Black Athena Revisited edited by Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy Maclean Rogers.
Chapel Hill & London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Pp. xxii + 522. ISBN 0-8078-2246-9. US$55.00.
Toby A.H. Wilkinson Christ's College, Cambridge.
In the latter half of the twentieth century, no other book on the ancient world has created as much of a storm as Martin Bernal's Black Athena.[[1]] Since the publication of the first volume in 1987, nearly seventy reviews, articles and films have appeared discussing the book, its goals, methods and hypotheses. Responses to Bernal's second volume published in 1991 (two more are promised), have added to the enormous literature surrounding the work. Black Athena Revisited represents a collection of scholarly responses to Bernal's first two volumes. Some of the contributions have already appeared elsewhere as review articles, others were specially written for this volume. Between an introductory paper by Mary Lefkowitz and a summarising conclusion by Guy MacLean Rogers, the volume comprises eighteen papers by experts from the United States, the United Kingdom and Italy. As befits a book as wide-ranging in its scope as Black Athena, the contributors to Black Athena Revisited are drawn from an impressive variety of academic fields. The papers are arranged in seven broad categories, each addressing a particular aspect of Bernal's work: Egypt, race, the Near East, linguistics, science, Greece and historiography. It is a testament to the impact of Black Athena that so many distinguished contributors have combined to review the work and its implications for past and present scholarship of the ancient Mediterranean world.
In her introduction, 'Ancient history, modern myths' (pp. 3- 23), Mary Lefkowitz examines both the history of western Classical scholarship and the ancient Greeks' own myths about their origins. Bernal's central charges in Black Athena are: (1) that ancient Greek civilisation was massively influenced by Egypt and Phoenicia, and (2) that eighteenth and nineteenth century scholars deliberately obscured the Afro-Asiatic roots of Classical civilisation for reasons of racism and anti-Semitism. Equally, perhaps more controversial, is Bernal's claim that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans, a theory which gives Black Athena its title and which has made the book a cause ce/le\bre amongst Afrocentric ancient historians. These important questions are tackled head-on by the individual papers which form the body of Black Athena Revisited. Lefkowitz casts her own severe doubts - 'to speak of the ancient (or modern) Egyptians as "black" is misleading in the extreme' (p. 21)[b] - but also makes the crucial point, echoed by other contributors: that Afrocentrists, 'in the process of claiming Greek history as their own [b] ... will miss an opportunity to learn about real Africa and its own achievements and civilizations' (p. 21). John Baines offers an Egyptologist's perspective in his paper 'On the aims and methods of Black Athena' (pp. 27-48). Bernal's insistence on the significance of Egypt for the development of Greek civilization means that his limited use of the Egyptological evidence seriously weakens his argument. In this and other areas, and in common with the other contributors to the volume, Baines expresses grave reservations about Bernal's scholarly methods. Two quotations will suffice to illustrate the point: 'Bernal's reluctance to engage with ancient Near Eastern civilizations on their own terms leads to bizarre interpretations' (p. 45); 'his concern with race also leads him to adopt models of ancient ethnicity that are both inappropriate to the materials studied and ethically somewhat distasteful' (p. 46). A second Egyptologist of renown, David O'Connor, takes a more conciliatory tone towards Bernal, but is no less critical in his conclusions. 'Egypt and Greece: the Bronze Age evidence' (pp. 49- 61) concentrates on the textual evidence for relations between Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean during Egypt's Middle and New Kingdoms. Middle Kingdom connections with the Aegean seem to have been rather loose and sporadic; the New Kingdom data, although suggesting a degree of contact, 'do not imply the substantial cultural impact of Egypt upon the Aegean required by Bernal's theory' (p. 60). O'Connor points out that years of fieldwork in the Aegean have failed to produce any evidence for an Egyptian colonisation. In conclusion, Bernal's arguments are 'unpersuasive, so far as the Egyptian evidence ... is concerned' (p. 61). Frank Yurco provides a broad but detailed assessment of the Egyptian evidence so central to Bernal's theories ('Black Athena: an Egyptological review', pp. 62-100). In his downplaying of the role of Mesopotamian cultural influences in the formation of Egyptian civilization, Yurco is out of step with the most recent Egyptological opinion. Likewise, Yurco's statement that the Middle Kingdom Mit Rahina inscription 'does attest an Egyptian-ruled Asiatic empire' (p. 73) contradicts the usual interpretation of this important monument (as given by O'Connor, p. 54). Yurco also accepts rather more of Bernal's arguments, describing his claims for Egyptian influence on the Greek world as 'in essence reasonable' (p. 95). Nonetheless, Yurco is keen to emphasise the difference between trade and rule: the presence of Egyptian and Hyksos artefacts on Crete attests to the former, not the latter. For the Afrocentrists who have seized upon Black Athena, the issue of race - more particularly, the race of the ancient Egyptians - lies at the heart of Bernal's work.[b] Black Athena Revisited includes three papers on this subject: 'Ancient Egyptians and the issue of race' by Kathryn Bard (pp. 103- 111); 'Bernal's "Blacks" and the Afrocentrists' by Frank Snowden (pp. 112-128); and the contribution by C. Loring Brace et al., 'Clines and clusters versus "race": a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile' (pp. 129- 164).[b] Bard assesses the representational and linguistic evidence from ancient Egypt, both of which distinguish the Egyptians from their southern sub- Saharan neighbours. Bard stresses that 'Egyptians were ... neither black nor white as races are conceived of today' (p. 104). Moreover, 'to state categorically that ancient Egypt was either a black - or a white - civilization is to promote a misconception with racist undertones' (p. 111).[b] This aspect of Bernal's argument is picked up by many of the contributors to Black Athena Revisited, and emerges as one of the central criticisms of his work. Indeed, in the conclusion to the volume, the editors call upon Bernal 'to reject publicly, explicitly, and unambiguously any theories of history which conflate race and culture' (p. 453).[b] Snowden accuses Bernal of misusing the ancient evidence relating to ethnic or colour terminology. He warns 'substituting fiction for fact is a disservice to blacks' (p. 127). Echoing Lefkowitz's opening remarks, he points to the important achievements of Nubia, 'a black African culture of enormous influence and power' (p. 121), ironically neglected by Afrocentrists in their emphasis on ancient Egypt. C. Loring Brace et al. present the results of a detailed scientific examination of ancient Egyptian cranial material. Comparisons between the cranial morphology of Egyptians and other populations indicate that the former have 'nothing whatsoever in common with Sub- Saharan Africans' (p. 145). Although their evidence refutes Bernal's identification of the Egyptians as black Africans, the authors deplore the very attempt to categorise the ancient Egyptians by modern concepts of race. Not only did the race concept not exist in ancient Egypt, 'it has neither biological nor social justification' (p. 162). Particular scorn is poured upon Bernal and his 'unscholarly methods' (p. 167) in 'The Legacy of Black Athena', by the ancient Near Eastern specialist Sarah Morris (pp. 167-174). She deplores Black Athena's 'cumbersome detours ... and ... labored misunderstandings' (p. 167), and regrets that Bernal has 'only contributed to an avalanche of radical propaganda without basis in fact' (p. 174). In particular, Morris argues, Bernal's emphasis on ancient Egypt has blinded him to the strong connections between Crete and the Levant, connections which were 'more critical to long-term developments' (p. 169). Echoing the concerns of Lefkowitz and Snowden, Morris asks 'Why does African America need Egypt, more than it does the magnificent cultures of the West African coast, to legitimize its past and present?' (p. 171). A central plank of Bernal's argument is his assertion that the Greek language shows massive Egyptian and Semitic borrowing. In their detailed yet highly readable paper, 'Word Games' (pp. 177- 205), Jay Jasanoff and Alan Nussbaum expose the vast majority of Bernal's proposed etymologies as false. Thus, two leading authorities on Greek language demonstrate the emptiness of Black Athena's linguistic arguments, adding that 'in relation to Bernal's overall project, the linguistic evidence is worse than unhelpful' (p. 201). The longest contribution to Black Athena Revisited is Robert Palter's 'Black Athena, Afrocentrism, and the history of science' (pp. 209-266). This examines the scientific achievements of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks in the fields of astronomy, mathematics and medicine. Comparison of the three civilizations shows Babylonian astronomy to have been far more advanced than Egyptian, whilst in the field of mathematics 'it is difficult to see how the peak Egyptian achievements ... could ever have led to Greek mathematics' (p. 255). Finally, a number of fundamental differences between Egyptian and Greek medicine lead Palter to question the proposed influence of Egypt on Greece in this field too. The conclusion must be that Greek science probably owed as much, if not more, to Babylon as it did to Egypt. The claims of Black Athena have shaken three fields of study in particular: Egyptology, Classics and historiography. The final two collections of papers in Black Athena Revisited represent the response of the last two disciplines to Bernal's arguments. The Greek perspective is expressed in three papers by Emily Vermeule ('The world turned upside down', pp. 269- 279), John Coleman ('Did Egypt shape the glory that was Greece?', pp. 280-302) and Lawrence Tritle ('Black Athena: vision or dream of Greek origins?', pp. 303-330). Arguing that 'no one has ever doubted the Greek debt to Egypt and the East' (p. 272), Vermeule's paper has the character of a polemic against Bernal. She criticises 'the constant perversion of facts in Bernal's second volume' (p. 273), and lambasts the work as 'a whirling confusion of half-digested reading, bold linguistic supposition, and preconceived dogma' (p. 277). Coleman provides a calmer assessment of the evidence for Greek origins; his conclusions are no less dismissive of Bernal's claims. There is not a shred of historical, archaeological or linguistic evidence for a Hyksos invasion and colonisation of Greece in the second millennium BC, whilst Bernal's uncritical interpretation of Greek myth as historical fact ignores 'the generally accepted tenets of rational analysis' (p. 292). Tritle castigates Bernal for his 'simplistic' use of ancient sources, and points to a serious weakness in his 'Revised Ancient Model': although Black Athena argues for massive Egyptian influence on early Greek civilization, 'Bernal never pauses to consider the essentially isolationist nature of the ancient Egyptians' (p. 320). As Baines has already pointed out, Bernal's misunderstandings of Egyptian civilization do great damage to his argument. Perhaps Black Athena's gravest contention is that Classicists and ancient historians in the West deliberately obscured the Afro-Asiatic origins of Greek civilization, driven by motives of racism and anti-Semitism. This is an immensely damaging accusation for western scholarship as a whole, and no fewer than six papers reply to Bernal's withering criticism of western historiography. Edith Hall - in the volume's most charitable response to Black Athena ('When is a myth not a myth?: Bernal's "Ancient Model"', pp. 333-348) - believes that 'we ... cannot dismiss Bernal's book out of hand' (p. 335). However, she argues that Black Athena demonstrates an unsophisticated approach to myth, and confuses subjective and objective ethnicity: 'there is a world of difference between saying that the Greeks were descendants of Egyptians and Phoenicians, and saying that the Greeks thought that they were descended from Egyptians and Phoenicians' (p. 336). In his second contribution to Black Athena Revisited, 'Eighteenth-century historiography in Black Athena' (pp. 349-402), Robert Palter points to 'fundamental errors in [Bernal's] understanding of eighteenth-century political, social, and cultural history' (p. 350). Bernal is charged with wilfully mis-reading eighteenth-century writers, labelling them all as racists, and ignoring the ambivalence and variety in their attitudes towards Greece and Egypt. Palter, then, accuses Bernal of deliberate selectivity in his scholarship, citing his 'all too frequent failure to mention crucial facts whose existence would be embarrassing or inconvenient for him to acknowledge' (pp. 389-390). Bernal's methodology comes under further attack (if further were needed) from Mario Liverani ('The bathwater and the baby', pp. 421-427), who characterises Black Athena as 'politically disruptive and historically regressive' (p. 424). Robert Norton offers a specialist paper, 'The tyranny of Germany over Greece?: Bernal, Herder, and the German appropriation of Greece' (pp. 403-410), in which he discusses the views of the German writer Herder. Once again, Bernal is charged with mis-representation. Richard Jenkyns assesses nineteenth-century scholarship in 'Bernal and the nineteenth century' (pp. 411-420): classicists and historians of the period were certainly not blameless in their hidden political agendas, but neither were they as uniformly racist as Bernal paints them. This is also the conclusion of Guy MacLean Rogers in the last paper of the volume, 'Multiculturalism and the foundations of western civilization' (pp. 428-443). In the greatest of ironies, Black Athena's emphasis upon race and ethnic origins unwittingly returns 'to the nineteenth-century style of "race"-bound and ethnocentric historiography that Bernal himself ... has so rightly questioned' (p. 440). If two points, of sadness and hope, emerge most clearly from the critical responses to Black Athena contained in this book, they are the following: on the one hand, the self- defeating argument of Bernal's work, which 'succumbs to exactly the Eurocentrism it was written to combat' (p. 452); on the other hand, the forceful belief that 'the ancient cultures of Africa and the Near East do not need to be the founders of the West to be worthy of global interest and study; they are intrinsically interesting' (p. 442). Black Athena Revisited is an immensely stimulating volume, offering a collection of insightful articles by experts from a diversity of disciplines. In this respect, Bernal has undoubtedly done archaeologists and ancient historians a great service, forcing 'would-be critics to expand their horizons far beyond their areas of expertise' (p. 294). Bernal's central hypotheses are universally rejected, although the papers in Black Athena Revisited vary in tone from the polemical to the constructively critical. Whilst one or two come across as little more than extended attacks on Bernal and his methods - perilously approaching character assassination in one instance - other papers are veritable gold-mines of the best of contemporary scholarship. All contributors agree on the fundamental shortcomings of Bernal's work, yet all have seen the need to respond to one of the most controversial and challenging academic enterprises of this century. With parts three and four of Bernal's magnum opus promised in the near future, one thing is certain: Black Athena will be revisited many more times before the debate subsides.
NOTES
[[1]] Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afro- Asiatic roots of Classical Civilization. Vol. 1: The fabrication of ancient Greece 1785-1985. (London 1987); Vol. II: The Archaeological and Documentary Evidence (New Brunswick 1991).
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
THE CARPETBAGGERS AND THEIR FALSE PROPHET: BERNAL.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
(Who here follows any such profit or even espouses firm allegiance to a man, as is being insinuated here = it's not entirely necissary to responde to yet another of an extreme light-weight's straw man accusations, in yet another getaway thread)
Posted by Masonic Rebel (Member # 9549) on :
quote: Lefkowitz casts her own severe doubts - 'to speak of the ancient (or modern) Egyptians as "black" is misleading in the extreme'
Oh Really well then explain this
Modern Egyptians (Kmemou )
LoL @ Glider and Mary
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
THE CARPETBAGGERS PRESENTED THIS PICTURE OF A LITTLE GIRL AND CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS "EGYPTIAN" -- The Liars Of Egyptsearch:
ANOTHER FALSE PICTURE OF A YOUNG NUBIAN GIRL IN SOUTHERN EGYPT. SHE DOES HAVE A BEAUTIFUL SMILE.
Peter picked up several photography tips from Kylie. He took this photo of a young Nubian girl in southern Egypt. She could really turn on that smile for tourists
quote:Originally posted by Glider: Black Athena Revisited represents a collection of scholarly responses to Bernal's first two volumes. Some of the contributions have already appeared elsewhere as review articles, others were specially written for this volume. Between an introductory paper by Mary Lefkowitz and a summarising conclusion by Guy MacLean Rogers, the volume comprises eighteen papers by experts from the United States, the United Kingdom and Italy. As befits a book as wide-ranging in its scope as Black Athena, the contributors to Black Athena Revisited are drawn from an impressive variety of academic fields. The papers are arranged in seven broad categories, each addressing a particular aspect of Bernal's work: Egypt, race, the Near East, linguistics, science, Greece and historiography. It is a testament to the impact of Black Athena that so many distinguished contributors have combined to review the work and its implications for past and present scholarship of the ancient Mediterranean world.
Scholarly response? And none of them really addressed the issues raised in the book.
quote:Originally posted by Glider: Lefkowitz casts her own severe doubts - 'to speak of the ancient (or modern) Egyptians as "black" is misleading in the extreme' (p. 21) - but also makes the crucial point, echoed by other contributors: that Afrocentrists, 'in the process of claiming Greek history as their own ... will miss an opportunity to learn about real Africa and its own achievements and civilizations' (p. 21).
Well, severe doubt is not a term that can be quantified scientifically. However facts and evidence can be analyzed and debated. The facts are that MANY people in Egypt TO THIS DAY are black. Therefore, this is not something that can be debated without an understanding of the FACTS of Egypt. But of course this is the point to begin with.
quote:Originally posted by Glider: 'his concern with race also leads him to adopt models of ancient ethnicity that are both inappropriate to the materials studied and ethically somewhat distasteful'
quote:Originally posted by Glider: For the Afrocentrists who have seized upon Black Athena, the issue of race - more particularly, the race of the ancient Egyptians - lies at the heart of Bernal's work.[b] Black Athena Revisited includes three papers on this subject: 'Ancient Egyptians and the issue of race' by Kathryn Bard (pp. 103- 111); 'Bernal's "Blacks" and the Afrocentrists' by Frank Snowden (pp. 112-128); and the contribution by C. Loring Brace et al., 'Clines and clusters versus "race": a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile' (pp. 129-164). Bard assesses the representational and linguistic evidence from ancient Egypt, both of which distinguish the Egyptians from their southern sub-Saharan neighbours. Bard stresses that 'Egyptians were ... neither black nor white as races are conceived of today' (p. 104). Moreover, 'to state categorically that ancient Egypt was either a black -or a white - civilization is to promote a misconception with racist undertones' (p. 111). This aspect of Bernal's argument is picked up by many of the contributors to Black Athena Revisited, and emerges as one of the central criticisms of his work. Indeed, in the conclusion to the volume, the editors call upon Bernal 'to reject publicly, explicitly, and unambiguously any theories of history which conflate race and culture' (p. 453). Snowden accuses Bernal of misusing the ancient evidence relating to ethnic or colour terminology. He warns 'substituting fiction for fact is a disservice to blacks' (p. 127).
Ancient Egypt's neighbors were not sub saharan. Their neighbors were Saharan and Nilotic. Therefore the statement is ridiculous to begin with. Aswan, the so-called border of ancient Egypt is not sub saharan. The idea that a few miles south of Aswan was populated by jet black Africans and on the other side populated by whites who were equally indigenous Nile Valley Africans is retarded.
quote:Originally posted by Glider: C. Loring Brace et al. present the results of a detailed scientific examination of ancient Egyptian cranial material. Comparisons between the cranial morphology ofEgyptians and other populations indicate that the former have 'nothing whatsoever in common with Sub-Saharan Africans' (p. 145). Although their evidence refutes Bernal's identification of the Egyptians as black Africans, the authors deplore the very attempt to categorise the ancient Egyptians by modern concepts of race. Not only did the race concept not exist in ancient Egypt, 'it has neither biological nor social justification' (p. 162).
Again, the immediate vicinity of Aswan is not sub-saharan. Therefore, so called sub saharan Africans are irrelevant to this study. However, black Africans along the Nile within the Sahara are neighbors of Egypt and there is no doubt that their crania are relevant to this study. But of course that is not mentioned.
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
Carpetbaggers in Distress
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
THE BLACK FILIPINO HAS BEEN EXPOSED FOR HIS LIES AND FALSE PICTURE SPAMMING.
GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS! Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
THE BLACK FILIPINO'S PICTURE
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glider: THE CARPETBAGGERS PRESENTED THIS PICTURE OF A LITTLE GIRL AND CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS "EGYPTIAN" -- The Liars Of Egyptsearch:
ANOTHER FALSE PICTURE OF A YOUNG NUBIAN GIRL IN SOUTHERN EGYPT. SHE DOES HAVE A BEAUTIFUL SMILE.
Peter picked up several photography tips from Kylie. He took this photo of a young Nubian girl in southern Egypt. She could really turn on that smile for tourists
LOL! Glider doesn't even understand geography. Show me the internationally recognized borders of the nation of nubia, the government, military and capital city. Can't can you? Why not? Does the fact that NO such creature exists bother you? Of course not. Last I checked, the residents of Southern Egypt were Egyptians by nationality and that the nation of Egypt does exist and its government, military and capital city can be identified. And to go even further, ancient Egyptian government, capital cities and presidents can also be identified as well. Guess where they were at? In Southern Egypt like this girl.
But of course those facts don't count.
What does count are the facts. And the facts are that people like this girl have been on the Nile in the same areas and going further North since BEFORE there was a nation called Egypt. No amount of special pleading and whining will change this. Anyone trying to pretend that such people don't exist and have not been part of the history and culture of Egypt since the beginning are mentally challenged. Anyone who is trying to pretend that blacks such as this are FOREIGNERS to the Nile are just plain not making absolutely any sense.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You have to admit the guy comes up with good stuff.
Makes you wonder if GLIDER is more than ONE person.
However he does not realize some key FACTS that will never change. Cat is out of the bag.
1. AE said they were black and they lived in Africa - Black Africans.
2. The 1000's Murals/Wall paintings are of black people. Darker than "arabs' and much darker than Europeans. Do you see how rediculous the notion is when you see pictures of these tourist take pictures in the Tombs. They are surrounded by black people on the walls. Any person with common sense can see that. Even the few "arab looking egyptians" have extremmely dark skin. You can see the paint coming off.
So , sorry bro, the selective picture spams won't change ANYTHING. Tuff luck.
But keep trying. Your pcitures and discussion will help undecided people, who have questions like you, make up their minds.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You have to admit the guy comes up with good stuff.
Evergreen Writes:
I don't have to admit that, because it isn't true. All of the "information" Glider provides has been addressed and discussed many times before on this forum. What he is good at is using provocative thread titles to yank the chain of some of our more gullible forum participants.
Most of his threads and "information" are Non-Value Added.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You have to admit the guy comes up with good stuff.
Evergreen Writes:
I don't have to admit that, because it isn't true. All of the "information" Glider provides has been addressed and discussed many times before on this forum. What he is good at is using provocative thread titles to yank the chain of some of our more gullible forum participants.
Most of his threads and "information" are Non-Value Added.
Teach. It is amazing how many of the established posters to the forum fall for this guys tricks.
.
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You have to admit the guy comes up with good stuff.
Evergreen Writes:
I don't have to admit that, because it isn't true. All of the "information" Glider provides has been addressed and discussed many times before on this forum. What he is good at is using provocative thread titles to yank the chain of some of our more gullible forum participants.
Most of his threads and "information" are Non-Value Added.
I think perhaps, what xyyman meant is that he comes up with "good tricks" which, in the long run will only help sharpen the "debunking" skills of ES's Ancient Egypt denizens.
Like all things in life, you need blows thrown at you to TEST you. What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger
Keep it coming Glider! Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
Glider is obviously a child.. I'm learning to ignore him completely. Anyone trying to rebuttal Bernal as a poster boy for the Africanity of ancient Egypt, is just a misguided wretch who doesn't even know where to direct his energy. Instead, he calls people carpetbaggers (a meaningless term that I've never heard until he used it) and posts stupid pictures of Scruff Mcgruff.
Posting pictures of Modern Egypttians, ethnically Nubian, Fellahin, or Arab is irrelevant. Matter of fact, according to Brace (2006), the modern Nubians indeed seem to be even more relavent to ancient Egypt than modern Egytians are!
quote:The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample - both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians - and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa." The other obvious matter seen in Fig 3., is the seperate identity of Northern Europeans.
^^Modern Egyptians were sample group # 38 in the study, Nubians (modern)are # 48.
He also writes:
In this figure, we can see a clear link between the Niger-Congo sample and the Natufians. The Pre-historic/Recent Northeast African sample also has a subsequent link to the Niger-Congo sample in fig 3.
"Naqada Bronze Age Egyptian, the Nubian, Nubia Bronze Age, Israeli Fellaheen (Arabic farmers) and Somali samples were lumped as “Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africa.”"
Key phrases:
"Separate identity of Northern Europeans"
"Link to Niger-Congo"
"Tie [connection] between them"
Too bad your modern Egyptian friends in sample #38 are part of the Mediterranean and have no "links", "ties", or "connections" to the ancient Egyptians, according to the raw data in this study.
CARPETBAGGERS: SORRY BUT BLACK AFRICANS DON'T LOOK LIKE THIS.
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
AGAIN, WHERE WILL THE CARPETBAGGERS RUN FROM THE TRUTH?. FEAST YOUR EYES!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ As usual, the troll can't keep quiet for long.
No I did not lie Glider, because all those pics I presented were of Egyptian Fellahin and NOT Nubians.
I notice you like Takruri think I'm black. I'm not, but even if I was, it still won't help you. You don't have to black to accept TRUTH. And well, the truth is the ancient Egyptians were black like this...
Tut:
Amenhotep III
Hatshepsut
Thutmose III
Ramses the Great:
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glider:
quote:Originally posted by Glider: OPEN YOUR BLACK RACIST EYES A LITTLE WIDER: AND SMILE!
REPEAT AFTER ME: ANCIENT EGYPT WAS NOT A BLACK AFRICAN NATION.
Again, with the same photos of unpainted depictions that don't even show skin color. And what proof do you have that they were not black? Let me guess, their features? You already know black Africans can have features like those-- pointy noses and thin lips.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
LOL! Are you sure they're black? Maybe they're just very dark. After all, as you say, black is only relative, right?
quote:Originally posted by DJ:
And well, the truth is the ancient Egyptians were black like this...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Glider:
That sphinx with its features closely resembles these depictions of Thutmose III:
"Ancient Egypt was not a black African nation" sure thing! LOL
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glider: CARPETBAGGERS: SORRY BUT BLACK AFRICANS DON'T LOOK LIKE THIS.
LOL Not only is some of the paint faded but the lighting obfuscates the true coloring...
Here are more images of Ramses's wife, Nefertari
quote: AGAIN, WHERE WILL THE CARPETBAGGERS RUN FROM THE TRUTH?. FEAST YOUR EYES!
^ Okay we have an unpainted wooden face whose features like almond eyes, wide nose, and full lips don't seem so un-African. LOL[b/]
[b]LMFO Talk about who's really lying! Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: LOL! Are you sure they're black? Maybe they're just very dark. After all, as you say, black is only relative, right?
Sure, all skin color is relative. Black people are really of the color black but fall into shades of brown. Yet socially speaking people still makes distinctions between 'brown' Hispanics and black Africans. These ancient Egyptians are by social definitions indeed black and they are indigenous to African. So yeah. And you know it, and your friend Glider knows it. Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
quote:
These ancient Egyptians are by social definitions indeed black and they are indigenous to African. So yeah. And you know it, and your friend Glider knows it.
CARPETBAGGER STATEMENT OF THE YEAR: SHOWS THE LIMITED THINKING OF A BLACK RACIST FILIPINO CRYBABY! Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
BY SOCIAL DEFINITION: THIS CHILD IS BLACK TOO!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glider:
quote:
These ancient Egyptians are by social definitions indeed black and they are indigenous to African. So yeah. And you know it, and your friend Glider knows it.
CARPETBAGGER STATEMENT OF THE YEAR: SHOWS THE LIMITED THINKING OF A BLACK RACIST FILIPINO CRYBABY!
LOL There is nothing "limited" about it but rather logical. No skin color is truly black. Even southern Sudanese do not have a skin color that truly black but come close to it. The skin pigment or melanin if anything gives various shades of brown. The more melanin, the darker the complexion.
And again, like most Filippinos I'm not black. There are black Filippinos yes but despite what you Takruri wish, I'm not one. Ironically, I notice you attach the word racist to black, yet you use the word black as an insult. It does not matter what color I or anyone else is. There are whites who post here and akcnowledge the truth. And the truth is ancient Egyptians are indigenous Africans and are considered by today's standards as black...
They are even considered by their own standards as black since they called themselves Kememu which means the same.
The only crybaby I see around here is YOU. Crying because the people whose heritage you claim are black Africans but you don't like it!
quote: BY SOCIAL DEFINITION: THIS CHILD IS BLACK TOO!
Of course! And your point?? What is that child suppose to represent? There are black people in Asia. But I'm not one of them if that's what you think.
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
BLACK LIKE ME? BY YOUR SOCIAL DEFINITIONS?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ By the way, black peoples of Asia are the oldest populations in Asia and they directly descend from the first humans who left Africa where humans originated. The ancient Egyptians represent a population who never left Africa!
Tut says "black like me too!" Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
THESE PEOPLE WERE BLACK AFRICANS, EVEN BY ANCIENT EGYPT'S DEFINITIONS.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Um hmm. Like Cocolito Dominicans are "brown" Hispanics per your warped view. So then if brown because Hispanic why are they cocolitos?
You're trying, but failing, to play both sides of the race concept disagreeing with it where it doesn't effect you and plunging headfirst into it when it suits your very personal purposes.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: LOL! Are you sure they're black? Maybe they're just very dark. After all, as you say, black is only relative, right?
Sure, all skin color is relative. Black people are really of the color black but fall into shades of brown. Yet socially speaking people still makes distinctions between 'brown' Hispanics and black Africans. These ancient Egyptians are by social definitions indeed black and they are indigenous to African. So yeah. And you know it, and your friend Glider knows it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Um hmm. Like Cocolito Dominicans are "brown" Hispanics per your warped view. So then if brown because Hispanic why are they cocolitos?
No those are black Hispanics. I mean your 'typical' brown Hispanics in the US. My views aren't warped, but apparently your mind is to mistake me for Jaimie! LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glider: THESE PEOPLE WERE BLACK AFRICANS, EVEN BY ANCIENT EGYPT'S DEFINITIONS.
This makes no sense considering that not only did Egyptians not have any concept of 'Africa' but they did not call them black at least not as much as they called themselves black! Also, I don't recall the Egyptians ever having contact with the Beinin people of West Africa. LOL It seems the only standards you are following are your white racist own!
Don't deny the fully preserved painted images of Egyptians, Glider. Open your eyes to truth that your truly racist mind keeps closed to.
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ There are black people in Asia. But I'm not one of them if that's what you think.
By the way, black peoples of Asia are the oldest populations in Asia and they directly descend from the first humans who left Africa where humans originated. The ancient Egyptians represent a population who never left Africa!
Tut says "black like me too!"
KING TUT'S SPHINX...CRUSHING BLACK AFRICANS AND OTHERS
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes a black African king crushing black a African enemy as well as an Asiatic enemy. Wow I'm shocked! How many other black African kings have done the same? Even the West African kings of Benin have done this. LOL
What about white European rulers crushing their white European foes? I'm sure there's plenty of this also.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
More ancient Egyptians where the troll denies the obvious.
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
MEOW! MEWO! MEOW!
WE'RE ALL SHADES OF BLACK? Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
This thread is childish as all the threads this bored American is posting... [/LIST]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Why must you assume he's American, or that all racists are Americans??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glider: MEOW! MEWO! MEOW!
WE'RE ALL SHADES OF BLACK?
^ Translation: Waah! Waah! Why do ancient Egyptians have to be black?! Why does Egypt have to be in Africa?!
LOL Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
Glider is British and he bloody lives there too.
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus:
quote:Originally posted by Ferrous Cranus THE BLACK CARPETBAGGER TAKES HIS FIRST BATH!
The crying person is not black, but a Filipino.
THE CRYING BABY THINKS HE IS NOT BLACK, BUT ALL OTHER DARK PEOPLE ARE BLACK, EXCEPT HIMSELF.
THE FORK-TONGUED BLACK FILIPINO CHEERLEADER & CARPETBAGGER. Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
BLACK FILIPINOS ARE MY BROTHERS:
* SAME COLOR LIKE ME!
* SAME FLAT NOSE LIKE ME!
* SAME FLAT ROUND FACE LIKE ME!
* YES SIR, WE'RE TWINS!
BOY,I COULD'VE HAD A V8?
SORRY, I WAS BLINDED BY ALL THOSE WHITE LIES: "I'M VERY DARK, BUT NO-NO, I'M NOT BLACK". Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Validating racial stereotypes now are we? Which subset of the hodgepodge of peoples from damn near every continent except Australia is representative of your, not my, [stereo]typical Hispanic and why?
Must say though that I do like those images you posted. Especially the throw down. Boom shaka laka laka!
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Um hmm. Like Cocolito Dominicans are "brown" Hispanics per your warped view. So then if brown because Hispanic why are they cocolitos?
No those are black Hispanics. I mean [i]your 'typical' brown Hispanics in the US. My views aren't warped, but apparently your mind is to mistake me for Jaimie! LOL
Posted by Masonic Rebel (Member # 9549) on :
^ Well it looks like Glider have lost all of his higher brain functions, only the basic ones are left Like Trolling
White Egyptian Madness
Possible Next Stage beyond Ferrous Cranus
Note: using key words like Black Egyptian or Black Nation in reference to Ancient Egypt seem to cause incoherent ranting about Filipinos and Carpetbaggers.
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
KING TUT'S DOGS
THE ANCIENT PEOPLE OF EGYPT WERE NOT RACIST, BUT THEY MOST LIKELY KNEW HOW TO PAINT THE COLOR BLACK. Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
quote:Horus:Glider is British and he bloody lives there too.
What are your clues, there is a post I posted that only an American can react too...you know the drug addiction thing of the Great American people...he got very excited about...
Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
VIVA AMERICA!!! Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ahem! Ahem! Let's try to keep it civil.
Look like we have a situation here.
Glider posted pics of what he thinks are white egyptians. Not becauseof the color of their skin but becauseof the "features". Which he think black Africans DO NOT have. KEEP IN MIND the pics he posted are UNPAINTED or the skin is of the same color of the sculpting material.
DJ and I posted pics of Black egyptians with the skin PAINTED by AE.
So in other words this is how they viewed themselves. Their 1000's of FINISHED work shows this. There is no doubt they are black because they said so in their writing and in ALL of their artwork.
So here are Black Africans with wth the features GLIDER says is white/arab
BEJAs
BEJAs
AE
AE
So Glider . .. thisis the FINISHED artwork of the AE. Now ask yourself.
ARE THEY BLACK AFRICANS? Most logical people will say . YES.
Besides - in case you missed it - AE is of SUB_SAHARAN origin NOT middle eastern.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Here are "bantu" AE.
So if I was you Glider I would keep it civil. Some may be willing to listen to what you have to say.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Glider -
you still have not showed proof that AE were arabs. Infact Hawass even says so in the infamous BBC recording. He said "not black and not arab". Of course we know he is talking about West African/AA.
You do realize that most of the veterans, except DJ, are ignoring you because they have gone through this maybe 100s of time with new comers.
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Habari:
quote:Horus:Glider is British and he bloody lives there too.
What are your clues, there is a post I posted that only an American can react too...you know the drug addiction thing of the Great American people...he got very excited about...
LOL . You may not know this, but London is known for being worse than say, New York for cokeheads In fact, I KNOW Gilder is a cokehead Hey Tony, you can now get blue-magic quality gear for £60 at whitecity The only problem is, you're going to need a ghetto friend to get you in there
Pretty much all (fyi, I am generalising here) well-to-do white middle class Brits sniff the white horse now and again. It's quite popular to get offered a line at xmas parties or office outings after most attendees have gone home. For what it's worth, I've never been stupid enough to try something that I'd probably get addicted to, which would then consequently bankrupt yours truly (YH). I might try coca leaves infusion when I visit South America though.
A crack epidemic is developing in the London inner cities since a lot of youngins have got themselves addicted to coke but cannot keep up with the £60/gram show. Most of them won't ever see £60 in a day's work.
I know Glider is a Brit from his choice of words. If you lived in London, you'd know what I mean.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
With your pcis of the fight between AE and other africans (Nubians) is analogous to . . .. Somali fighting ethiopians. Heck infighting amongst Somali clans.
or the English hating and fighting the Germans. Can you telll their differences. I can't . . . .but they can.
I am sure they probably drew cartoons, stereotyping, their differences.
So in other words your pics show black skin africans fighting other black skin africans.
You should also check out - Encyclopedia Britanica on the Beja. Who they describe as the closest representation to AE.
SO your arguement should be - proving the Beja etc are NOT indegenous black Africans. It is FACT that Arabs are NOT indegenous to Africa.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Horus-
was just about to ask the same question. I thought was through the IP or PM ext.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
And bro, GLIDER, lay off the screaming. Do your research and come again. Some are willing to listen. . .at least me.
But do it in a logical manner. BUILD your case. Pic spam and debunked research is not going to work. . .on this forum.
As some of the vets say here - "where is your proof". Please bring NEW material that proves that AE were other than Black Africans.
I was like some AfroCentric -
1. Saying AE were blacks based upon a “few” pics of bantu AE. 2. I was sold on the "true negro" myth. I used to repeat the same garbage like " Cleopatra was black”. 3. I even thought that straight hair, straight nose and thin lips was an indication of admixture. (although I have very thin lips, and long face, lineage E3a). 4. I thought Somali, Ethiopians and other East Africans were mixed with Europeans because of aquiline features. Even though I knew some were coal black in skin color. Heck some of them even think that – Dr Henry Gates videos
Now I know that belief is FALSE based upon the numerous studies referenced on this site. These features are indigenous to all of Africa. . .. ie found in the West/Central Africa.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Stop starting so many threads with the same theme.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
I can't believe staff allows this sort of nonsense and tomfoolery. The Mods definitely suck and have abandoned their duty. Exactly why I don't come around here as often.
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Glider -
you still have not showed proof that AE were arabs. Infact Hawass even says so in the infamous BBC recording. He said "not black and not arab". Of course we know he is talking about West African/AA.
You do realize that most of the veterans, except DJ, are ignoring you because they have gone through this maybe 100s of time with new comers.
XYYMAN,
I'm not here to argue with MILITANT PHOBIC CONSPIRACY THEORY and SOMETIMES BLACK RACISTS.
My mission is to present the FACTS and MAINSTREAM IDEAS that are being ignored intentionally. You can't waste time with ZEALOTS and it is not my intention. I'm aiming for a larger audience, THE SILENT MAJORITY,WHO READ THIS FORUM.
Interjecting a little humor once in a while is OKAY, but you can never debate FANATICS. I'm actually the one who ignores most of the PERMANENT TROLLS and RIGHLTY SO, considering their worthless PICTURE SPAMMING AND SELECTIVE citations.
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Stop starting so many threads with the same theme.
You would be wise to offer this advice to the PERMANENT TROLLS and their PROTEGES.
Most of my topics are valid and objective. Like I have said before, I'm not here to please the PERMANENT TROLLS, rather I aim for a LARGER GROUP OF SMART READERS.
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
THE SAME NORTH AFRICAN CAUCASOID PEOPLE WERE PRESENT IN ANCIENT EGYPT. THESE PEOPLE ARE EGYPTIANS AND CONSTITUTE THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE (NOT INVADERS OR WHATEVER CARPETBAGGERS THINK) Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
Glider... want some more? Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glider:
THE SAME NORTH AFRICAN CAUCASOID PEOPLE WERE PRESENT IN ANCIENT EGYPT. THESE PEOPLE ARE EGYPTIANS AND CONSTITUTE THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE (NOT INVADERS OR WHATEVER CARPETBAGGERS THINK)
As most here realize and any sensible person will conclude - Looking at these 1000s of pics. These are black/brown skinned people living and being indegenous to Africa. Black Africans. There is No other way to look at it. Some are "true negro", some "east african", NONE Arab. ALL Black Africans. All sensible people, in the silent majority, will conclude that.
Sorry those people you show in the football shot DO NOT look the same as the shots Doug showed here.
As I said the last argument will be to demonstrate that the remaining peoples are NOT Africans. ie Beja, Somali, some Sudanese since they closely resemble AE. Through Cranial studies and genetics. But any fool can see the thick lips, pronagism(sp?), black/brown skins of AE are the strong "negroid" influence. Even some of them have coarse hair.
I can see the Arab having a sense of ownership since they lived there for close to 1500 yrs. But by then the AE cilization was dead. Infact most moslem don;t care about AE culturally. Plus it was sooooo AFRICAN.
Come to think of it - Carpetbaggers may be an appropriate term in this instance .. .also.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Glider: QUOTE]So why don't they look like this:
Also - If you are such a "proud" Egyptian then I assume you are NOT a proud Arab. Because Arabs invaded your counrty and converted all to non-African culture.(not Arab bashing but sorting through the facts).
Again keeping in mind the FACT AE is sub-saharan in origin. And if you want to contest that . . .talk to your peers. . . NG and Leftkowitz etc.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glider: BLACK FILIPINOS ARE MY BROTHERS:
* SAME COLOR LIKE ME!
* SAME FLAT NOSE LIKE ME!
* SAME FLAT ROUND FACE LIKE ME!
* YES SIR, WE'RE TWINS!
BOY,I COULD'VE HAD A V8?
SORRY, I WAS BLINDED BY ALL THOSE WHITE LIES: "I'M VERY DARK, BUT NO-NO, I'M NOT BLACK".
LOL Yes, very dark compared to typical fair-skinned Asians. There are many people with dark complexions but are not 'black'. But don't try to lie to yourself thinking that only black people accept the truth and don't try to distract this thread from it.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Validating racial stereotypes now are we? Which subset of the hodgepodge of peoples from damn near every continent except Australia is representative of your, not my, [stereo]typical Hispanic and why?
No I validate no stereotype. I merely meant my complexion is like those of Mexicans. But I don't deny black Dominicans as Hispanics also. Again, why don't you talk to Jaimie about that, not me.
quote:Must say though that I do like those images you posted. Especially the throw down. Boom shaka laka laka!
The struggle continues..
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Habari: Glider... want some more?
Yeah, Glider is snorting that stuff if he still thinks the ancient Egyptians weren't black.
Glider, didn't anyone tell you drugs are bad for you? Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Regardless how desperate our angry afangi friend is, the fact is still clear Egyptians are black Africans and their features are not uniqe whether it be short round noses or long straight noses, full lips or thin lips.
And their culture is equally African...
From North Africa to South Africa.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Glider:
LOL Yes, very dark compared to typical fair-skinned Asians. There are many people with dark complexions but are not 'black'. But don't try to lie to yourself thinking that only black people accept the truth and don't try to distract this thread from it.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Validating racial stereotypes now are we? Which subset of the hodgepodge of peoples from damn near every continent except Australia is representative of your, not my, [stereo]typical Hispanic and why?
No I validate no stereotype. I merely meant my complexion is like those of Mexicans. But I don't deny black Dominicans as Hispanics also. Again, why don't you talk to Jaimie about that, not me.
quote:Must say though that I do like those images you posted. Especially the throw down. Boom shaka laka laka!
The struggle continues..
Djehuti, please leave the dark but not black stuff alone. It doesn't sound right no matter how you try and spin it.... You are only giving people ammunition to use against you. The boy in the picture is black.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Glide-mo: who's phobic other than yourself? I have Arab friends, one or two of whom I've told the Egyptians were black (who didnot get offended, but was skeptical at first - what right did he have to get offended? Though, I suppose there are some Arabs and others who assert that Ancient/Egypt's population was recently darkened by Arab migration - LOL - and who, like you would likely have to suppress real hostile feelings if someone were to even liken the Egyptians to 'negroes', and who use European racist words like n- -er.
Who's delusional? And why, in the "middle east" where there was African migration in the Neolithic do we use the law of Occams Razor, but in Egypt you could just shout phony hypothesis and lame assessments porposing that Egyptians were mixed, or somehow African but non-African, without proof?
Why'd you try to hide your true-colors in the first place?
Good times, when they think it's about 'winning', and think they could possibly 'win' with pictures and slander:
quote:Originally posted by KAWASHKAR:
[...]these Egyptian students.
And who don't look African like [...]
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^Correction, Arab Egyptian students.
Here are rural non-Arab Egyptian school students
quote:Originally posted by KAWASHKAR:
[...]And who don't look "African", like this warrior:
quote:Of course not but the ancient Egyptian warriors sure do-- spears and shields and all!! LOL
Posted by Glider (Member # 12976) on :
EGYPTIAN WOMEN HAIR DRESSING A NUBIAN LADY
NOTICE THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE PALE EGYPTIAN WOMEN AND THE NUBIAN LADY. MORE THAN JUST THE SKIN COLOR. Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
“If you do not understand White Supremacy (Racism) - what it is, and how it works - everything else that you understand, will only confuse you.” - Neely Fuller, Jr. (1971)
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The vets may confirm this. But I understand that the glyphs say that the dressers are "asian". The woman is egytian but the attendants are asian(middle-eastern).
quote:Originally posted by Glider: EGYPTIAN WOMEN HAIR DRESSING A NUBIAN LADY
NOTICE THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE PALE EGYPTIAN WOMEN AND THE NUBIAN LADY. MORE THAN JUST THE SKIN COLOR.
For the knuckle-heads. AE is Sub-Saharan not middle-eastern and definitely NOT Nordic. Give it a rest. Even your people say so. . . . . . . . . . .
Excerpted from her Book Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History by Mary Lefkowitz
On the Origins of the Egyptians Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.
Mary Lefkowitz is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Wellesley College. She is the author of many books on ancient Greece and Rome, including Lives of the Greek Poets and Women in Greek Myth, as well as articles for the Wall Street Journal and the New Republic. She is the co-editor of Women's Life in Greece and Rome and Black Athena Revisited
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yes. . . your CHAMPION . . . . Leftkowitz . . . . also agrees!!
Posted by Ta Setis revenge (Member # 15713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glider: Scholia Reviews ns 5 (1996) 29.
Black Athena Revisited edited by Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy Maclean Rogers.
Chapel Hill & London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Pp. xxii + 522. ISBN 0-8078-2246-9. US$55.00.
Toby A.H. Wilkinson Christ's College, Cambridge.
In the latter half of the twentieth century, no other book on the ancient world has created as much of a storm as Martin Bernal's Black Athena.[[1]] Since the publication of the first volume in 1987, nearly seventy reviews, articles and films have appeared discussing the book, its goals, methods and hypotheses. Responses to Bernal's second volume published in 1991 (two more are promised), have added to the enormous literature surrounding the work. Black Athena Revisited represents a collection of scholarly responses to Bernal's first two volumes. Some of the contributions have already appeared elsewhere as review articles, others were specially written for this volume. Between an introductory paper by Mary Lefkowitz and a summarising conclusion by Guy MacLean Rogers, the volume comprises eighteen papers by experts from the United States, the United Kingdom and Italy. As befits a book as wide-ranging in its scope as Black Athena, the contributors to Black Athena Revisited are drawn from an impressive variety of academic fields. The papers are arranged in seven broad categories, each addressing a particular aspect of Bernal's work: Egypt, race, the Near East, linguistics, science, Greece and historiography. It is a testament to the impact of Black Athena that so many distinguished contributors have combined to review the work and its implications for past and present scholarship of the ancient Mediterranean world.
In her introduction, 'Ancient history, modern myths' (pp. 3- 23), Mary Lefkowitz examines both the history of western Classical scholarship and the ancient Greeks' own myths about their origins. Bernal's central charges in Black Athena are: (1) that ancient Greek civilisation was massively influenced by Egypt and Phoenicia, and (2) that eighteenth and nineteenth century scholars deliberately obscured the Afro-Asiatic roots of Classical civilisation for reasons of racism and anti-Semitism. Equally, perhaps more controversial, is Bernal's claim that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans, a theory which gives Black Athena its title and which has made the book a cause ce/le\bre amongst Afrocentric ancient historians. These important questions are tackled head-on by the individual papers which form the body of Black Athena Revisited. Lefkowitz casts her own severe doubts - 'to speak of the ancient (or modern) Egyptians as "black" is misleading in the extreme' (p. 21)[b] - but also makes the crucial point, echoed by other contributors: that Afrocentrists, 'in the process of claiming Greek history as their own [b] ... will miss an opportunity to learn about real Africa and its own achievements and civilizations' (p. 21). John Baines offers an Egyptologist's perspective in his paper 'On the aims and methods of Black Athena' (pp. 27-48). Bernal's insistence on the significance of Egypt for the development of Greek civilization means that his limited use of the Egyptological evidence seriously weakens his argument. In this and other areas, and in common with the other contributors to the volume, Baines expresses grave reservations about Bernal's scholarly methods. Two quotations will suffice to illustrate the point: 'Bernal's reluctance to engage with ancient Near Eastern civilizations on their own terms leads to bizarre interpretations' (p. 45); 'his concern with race also leads him to adopt models of ancient ethnicity that are both inappropriate to the materials studied and ethically somewhat distasteful' (p. 46). A second Egyptologist of renown, David O'Connor, takes a more conciliatory tone towards Bernal, but is no less critical in his conclusions. 'Egypt and Greece: the Bronze Age evidence' (pp. 49- 61) concentrates on the textual evidence for relations between Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean during Egypt's Middle and New Kingdoms. Middle Kingdom connections with the Aegean seem to have been rather loose and sporadic; the New Kingdom data, although suggesting a degree of contact, 'do not imply the substantial cultural impact of Egypt upon the Aegean required by Bernal's theory' (p. 60). O'Connor points out that years of fieldwork in the Aegean have failed to produce any evidence for an Egyptian colonisation. In conclusion, Bernal's arguments are 'unpersuasive, so far as the Egyptian evidence ... is concerned' (p. 61). Frank Yurco provides a broad but detailed assessment of the Egyptian evidence so central to Bernal's theories ('Black Athena: an Egyptological review', pp. 62-100). In his downplaying of the role of Mesopotamian cultural influences in the formation of Egyptian civilization, Yurco is out of step with the most recent Egyptological opinion. Likewise, Yurco's statement that the Middle Kingdom Mit Rahina inscription 'does attest an Egyptian-ruled Asiatic empire' (p. 73) contradicts the usual interpretation of this important monument (as given by O'Connor, p. 54). Yurco also accepts rather more of Bernal's arguments, describing his claims for Egyptian influence on the Greek world as 'in essence reasonable' (p. 95). Nonetheless, Yurco is keen to emphasise the difference between trade and rule: the presence of Egyptian and Hyksos artefacts on Crete attests to the former, not the latter. For the Afrocentrists who have seized upon Black Athena, the issue of race - more particularly, the race of the ancient Egyptians - lies at the heart of Bernal's work.[b] Black Athena Revisited includes three papers on this subject: 'Ancient Egyptians and the issue of race' by Kathryn Bard (pp. 103- 111); 'Bernal's "Blacks" and the Afrocentrists' by Frank Snowden (pp. 112-128); and the contribution by C. Loring Brace et al., 'Clines and clusters versus "race": a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile' (pp. 129- 164).[b] Bard assesses the representational and linguistic evidence from ancient Egypt, both of which distinguish the Egyptians from their southern sub- Saharan neighbours. Bard stresses that 'Egyptians were ... neither black nor white as races are conceived of today' (p. 104). Moreover, 'to state categorically that ancient Egypt was either a black - or a white - civilization is to promote a misconception with racist undertones' (p. 111).[b] This aspect of Bernal's argument is picked up by many of the contributors to Black Athena Revisited, and emerges as one of the central criticisms of his work. Indeed, in the conclusion to the volume, the editors call upon Bernal 'to reject publicly, explicitly, and unambiguously any theories of history which conflate race and culture' (p. 453).[b] Snowden accuses Bernal of misusing the ancient evidence relating to ethnic or colour terminology. He warns 'substituting fiction for fact is a disservice to blacks' (p. 127). Echoing Lefkowitz's opening remarks, he points to the important achievements of Nubia, 'a black African culture of enormous influence and power' (p. 121), ironically neglected by Afrocentrists in their emphasis on ancient Egypt. C. Loring Brace et al. present the results of a detailed scientific examination of ancient Egyptian cranial material. Comparisons between the cranial morphology of Egyptians and other populations indicate that the former have 'nothing whatsoever in common with Sub- Saharan Africans' (p. 145). Although their evidence refutes Bernal's identification of the Egyptians as black Africans, the authors deplore the very attempt to categorise the ancient Egyptians by modern concepts of race. Not only did the race concept not exist in ancient Egypt, 'it has neither biological nor social justification' (p. 162). Particular scorn is poured upon Bernal and his 'unscholarly methods' (p. 167) in 'The Legacy of Black Athena', by the ancient Near Eastern specialist Sarah Morris (pp. 167-174). She deplores Black Athena's 'cumbersome detours ... and ... labored misunderstandings' (p. 167), and regrets that Bernal has 'only contributed to an avalanche of radical propaganda without basis in fact' (p. 174). In particular, Morris argues, Bernal's emphasis on ancient Egypt has blinded him to the strong connections between Crete and the Levant, connections which were 'more critical to long-term developments' (p. 169). Echoing the concerns of Lefkowitz and Snowden, Morris asks 'Why does African America need Egypt, more than it does the magnificent cultures of the West African coast, to legitimize its past and present?' (p. 171). A central plank of Bernal's argument is his assertion that the Greek language shows massive Egyptian and Semitic borrowing. In their detailed yet highly readable paper, 'Word Games' (pp. 177- 205), Jay Jasanoff and Alan Nussbaum expose the vast majority of Bernal's proposed etymologies as false. Thus, two leading authorities on Greek language demonstrate the emptiness of Black Athena's linguistic arguments, adding that 'in relation to Bernal's overall project, the linguistic evidence is worse than unhelpful' (p. 201). The longest contribution to Black Athena Revisited is Robert Palter's 'Black Athena, Afrocentrism, and the history of science' (pp. 209-266). This examines the scientific achievements of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks in the fields of astronomy, mathematics and medicine. Comparison of the three civilizations shows Babylonian astronomy to have been far more advanced than Egyptian, whilst in the field of mathematics 'it is difficult to see how the peak Egyptian achievements ... could ever have led to Greek mathematics' (p. 255). Finally, a number of fundamental differences between Egyptian and Greek medicine lead Palter to question the proposed influence of Egypt on Greece in this field too. The conclusion must be that Greek science probably owed as much, if not more, to Babylon as it did to Egypt. The claims of Black Athena have shaken three fields of study in particular: Egyptology, Classics and historiography. The final two collections of papers in Black Athena Revisited represent the response of the last two disciplines to Bernal's arguments. The Greek perspective is expressed in three papers by Emily Vermeule ('The world turned upside down', pp. 269- 279), John Coleman ('Did Egypt shape the glory that was Greece?', pp. 280-302) and Lawrence Tritle ('Black Athena: vision or dream of Greek origins?', pp. 303-330). Arguing that 'no one has ever doubted the Greek debt to Egypt and the East' (p. 272), Vermeule's paper has the character of a polemic against Bernal. She criticises 'the constant perversion of facts in Bernal's second volume' (p. 273), and lambasts the work as 'a whirling confusion of half-digested reading, bold linguistic supposition, and preconceived dogma' (p. 277). Coleman provides a calmer assessment of the evidence for Greek origins; his conclusions are no less dismissive of Bernal's claims. There is not a shred of historical, archaeological or linguistic evidence for a Hyksos invasion and colonisation of Greece in the second millennium BC, whilst Bernal's uncritical interpretation of Greek myth as historical fact ignores 'the generally accepted tenets of rational analysis' (p. 292). Tritle castigates Bernal for his 'simplistic' use of ancient sources, and points to a serious weakness in his 'Revised Ancient Model': although Black Athena argues for massive Egyptian influence on early Greek civilization, 'Bernal never pauses to consider the essentially isolationist nature of the ancient Egyptians' (p. 320). As Baines has already pointed out, Bernal's misunderstandings of Egyptian civilization do great damage to his argument. Perhaps Black Athena's gravest contention is that Classicists and ancient historians in the West deliberately obscured the Afro-Asiatic origins of Greek civilization, driven by motives of racism and anti-Semitism. This is an immensely damaging accusation for western scholarship as a whole, and no fewer than six papers reply to Bernal's withering criticism of western historiography. Edith Hall - in the volume's most charitable response to Black Athena ('When is a myth not a myth?: Bernal's "Ancient Model"', pp. 333-348) - believes that 'we ... cannot dismiss Bernal's book out of hand' (p. 335). However, she argues that Black Athena demonstrates an unsophisticated approach to myth, and confuses subjective and objective ethnicity: 'there is a world of difference between saying that the Greeks were descendants of Egyptians and Phoenicians, and saying that the Greeks thought that they were descended from Egyptians and Phoenicians' (p. 336). In his second contribution to Black Athena Revisited, 'Eighteenth-century historiography in Black Athena' (pp. 349-402), Robert Palter points to 'fundamental errors in [Bernal's] understanding of eighteenth-century political, social, and cultural history' (p. 350). Bernal is charged with wilfully mis-reading eighteenth-century writers, labelling them all as racists, and ignoring the ambivalence and variety in their attitudes towards Greece and Egypt. Palter, then, accuses Bernal of deliberate selectivity in his scholarship, citing his 'all too frequent failure to mention crucial facts whose existence would be embarrassing or inconvenient for him to acknowledge' (pp. 389-390). Bernal's methodology comes under further attack (if further were needed) from Mario Liverani ('The bathwater and the baby', pp. 421-427), who characterises Black Athena as 'politically disruptive and historically regressive' (p. 424). Robert Norton offers a specialist paper, 'The tyranny of Germany over Greece?: Bernal, Herder, and the German appropriation of Greece' (pp. 403-410), in which he discusses the views of the German writer Herder. Once again, Bernal is charged with mis-representation. Richard Jenkyns assesses nineteenth-century scholarship in 'Bernal and the nineteenth century' (pp. 411-420): classicists and historians of the period were certainly not blameless in their hidden political agendas, but neither were they as uniformly racist as Bernal paints them. This is also the conclusion of Guy MacLean Rogers in the last paper of the volume, 'Multiculturalism and the foundations of western civilization' (pp. 428-443). In the greatest of ironies, Black Athena's emphasis upon race and ethnic origins unwittingly returns 'to the nineteenth-century style of "race"-bound and ethnocentric historiography that Bernal himself ... has so rightly questioned' (p. 440). If two points, of sadness and hope, emerge most clearly from the critical responses to Black Athena contained in this book, they are the following: on the one hand, the self- defeating argument of Bernal's work, which 'succumbs to exactly the Eurocentrism it was written to combat' (p. 452); on the other hand, the forceful belief that 'the ancient cultures of Africa and the Near East do not need to be the founders of the West to be worthy of global interest and study; they are intrinsically interesting' (p. 442). Black Athena Revisited is an immensely stimulating volume, offering a collection of insightful articles by experts from a diversity of disciplines. In this respect, Bernal has undoubtedly done archaeologists and ancient historians a great service, forcing 'would-be critics to expand their horizons far beyond their areas of expertise' (p. 294). Bernal's central hypotheses are universally rejected, although the papers in Black Athena Revisited vary in tone from the polemical to the constructively critical. Whilst one or two come across as little more than extended attacks on Bernal and his methods - perilously approaching character assassination in one instance - other papers are veritable gold-mines of the best of contemporary scholarship. All contributors agree on the fundamental shortcomings of Bernal's work, yet all have seen the need to respond to one of the most controversial and challenging academic enterprises of this century. With parts three and four of Bernal's magnum opus promised in the near future, one thing is certain: Black Athena will be revisited many more times before the debate subsides.
NOTES
[[1]] Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afro- Asiatic roots of Classical Civilization. Vol. 1: The fabrication of ancient Greece 1785-1985. (London 1987); Vol. II: The Archaeological and Documentary Evidence (New Brunswick 1991).
There is something seriously wrong with you if you quoted anything from Mary Leftkowitz...
She is as racist as David Duke and less prettier than he... You'll have to take her with a grain of salt along with the rest of your meds...
By the way, does Rush Limbaugh know your here?
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
^ Big up Newark.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes we all know Dirk is the same as Glider. I don't see any point in resurrecting his old threads, especially when the fool creates several more a day.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ and we know from the previous posts in this thread how much of an insidious anti-black Eurocentric you are. lol
quote: "You're trying, but failing, to play both sides of the race concept disagreeing with it where it doesn't effect you and plunging headfirst into it when it suits your very personal purposes. " - great jew
Everyone knows you Mary, the gigs up. lol
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Calling Dr Lefkowitz a racist is pathetic. That is a worn out stick that no longer works. Bernal lost the argument because he was unable to convince classical scholars he was correct. It is no more complicated than that. That happens everyday in academia.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ But recent evidence has proven Bernal to to correct. And whether Lefkowitz is racist or not is besides the point. She is definitely Eurocentric, but she is also WRONG.
Both you and Lefkowitz are just misguided fools but at least you are not as deranged as the troll above you who thinks I'm Lefkowitz! LOL Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: No those are black Hispanics. I mean your 'typical' brown Hispanics in the US. LOL
What's a typical brown Hispanic in the U.S.?
What's the difference between a black, brown or white Hispanic?
You can also explain what a Hispanic is, and how does one qualify as such?
Please do elaborate..
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
One is an of Indian backround, the other is negroid.
You are a sick pup Djehuti and dumb as a brick. Bernal did not convince classical scholars of his points period. That is the end game. You do not make the rules on Egyptsearch for the scholarly community. The FACT is classical scholars agree with lefkowitz. You can squeal all you want but nobody is listening.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: One is an of Indian backround, the other is negroid.
Perhaps you mean Native American and African?
Anyway, you make no sense. Basically you're telling me that to you there are no brown skin Hispanics who are of African descent? That they have to be Native American?
What about the Native Americans who mixed with Africans, or Africans who mixed with Spaniards throughout generations and became brown, are they to you Native Americans now?
I know many so called Hispanics who are brown and not of Native Amrican descent.
I'v seen Mexicans of Native American descent who are darker than Dominicans, Cubans or Puerto Ricans of obviously more African descent than anything else if any.
So what would the Dominicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans be considered to you?
Btw on a side note do you really consider all "Hispanics" (from Latin America to the Caribbean) as the same which is why you would adhere to such a pigeonholed label of "Hispanic" to a people of various different cultural and ethnic backgrounds?
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
No I did not say that. Obviously there are lighter skined negroids. In North America there are two BASIC groups of hispanics, one of Indian background, the other negroid.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: No I did not say that. Obviously there are lighter skined negroids.
You already know well enough that Negroid is a defunct term.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: In North America there are two BASIC groups of hispanics, one of Indian background, the other negroid.
This is absolute rubbish, and further shows your incompetence.
What basic groups of "Hispanics" are these?
You do know there are Mexicans, Cubans, Colombians, Ecuadorians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Venezuelans, Bolivians, Panamanians, Peruvians etc... all living in north America; right?
According to your faulty logic they all fall into two simple groups?
Not quite the Native American, African, and Spanish ancestry varies considerably throughout each country so your inaccurate labels are totally ignorant to this diversity.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Two basic groups. Obviously the groups you mentioned are subgroups under the general heading hispanic, at least the racial componet of that term.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Two basic groups.
According to what documentation?
You're so ignorant that it's sad.
Sorry but those are not two main groups and all so called Hispanics do not fall under those "racial" categories. The only thing that unites them under this fallacious label of "Hispanic" is the language they speak (Spanish).
Other than that people throughout these so called Hispanic countries have mixed long throughout generations.
Like I said, there are some "Hispanics" of more Native American and Spanish ancestry, some with more Spanish and African, some with more African and Native American, while a lot with all three combined....and then there are those who are, or lean towards the more pure African, Spaniard or Native American side as well.
The Native American, African, and Spanish ancestry varies considerably throughout each country and your inaccurate labels are totally ignorant to this diversity.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Obviously the groups you mentioned are subgroups under the general heading hispanic, at least the racial componet of that term
Wrong, the groups are not groups, but countries and in each country as Ive mentioned the Native American, African, and Spanish ancestry varies considerably.. they are all actually quite different.
Is this guy Native American, African or Spanish, and why? Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
run along, you are just tryin to pick a fight. We are sayin the same thing moron. Look up the definition to the word basic.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: run along, you are just tryin to pick a fight. We are sayin the same thing moron. Look up the definition to the word basic.
You dumb twit, we are not saying anything alike that's how slow you are.
You're saying there are only two kinds of "Hispanics" in north America, either African or Native American.
This is false, especially since there are millions who are both (Native American and African), and who also have Spanish ancestry as well.
They don't all fall into those simplistic categories you made up, sorry guy.
Btw again as already asked--please answer this--do you sincerely consider all "Hispanics" (from Latin America to the Caribbean) as the same which is why you would adhere to such a pigeonholed label of "Hispanic" to a people of various different cultural and ethnic backgrounds (Mexicans, Cubans, Colombians, Ecuadorians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Venezuelans, Bolivians, Panamanians, Peruvians etc...) ?
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ serves you right for tryng to debate an illiterate red neck. lol
Posted by Hypatia (Member # 14164) on :
Now that I am past the hoodwinking and bamboozling, I not only know that the GODDESS came before the God but also that BLACK WOMEN Ruled Egypt FIRST AND FOREMOST:
Stevie Wonder even told Ray Charles that Akhenaten IV was a female, because he too, saw those hips and just knew it was a woman. Not only are so-Called Egyptologists out of touch with the true reality of Ta Meri ---they also got what they thought they knew ---wrong...!
Pharaoh Akhenaten IV And The Sun Disk
quote:Originally posted by Glider:
OPEN YOUR BLACK RACIST EYES A LITTLE WIDER: AND SMILE!
REPEAT AFTER ME: ANCIENT EGYPT WAS NOT A BLACK AFRICAN NATION.
IT IS TIME THE WORLD KNEW THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH AND SAW THE "GAY" GRECIAN MYTHS BACKED BY WESTERN CIVILIZATIONS ECHO FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS---B/S!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
No those are black Hispanics. I mean your 'typical' brown Hispanics in the US.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
How many other black African kings have done the same? Even the West African kings of Benin have done this. LOL
Especially the throw down. Boom shaka laka laka!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Good times, when they think it's about 'winning', and think they could possibly 'win' with pictures and slander:
