8/14/2019 Black Athena: review by J.R. Lenz (1993) of Vol. II

1/3

This review ofBlack Athena, Vol. II appears in:Free Inquiry 13.4 (Fall 1993), pp. 54-5.FreeInquiry is a Humanist magazine published in Buffalo, N.Y. It also published "Black Athena: AnInterview with Martin Bernal," by Norm Allen Jr. (10.2, Spring 1990, pp. 18-22).

Ancient Histories and Modern Humanities

By John R. Lenz

Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. Volume II: The Archaeologicaland Documentary Evidence, by Martin Bernal (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press,1991). xxxiii + 736 pp. $60.00 cloth; $16.95 paper.Not since the Old Testament has a book about the second millenium B.C.E. generated as muchcontroversy asBlack Athena. The second volume of this projected four-volume work arouses

equal degrees of awe and skepticism.

InBlack Athena, Martin Bernal attempts to derive Greek civilization and language from Egyptand the Semitic Near East. Volume 1 (1987) argues that Western scholarship, operating under an"Aryan (i.e. Indo-European) Model," has excluded such contributions. Attributing this to racistimpulses, Bernal countered (in kind) that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. His workthus complements the wider phenomenon of Afrocentrism.

More know the book's title than its arguments.Black Athena, volume 2 is extremely heavygoing and problematic. Informative and generally reasonable in tone, its scope and ambition putthe work of most scholars to shame. Even hoary antiquarians will learn things, and other

dedicated readers will be led into the fascinating alleyways of Aegean (and Chinese) prehistory.Everyone, however, should read this work with extreme caution.

So radical is Bernal's ambition that much in the book eludes proof. Etymology--the heart of hiscase--is a notoriously slippery area. Bernal proposes many Egyptian or Semitic roots for Greekwords, including such central concepts aspsyche (soul) and hybris (pride). He gives somestriking examples. Some interesting and some obscure aspects of Greek names and myths areilluminated. However, the fits, as he honestly admits, are usually loose ones, based on a grab-bagof roots that look or sound alike. Compelling as all this potentially is, there is just too muchpiling on of weak cases and no real method.

Much of the archaeology is, likewise, awesomely bold but hard to swallow. Bernal wishes toweave a complex web of populations and cultural borrowings in the Aegean Bronze Age. Suchquestions have long been the stuff of archaeology; the "Pax Aegyptiaca" is no new idea. ButBernal rightly resurrects many examples that have been minimized or overlooked from aHellenocentric perspective. This is important. How many universities even offer courses on theancient Near East and Egypt? How often do we hear Egyptian art unfairly disparaged bycomparison with Greek? However, Bernal's blunt reconstructions go much further thanwarranted. In fact he rejects a model of multiculturalism in favor of a scenario of widespread

http://www.codesh.org/fihttp://www.codesh.org/fihttp://www.codesh.org/fihttp://www.codesh.org/fi

8/14/2019 Black Athena: review by J.R. Lenz (1993) of Vol. II

2/3

Egyptian colonization and domination. For example, reshuffling myth-history, he allegesEgyptian settlement of Bronze Age Crete and Greece c. 1730 B.C.E.

Bernal's method is a misplaced materialism. He traces Chinese political theory (the ruler's"Mandate from Heaven") to a Greek volcanic cataclysm: "China today still bears the marks of

the Thera eruption" (now dated c. 1628 B.C.E.). (Moses's parting of the seas and Plato's myth ofAtlantis he indirectly connects with the same event.) Did atmospheric disturbances fromKrakatoa's eruption really "have an impact on the development of Impressionism"? If you likesuch causal fancies, you will love the dense historical drama/espionage ofBlack Athena.

Aside from numerous questions of detail, two major problems flaw the core of the author'sdesire to erect a new paradigm. How far does he explain Greek culture, and does he do justice tothe interaction of different cultures and to the cause of multiculturalism itself?

Frustrated with a sacred-cow Classicism, Bernal (the grandson of the Egyptologist A. Gardiner),only attacks Classical Greece at some remove: he combs the Aegean Bronze Age, c. 3000 to

1150 B.C.E., in order to derive Greek culture (a vast animal in time, space, and thought) fromNear Eastern ones of that time. But from c. 1150 to 750 B.C.E. Greece experienced a Dark Age.Deriving the succeeding Greek city-state culture from the earlier Mycenaean palace civilization(whatever its origins) is problematic. Bernal's solution involves idiosyncratic redatings, e.g.placing the introduction of the Greek alphabet (unattested before 775 B.C.E. or later) between1800 and 1400 B.C.E. and the poet Hesiod in the tenth century. These heavy-handed movesneither sufficiently bridge the divide of the Dark Age, nor answer the many difficult and subtlequestions about the development of Greek civilization both from within and without.

There is a more serious, general objection. Suppose (as the author doesn't) that everything in thebook were true: Egyptian settlement of Greece, Greek borrowings of language and ideas (e.g.

Plato's) from Egypt. What would this explain? How far, for example, do we get in understandingVirgil by citing all of that great poet's borrowings from Homer? Wouldn't anything Plato wrote,short of taking dictation from Egyptian priests, bear his own stamp (and what about Socrates,who hardly left Athens)? In short, even if all of Bronze Age Greece were settled by Egyptians,we would still, immediately, have to say that the Egyptians in Greece were different from theEgyptians in Egypt. Glossing over deep questions of cultural change and identity, appropriatingpieces here and there for one's own chosen peoples, is dangerous both politically andintellectually.

Bernal reminds us, and takes pride in demonstrating, that scholarship and politics (or ideology)can never be separated. His gadfly intent, "to lessen European cultural arrogance" and "to makeconventionality have its cost," is most admirable (if itself somewhat conventional). But his ownappeal to be faithful to the ancient traditions is rather disingenuous, since his "Revised AncientModel" selects, rejects, and interprets from varied sources just as any historian must do.

Exposing others' preconceptions gives a false sense of security, when one remains blind to one'sown. A theme of volume 1 was that we invent our ancestors (there, the ancient Greeks). Bernalanswers by redefining the ancestors. Thus, like many revolutionaries, he does not condemn thesystem (namely the appropriation of the past for political purposes), but attempts to make it his

8/14/2019 Black Athena: review by J.R. Lenz (1993) of Vol. II

3/3

own. Are black paradigmatic ancestors better (on principle) than European ones? Does a pharaohin a black power pose really help the cause of Afro-American humanism (seeFree Inquiry,Spring 1990) by replacing one elitism with another?

In my opinion, this trend does no service even to the intended cause. Deriving one culture from

another (whether Europe from Greece or, in turn, Greece from Egypt) is not multiculturalism,but uniculturalism. (A strict Afrocentrism only takes Eurocentrism one step back, bymaintaining, even requiring, a glorified view of the Greeks.) True multiculturalism recognizesthe merits (and faults) of all peoples and cultures, and judges civilizations by other than theirhighest monuments. Wouldn't the Egyptian treatment of minorities be of concern to anAfrocentric perspective? Shouldn't the message be, you don'tneed the greatest or most powerfulconquering ancestors to be worthy of human respect (today or in history)? Shouldn't a"politically correct" stance take some interest in the political and social systems of Egypt andGreece? We might ask, "How did the pharaohs treat their subjects?" or "Did Plato havetotalitarian tendencies?"

Black Athena deserves respect for its broad ambition and inclusiveness. Terribly important in itsaims, it remains highly problematic in methods and results, opening up new vistas rather thansettling them. All should, while criticizing, widen their interests and sympathies. In a countrythat professes to live by ancient texts it knows shockingly little of, it is good to see the past takenseriously. But readers should approach this book in the same spirit of scholarly uncertainty inwhich, at its best, it is written.

By John R. Lenz. John R. Lenz is Associate Professor and Chair of Classics at Drew Universityin Madison, NJ, USA.

mailto:jlenz@drew.edumailto:jlenz@drew.edu