European stereotypes of West Africans. I have used the word in the sense that it is used in contemporary North America to designate anyone with an evident trace of African ancestry. In Britain today it is used still more widely to include South Asians.” (Pg. 209)
He responds to Lefkowitz, “her prime targets are a single Afrocentrist, George G.M. James, and me. The reason for this is that Lefkowitz is more tolerant of the idea of Egypt’s Africanity than most of her colleagues… Lefkowitz… has taken an extreme position, beyond that of most of her colleagues. She maintains that Egypt had no significant impact on the formation of any aspect of Greek civilization. Thus, she is more willing than most of her colleagues to accept the ‘Africanity’ of Egypt. This issue is the major concern of most Afrocentrists… What Lefkowitz finds intolerable is the proposal that an African Egypt had a central and formative influence on Greek civilization. This was what … James claimed in the 1950s and I have argued since the 1980s. In short, she is less worried by Afrocentric chauvinism than she is by notions of Greek hybridity.” (Pg. 371-372)
After noting Lefkowitz’s identification of some historical inaccuracies in the works of some Afrocentrist writers, he suggests, “That some Afrocentrists should have made so many mistakes is over-determined. They have the sense of being embattled in a hostile world and of possessing an absolute and general truth, which can make one have less concern about details. More important than these reasons, however, are the extraordinary material difficulties they have faced in acquiring training and the requisite languages, in finding time and space to carry on research, money to buy books or even to gain access to libraries, let alone finding publishers for would provide academic checks and competent proofreaders. None of these difficulties has encumbered Lefkowitz, who has been thoroughly educated in Latin and Greek… and has for many years been tenured at a rich college. That Lefkowitz… should make so many factual errors is much more intriguing.” (Pg. 377)
For anyone interested in the controversy about ‘Black Athena,’ this book [and perhaps also Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals] will be “must reading.”
Martin Gardiner Bernal (1937-2013) was a British scholar who was a Professor of Government and Near Eastern Studies at Cornell University, where he taught until 2001. The three books in the ‘Black Athena’ series are Black Athena: Volume 1,Black Athena: Volume 2, and Black Athena: Volume 3: The Linguistic Evidence; he also wrote an autobiography, Geography of a Life.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2001 book, “This book … had a long gestation. [It was] conceived in August 1994 … after a panel on ‘Black Athena’ … We panelists… ate and relaxed. In the course of the conversation, I expressed my frustration that Mary Lefkowitz and Guy Rogers were not allowing me to respond in their forthcoming volume Black Athena Revisited. What is more, they had refused to include the replies I had already published to many of the pieces to be contained in their volume. I mentioned that I should like to bring out a collection of my scattered replies in a single book… After many months… Duke University Press agreed to publish ‘Black Athena Writes Back.’”
In his Introduction, he admits, “In the years after the publication of the first volume of ‘Black Athena,’ I came to realize the näiveté and logical impossibility of the idea that one could stand above or beyond the models and be given a ‘God’s-eye view.’ All I now claim is that the ‘world’ of the Revised Ancient Model is more stimulating and exciting to inhabit than that of the Aryan model. That is to say, the Revised Ancient model generates more testable hypotheses; it enables one to check parallels among the civilizations around the Eastern Mediterranean and, when these parallels are found, it provides more interesting and intellectually provocative answers.” (Pg. 11)
He explains, “My first reaction to [news of the pending publication of ‘Black Athena Revisited’] was one of dismay at having to write another article of response. Nevertheless, I dutifully emailed the senior editor Mary Lefkowitz, and asked when I could see the articles so that I could prepare my reply. She emailed back that the editors had decided not to include any response from me because, ‘most of the articles have appeared already and you have published replied to them.’ When I inquired whether my responses were to be included, Lefkowitz said no, adding that three authors had insisted that they would not contribute their articles in I were allowed to respond. My first reaction was bewilderment. I had never heard of a scholarly volume devoted to the works of a living author not containing her or his response if she or he wished to write one. Within a few days, however, my disconcertion was compensated by a sense of the double honor Mary Lefkowitz and her colleague Guy Rogers were bestowing on me. I was flattered both because they felt it worthwhile to compile a book on my work and because their refusal to include my responses suggested that they believed my arguments were too compelling or persuasive to be included.” (Pg. 13-14)
He notes that ‘some critics… have read my work carefully enough to realize that I have never suggested that the Ancient Egyptian population as a whole looked like stereotypical West Africans. Nevertheless, they find my statement that some dynasties and pharaohs can ‘usefully be described as black’ to be distasteful. They argue that such categories make no sense biologically and were meaningless to the Ancient Egyptians themselves and, further, that my raising the issue exacerbates the tense situation between whites and blacks today. As I have said a number of times, I should have preferred the title ‘African Athena.’ On the other hand, I stand by my references to certain rules as ‘usefully described as black.’” (Pg. 23)
After observing that “many American and British blacks are so eager to claim identification with Ancient Egypt ,” he comments, “I believe that they are right to be indignant at the double standards applied to them and to the Ancient Egyptians. In the United States and Western Europe, ‘one drop of black blood’ is enough to label someone a ‘black.’ However, when Ancient Egypt is viewed, no one is considered ‘black’ unless he or she conforms to the European stereotype of a West African. Very few Ancient Egyptians would have been labeled ‘white’ in nineteenth- or twentieth-century Britain or America.” (Pg. 29)
He notes, “I find contrasts between such supposed biological entities as ‘ice’ and ‘sun’ people nonsensical and thoroughly distasteful. On the other hand, the views of a tiny number of the poorest people in North America and Europe are not likely to have any significant impact intellectually, politically, or socially on the rest of the population. Indeed, I do not think that such ethnic absolutism should be called ‘racism,’ which by many of the majority and by far the most powerful element in the population of Europe and North America can have, have had, and are having devastating effects on the contemporary world. The situation is made still worse by the fact that such views are sanctioned by a substantial body of academic ‘knowledge,’ the outlines of which were established when racism and anti-Semitism were open and normal among scholars. These are the reasons I consider Eurocentrism a are more serious and pressing problem than Afrocentrism.” (Pg. 67)
He acknowledges, “One of the difficulties of this debate, for which I take most of the responsibility, is that it is taking place before the publication of the third volume of Black Athena, which will be concerned with language. Therefore, in a number of instances, my claims in Volumes 1 and 2 are merely made in passing without the full arguments behind them.” (Pg. 142)
He explains, “I did not set out to name my work ‘Egyptian Athena’ but preferred something more inclusive: ‘African Athena.’ As I have said a number of times, although I was the first to propose the title, it was my publisher who insisted on the title ‘Black Athena.’” (Pg. 158)
He clarifies, “What I state many times is that in the early nineteenth century, racism was only one of many factors behind the shift from the Ancient to the Aryan model. I maintain that the Christian reaction to Egyptophil Freemasonry, attempts to find a middle way between revolution and reaction, Romanticism, and the paradigm of progress and positivism were all influential in this transformation.” (Pg. 191)
He points out, “I have insisted… that Greek is fundamentally an Indo-European language, though with massive lexical influence from the two Afroasiatic languages, Ancient Egyptian and West Semitic… I was referring to two crucially important and neglected sources of Greek culture. I have never suggested… that they were the ‘sole’ foundations of Classical civilization. There were also Into-European, possibly Indo-Hittite roots as well as other influences.” (Pg. 199)
He again clarifies his position on the ‘race’ of the Ancient Egyptians, “I would now modify the passage [pg. 242-242 in Vol. 1] in the direction of a greater continuity of the physical types in Egypt and stress that North Africa was the source of the Mediterranean populations rather than the other way around. I also admit that… I used the term ‘black’ in a more restrictive way than at some other places. This problem points to the fundamental difficulty surrounding the semantic field of the word ‘black.’ I have never employed it to suggest that the Ancient Egyptian population looked like the European stereotypes of West Africans. I have used the word in the sense that it is used in contemporary North America to designate anyone with an evident trace of African ancestry. In Britain today it is used still more widely to include South Asians.” (Pg. 209)
He responds to Lefkowitz, “her prime targets are a single Afrocentrist, George G.M. James, and me. The reason for this is that Lefkowitz is more tolerant of the idea of Egypt’s Africanity than most of her colleagues… Lefkowitz… has taken an extreme position, beyond that of most of her colleagues. She maintains that Egypt had no significant impact on the formation of any aspect of Greek civilization. Thus, she is more willing than most of her colleagues to accept the ‘Africanity’ of Egypt. This issue is the major concern of most Afrocentrists… What Lefkowitz finds intolerable is the proposal that an African Egypt had a central and formative influence on Greek civilization. This was what … James claimed in the 1950s and I have argued since the 1980s. In short, she is less worried by Afrocentric chauvinism than she is by notions of Greek hybridity.” (Pg. 371-372)
After noting Lefkowitz’s identification of some historical inaccuracies in the works of some Afrocentrist writers, he suggests, “That some Afrocentrists should have made so many mistakes is over-determined. They have the sense of being embattled in a hostile world and of possessing an absolute and general truth, which can make one have less concern about details. More important than these reasons, however, are the extraordinary material difficulties they have faced in acquiring training and the requisite languages, in finding time and space to carry on research, money to buy books or even to gain access to libraries, let alone finding publishers for would provide academic checks and competent proofreaders. None of these difficulties has encumbered Lefkowitz, who has been thoroughly educated in Latin and Greek… and has for many years been tenured at a rich college. That Lefkowitz… should make so many factual errors is much more intriguing.” (Pg. 377)
For anyone interested in the controversy about ‘Black Athena,’ this book [and perhaps also Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals] will be “must reading.”
Read
October 16, 2025I did not read this cover to cover, but there isn’t a button on here for “I read chunks and skimmed the rest.”
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews