egypt and greece

8/13/2019 Egypt and greece

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/egypt-and-greece 1/3

Ever since the emergence of Romanticism, Positivism, and Modern Orientalism etc. around 19th

century -which coincided with intensifying imperialist aggression- valorisation and glorification of

Europe at the expense of rest of the world, has been the norm in euro-centric “intellectual” arena,

which delegitimize, devalue and inferiorize the “other”. This otherization was important to establish

the European hegemony over rest of the world to justify its imperialist usurpation of rest of the

world. One such devaluation / valorisation is denial of Egyptian and Semitic influence on Greek

civilization (which has been important contributor to the later west European culture) 1

. With

emergence of systematic study of language, philology etc emerged the Aryan model which

associated and perpetuated linguistic “superiority” or rather similarity to that of racial supremacy.

Emergence of notions of superiority of Aryan race and stubborn implication of Aryan model in Greek

civilization had falsified the evidences which indicate strong influence from south-east

Mediterranean region. And it considered despite this Aryan invasion in Greek -unlike in the case of

India where natives were “dark” hence racial degradation- was pure since both invaders and natives

were “Caucasian” or “European”2

and denial of any influence of Egyptian or Phoneasian over its

language . Critique of this devaluation and indication of prevalence of strong Egyptian influence andpossible Egyptian colonization of Greece has been studied and explained in the path breaking work

of Martin Bernal. His approach has questioned the mentality and institutionally fixed paradigms of

classical studies3. But his work has been subjected to strong criticism of being misrepresenting and

“afro-centric”. Here the idea is to discuss some of Bernal’s critique and the alleged “afro-centric”

approach which makes Bernal’s and few other people’s work un-reliable and derogative. One of the

harshest criticisms of Bernal and his predecessors like George G.M. James and C.A. Diop comes from

Mary Lefkowitz, she believes that since Greek civilization is so great and it is human tendency to

associate oneself with or take share in the greatness of the civilization that, Africans exposed to

“western” education, tried to fabricate an association and influence over Greek civilization and

critiques Bernal’s too much literal reliance on Herodotus , though she accepts existence of contact

with Egyptians and Phoneasians but refuse to accept their significant influence over Greece and calls

Bernal’s work as nothing but “an apparently respectable underpinning for Afro-centric fantasies”.

Not so blunt but similar argument is put forward by Alex Joffe who though agrees and acknowledge

the Greek borrowings from Egypt but disagrees on Hyksos colonization of main land Greece and

critique Bernal for resurgence of “Afro-centrism”. I would like to discuss some of the blunt

argument Lefkowitz puts forward to critique Bernal and “Afro-centrism”, and contradictions and

similarity of those arguments with classical euro-centric understanding, first of all her claim of the

“great” Greek civilization and stake claiming by “western” educated African, out right refuses to

acknowledge the obvious and accepted notion that inter and intra -cultural influences is shared by

different civilizations around world which she herself conclude was prevalent. Secondly she critique

Bernal’s over and literal reliance upon Herodotus and myths, where as orientalist and classical euro-

centric historians have actually taken exactly these sort of earlier traveller’s account and myths to

construct and write about the orient, and she herself quote Greek myths to prove their indigenous

_________________________________________________________________________________1. Martin Bernal, “Black Athena Writes Back”, Duke University Press, 2001, p-2.

2. Martin Bernal, “Black Athena Writes Back”, Duke University Press, 2001, p -3.

3. Alex Joffe, “Review of Black Athena Writes Back ” , Journal of Near Eastern Studies , Vol.64, No.2, 2005, p-147.



status or nativity to Greece4, and marking away Herodotus’ work as mere sympathy for non-Greek is

the same misrepresentation which she associates with Bernal’s work and refusal to accept the

possible hints present in his work which shows Egyptian mastery over skills which are believed to be

specific to Greece . The “Afro-centrism” which is associated with Bernal and other works such as that

of Diop’s and George James’, I believe, is sort of counter defence argument for “euro-centrism”

which these works want to break. Agreed that there is a possibility that in its counter defensive

argument against “euro-centrism” and racist aggression, Works on African / Egyptian civilization,

might have gone overboard, (like in the case of Indian nationalist) but refusal and complete denial of

prevalent “evidence” and hints suggesting not just one way implantation of knowledge but a mutual

two way sharing and influencing, which was acknowledged by Greeks as well. And by marking

Bernal’s work as merely “Afro-centric” and by marking the work as academically “deviant” because

it used reference of those works which were considered as academically “deviant” by classical “euro-

centric” historians closes the door for the very “critical” thinking and open mindedness which Joff e

urges and warns in his critique of Bernal, which may not want to agree with it in literal terms but out

right refuses to even critically analyse , evaluate and take some of the significant points or aspectswhich the work offers. Isn’t it a faire enough historian job to read thoroughly, analyse with open

mind, try and read between the lines and then extract significant aspects out of a particular work or

“source” before being judgmental or critical about that work? Or coming with a pre conceived

notion? Bernal is critiqued and marked off as an outsider relaying on “unreliable” sources or works

where as by marking off something deviant and unreliable the so called “with in” discipline

historians have betrayed the very principle their discipline teaches.

__________________________________________________________________________________

4. Mary Lefkowitz, “Ancient History, Modern Myths”, in Mary Lefkowitz and Guy Rogers, eds., Black Athena Revisited , University of N. Carolina Press, 1996, pp-

9-10.

__________________________________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Martin Bernal, “Black Athena Writes Back”, Duke University Press, 2001.

2. Mary Lefkowitz, “Ancient History, Modern Myths”, in Mary Lefkowitz and Guy Rogers, eds., Black

Athena Revisited , University of N. Carolina Press, 1996.

3. Alex Joffe, “Review of Black Athena Writes Back” , Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol.64, No.2, 2005.

4. M.M. Levine, “The Marginalization of Martin Berna”, Classical Philology , Vol.93, No.4, Oct. 1998.

5. C.A. Diop, “Modern Falsification of History”, Lawrence Hill Books, Chicago, 1974.

6. George G.M. James, “Stolen Legacy: The Egyptian Origins of Western Philosophy” , 1954.

7. Edward Said, “Orientalism” , Penguin edition, 1995.



SUBMITED BY: SUBMITED TO:

NAME: R.G. DIVYA DR. Amar Farooqui

CLASS: M.PHIL HISTORY

ROLL NO: 354

DATED: 8-11-2013

egypt and greece

Documents