Li Siqi, Department of History, Fudan University
Huang Yang, Jin Shoufu (Zhang Jingyi)
"Black Athena" is Martin Bernard's most famous work. The work is both controversial and influential, and has been translated into more than a dozen languages in both the East and the West. The book concludes that the deep roots of classical civilization lie in Afro-Asian culture, but after the eighteenth century, the influence of these Afro-linguistic cultures was systematically ignored, denied, and suppressed, mainly due to racism. Bernard's attempt to subvert the traditional approach to European classical origins provoked an uproar in academia when the book was published. In 2020, Nanjing University Press and Sanhui Books put together the three-volume "Black Athena: The Roots of Classical Civilization in Asia and Africa", and invited two professors Huang Yang and Jin Shoufu of the Department of History of Fudan University and Li Siqi, a young teacher of the department, to make a dialogue on "Black Athena".
Black Athena: The Roots of Classical Civilization in Asia and Africa (three volumes), published by Nanjing University Press in 2020
Li Siqi: The Black Athena Volume I mainly discusses the different views of people on the origin of ancient Greek civilization in different historical periods. Bernard mentions two different modes of understanding in it: one is the "ancient model" and the other is the "Aryan model", what is the difference between the two?
Huang Yang: Bernard put forward a stark view in "Black Athena" that the roots of ancient Greek civilization were "in the East". This East does not include China or India, compared to the Greek civilization and The Roman civilization, the East of the ancient world refers to West Asia and North Africa. Bernard proposed that the roots of ancient Greek civilization were in Asia and Africa, so the subtitle of the English version of the book is The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, which literally translates to Chinese is "the African-Asian roots of classical civilization", and Bernard's "classical civilization" actually refers to ancient Greek civilization.
Bernard made the idea that the two hundred years of Western classics, or ancient Greek civilization, from 1785 to 1985, systematically ignored the influence of the "East"—that is, West Asia and North Africa—on Greek civilization. In the past two hundred years, European scholars have constructed a dominant model for the study of ancient Greek civilization, the so-called "Aryan model". Bernard argues that one of the core of the "Aryan model" is that European scholars tend to build Greek civilization as a civilization created by caucasians, that is, Aryans, that is, Indo-European peoples, after entering Greece. Scholars generally believe that the earliest origins of the Indo-European language peoples were in the north of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, and they were a Caucasian people from the north. Some of them entered Greece and created Greek civilization. Because they are Caucasians from the north, there is a traditional saying about this Indo-European language nation: they are Aryans. Bernard criticized the "Aryan model" as racist.
Bernard wants to argue his point by first subverting the two-hundred-year tradition of Classical or Greek civilization in the West, the "Aryan Model." The problem, he says, is that it is not a conclusion derived from ancient literature and evidence, but is the result of two hundred years of European values. This value includes the progressive tradition since the Enlightenment, the German Romantic tradition, and, more importantly, the racist tradition. The combination of these traditions led European scholars to imagine Greek civilization as a pure-bred Caucasian civilization, completely cutting and systematically ignoring the influence of the "East" on Greek civilization, so he wanted to overthrow this model.
Bernard argues that from the ancient and Greek literature, from the tragic poet Aeschylus of ancient Greece to the historian Herodotus to the philosopher Plato, they all accepted that the origins of Greek civilization were in the East, in Egypt—and more specifically, In Egypt and West Asia. Thus he said that the model in which the Greeks themselves understood the roots of their civilization was different from the model established by European scholars in modern times, which he called the "ancient model." He believes that the "ancient model" is closer to the real history, at least from the perspective of historical literature, this model is more convincing.
The first volume of "Black Athena" is aimed at the academic tradition of the whole of Europe, the academic tradition with the study of ancient Greek civilization as the core, including the study of ancient Egyptian civilization and the study of ancient West Asian civilization, and he wants to analyze this academic tradition and subvert such a model. In the second and third volumes, Bernard tried to argue what he called the "ancient model", of course, he used not only the historical materials of ancient Greece, but also the historical materials of ancient Egypt and ancient West Asia, especially the Phoenician and Hebrew civilizations and other much more extensive historical sources. It's actually a very difficult job. Because in modern scholarship, these fields are different disciplines, for example, Egyptology is studied in Egypt, Assyrianism and Hebrew studies are studied in ancient West Asia, and classical studies are studied in Greece. If most scholars can touch the doorway in one of these fields, it will be amazing, but Bernard wants to open up all of them and integrate them to write this book, and you can imagine how difficult it is.
Jin Shoufu: To truly understand Black Athena, you must first understand bernard's background. His father was a Jew of Irish descent, a radical scientist who won the Stalin Peace Prize in 1953; his mother was the daughter of the famous Egyptologist Gardner, a female artist with radical tendencies. Gardner single-handedly compiled the Egyptian Grammar, a book with hieroglyphic primers, grammar books, and dictionaries, and more than a hundred years later, it remains an essential reference book for Egyptologists and lovers of ancient Egyptian culture. Because his father was a stout industrialist, Gardner remained a free Egyptologist throughout his life, promoting and sponsoring young colleagues. I reckon Bernard inherited to some extent the superior family conditions of his ancestors and the radical ideas of his fathers, a family background that was closely related to his later academic career. Bernard once called his maternal grandfather a "racist."
Martin Bernard
Bernard's doctoral dissertation at Cambridge University, which studied anarchism in China, later taught at Cornell University in the United States, was sympathetic and supportive of China, especially the Cultural Revolution, and he was also a radical in the anti-Vietnam War movement.
The most crucial thing for our topic today is why Bernard, as an accomplished sinologist, changed his career, and how did he become a well-known expert on relations between West Asia, North Africa and Greece? There are many theories circulating, including one version that says that he encountered an academic midlife crisis: on the one hand, he felt that he had some lack of staying power in research potential, and on the other hand, he was dissatisfied with the fact that Sinology research in the United States gradually entered an increasingly solidified state around the 1970s. After the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, China embarked on the path of reform and opening up, and the U.S. war against Vietnam was nearing its end. All of this prompted Bernard to change his research direction to varying degrees, and he had the idea of finding his Jewish roots.
It is said that one day in 1979 Bernard was looking through a bookshop in London through a copt etymology dictionary compiled by the famous Egyptologist Cherny. Coptic is the last stage of the ancient Egyptian language. The sacred script, the priestly body, and the mass body are different systems of hieroglyphic writing. After the introduction of Christianity to Egypt, the Egyptians believed that hieroglyphs were idolatrous and blasphemous, believing that this pictorial script was no longer suitable for writing the Bible, so they decided to use the Greek alphabet to transscribe hieroglyphs and created the alphabet script - Coptic. Bernard found in the Coptic Etymology Dictionary that many Greek words are related to Coptic in origin. Some critics say bernard sowed the seeds for writing Black Athena at this time. This view is a bit extreme, but it also points to a key feature of Bernard's approach, which is to base major academic arguments on the similarity of individual words in the two languages. The ancient Egyptians transcribed their previous language in the Greek alphabet, and there was certainly a lot of Greek in their vocabulary. Bernard believed that more than twenty percent of the words in Greek came from ancient Egyptian, apparently putting the cart before the horse. Arguably, Bernard's "Noir Athena" is inherently inadequate, and his value orientation is often opposed to that of the establishment, and I feel that his work is indeed challenging, but it is really difficult to say how effective it actually is.
After the publication of his book, I reckon that he had also achieved his predetermined goal of causing controversy in the academic community. As I said just now, he has a feeling of exhaustion in the field of Sinology, if he changes careers, how can he enter the classical academic circle or other fields? If he follows the steps, he can only follow others, and the only way is to challenge. For this reason, we cannot expect his work to be based entirely on conclusive evidence: one man who went out of the house halfway and tried to shake up the academic framework that many scholars in classical academia had long constructed can only be said to be courageous.
Li Siqi: When Bernard explains the "ancient model", he often quotes some ancient Greek scholars and writers, such as quoting Herodotus's "History". Is there any controversy?
Huang Yang: Herodotus' History is a foundational work in the Western historiographical tradition, Cicero calls Herodotus the "father of history" in the West, but from the perspective of Chinese, we have our own historical tradition, not much later than in the West. To speak of the authenticity of History, the question is very complicated. What is authenticity? By modern standards, of course, many of its accounts may be untrue. But in the twentieth century, especially in the second half of the century, historiography has carried out profound reflection and reflection on the question of authenticity, which is the product of Enlightenment rationality and scientific rationality. The only criterion for evaluating historical research and historical works is whether the records are true or not. That is to say, a criterion of nineteenth-century European historiography became a one-size-fits-all criterion—not only for other peoples, but even for a work of any period in human history, whose author was responsible for authenticity. I think that, in a sense, this is the embodiment of the hegemony of European modernity, and there is not much reflection on this aspect of Chinese, but Indian historians have reflected more on this issue.
Today's scholars will relativize the question of "authenticity," or rather, not to exhaustively pursue it, but in turn to explore why Herodotus wrote it this way, and why it would be true in Herodotus's view. What is his society's concept of "truth"? Therefore, there will be different perspectives. From our point of view, of course he is unreal.
Bernard quotes Herodotus, Aeschylus, etc. in "Black Athena", such as Herodotus's description of Egypt, saying that the Greeks learned from the Egyptians, and so on, which is indeed Recorded by Herodotus. Bernard, then, thinks that these are all true—not only that these are true to Herodotus, but also absolutely true to us. But in fact, what is true to Herodotus is not necessarily true to us, depending on what is the objective criterion.
By today's standards, scholars of ancient Greek history will put at least a big question mark on some of these statements, or they will have to further study and examine: Herodotus said, "Greeks learn from Egyptians.", so which ones were learned from Egyptians? The problems need to be confirmed one by one.
Teacher Jin said that this book has a huge impact and a great academic contribution, but it does have many problems - it understands some of the more complex ancient records simplistically, or absolutely.
Li Siqi: Teacher Huang wrote an article called "Invention of Barbarian and Emergence of Orientalism: Classical Greece", which discussed the image of barbarians and the emergence of Orientalism in classical Greek civilization. It says that after the Greek-Persian War, Asians were portrayed by the Greeks as barbarians. Bernard's definition of the Aryan model, according to his argument, seems to have been an example of European societies since the eighteenth century. Comparing your article, does it mean that this mode of thinking can actually be traced back much earlier?
Huang Yang: This is a very interesting question.
Teacher Li mentioned my article, and I made a little explanation. As you may know, the ancient Greeks were a bit very similar to Chinese. Ancient Chinese divided the world into two parts, with Huaxia living in the middle and barbarians surrounding them; Of course, China was civilized and a state of etiquette; barbarians were backward, even barbaric. In this sense, the Greeks and the Chinese are particularly similar. In the fifth century BC, especially after the Persian Wars, the Greeks also divided the world into two parts, greeks and barbarians, which is reflected in literature and in art, including sculpture and painting. It is typical that Herodotus' Historia begins by saying that "Herodotus the Harikanassos publishes here the results of his research so that the past events of mankind do not pass by time, and the great and astonishing deeds of the Greeks and barbarians from becoming obliterated." In addition to Herodotus, many other classical writers also had this expression. The Greeks called everyone other than themselves barbarians, a word in Greek as βάρβαρος (barbaros), from which the English barbaric word comes from. My article is to illustrate how the Greeks came to the general idea that all foreigners were called barbarians, the invention of the concept of barbarians. In the latter part of the article, I am talking about the origin of Orientalism, influenced by the book of Edward Said, which I think is wrong in the domestic translation, and should be translated as Orientalism. Sayyid pointed out that the so-called "Orientalism" is, simply put, the European intellectuals who portray the "East", that is, the Islamic world, as a world opposed to European civilization. Europe was built as a democratic, civilized, and free world, while the Islamic world was built into a barbaric, backward, and authoritarian society. When it comes to the origins of Orientalism, the ancient Greeks were already like this, especially the Persian Empire and other peoples under its rule were portrayed as barbarians—they were inferior, autocratic, uncivilized, and even their appearance and character were inferior to those of the Greeks. That's what my article was about.
Orientalism, by Sayyid
Teacher Li's question said that if the Greeks had already seen it this way, then wouldn't the so-called Aryan model have existed in ancient Greece? So, what does Bernard think about this? First of all, he did not say that this was the Orientalism of the ancient Greeks,which certainly did not know about the concept of Aryan, which was proposed by later Europeans. He also recognized that, especially in the fifth century BC, the Greeks regarded other peoples as barbarians. In the first chapter of the first book on Thucydides, he says that Herodotus and Plato, both of whom acknowledged that the Greeks had learned from Egypt, and that the Greeks had some Egyptian or Phoenician ancestors such as Cadmus, Danaos, etc., but Thucydides did not mention anything, and regarded them as barbarians, and seemed to despise them. Bernard said it was Thucydides' nationalist ideas. He also said that in the fifth century BC, the view that everyone else was a barbarian was typical of Greek nationalism. Then he also said that this was Thucydides's "arrogance", using the word arrogance. Now scholars believe that the Greeks portrayed other peoples as barbarians as a way for them to construct their national identity, but Bernard obviously did not understand this aspect, so he simply said that it was a kind of Greek "nationalism", used the word nationalism, and mentioned it several times as the arrogance of the Greeks. Think about it, is this a satisfactory historical explanation? You can certainly dismiss it as arrogance, but it's a value judgment, not a historical interpretation. At this point, I think there is a problem. So Bernard downplayed the fact that the Greeks regarded other peoples as barbarians, because it was in conflict with his ancient model. He wanted to construct his own ancient model, not to mention that the Aryan model existed in ancient Greece. That's one of my understandings.
Li Siqi: Thank you Teacher Huang, the next question is also related to the Aryan model, the two teachers can express their opinions, do you think there is a problem with the term "Aryan model"? Or is there any controversy?
Huang Yang: Let me first talk about one of my understandings.
The word caused great controversy because the word "Aryan" was of course traditionally used by Europeans and was a concept invented by Europeans. In the early days, "Aryan" referred to the Indo-European language peoples, or a synonym for Caucasians. For example, I mentioned earlier that Aryans entered India, but because the Nazis preached that Germans were pure-bred Aryans, the word was associated with "Nazis." So scholars generally avoid using the term. This is also a point that has caused great dissatisfaction among scholars.
As Mr. Jin said, Bernard in order to be a hit, or from the ambition of a scholar, in order to construct a grand model of interpretation, of course, he has to put forward a more impactful concept, which is actually a bit too much. Bernard, a professor in the Department of Government Management at Cornell University, wrote articles criticizing him by his colleague John Coleman, a professor of classics at Cornell University, in which he specifically pointed out that the use of the "Aryan model" was inappropriate. Because in the current context, "Aryan" is a concept of white racism, and it is inappropriate to use this concept to construct a model of historical interpretation. Another American scholar, Mary Lefkowitz, a professor of classics at Wellesley College, felt that all classicists would become racists if the hat was pulled down. This is one reason for everyone's dissatisfaction with Bernard.
Jin Shoufu: I would like to say something from the perspective of Egyptology. Many European scholars pointed out in the eighteenth century that the term "Aryan" was problematic. Bernard later admitted that his choice of the word was somewhat deliberate. Nor was the title "Black Athena" meant by Bernard. According to Bernard's recollection, after completing the first volume, he ran a lot of publishing houses, "within the system" of the publishing house is reluctant to publish this book manuscript that can be seen at a glance, coupled with the foreign publishing house has a strict external review system, he reached a desperate situation, almost gave up the hope of publishing. Finally, one of his friends who was a small publisher agreed to publish it, perhaps for marketing purposes, encouraging Bernard to adopt an eye-catching but ill-founded title, "Black Athena." It should be added that Bernard did not have a centrocentric tendency at first, and later came together with those who held this creed consciously or unconsciously.
Europeans' perceptions and evaluations of ancient Greece and the ancient Near East went through a process of change: from the promotion of Eastern civilizations, including Egypt, during the Renaissance, to the gradual demarcation of europe as my Europe, and people outside Europe were regarded as "others" either because of skin color, or because of language and religion. In the seventeenth century, when Europeans talked about Greece, they admired Sparta over Athens, and when they talked about the classical period, they admired Rome over Greece. By the eighteenth century, the wind began to change, which had to do with the Europeans' quest for individual freedom and democracy. On this point, Bernard stabbed the crux of the problem in the first volume, so the response was relatively good. Although his criticism is excessive or partial, it is generally true. Involving volumes II and III, many rigorous scholars expect Bernard to further elaborate on the critical and constructive theories he put forward in the first volume with conclusive evidence. But he didn't do it, and I felt it was too hard to do it.
Western classical studies, Egyptology, as well as Assyrianism and other disciplines that study the ancient civilizations of West Asia have both connections and their own characteristics, which together constitute a huge disciplinary system that hundreds of thousands of people spent centuries to establish. Bernard's attempt to subvert the fundamental classical understanding of the origin and nature of ancient Greek civilization by virtue of one's academic upbringing is obviously impossible. At least from the perspective of Egyptology, there is really no convincing basis for saying that there is a transformation from the ancient model to the Aryan model in classical or Western academia. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Europeans had a tendency to belittle the Islamic world and to vilify Egyptian Arabs, but this tendency did not involve ancient Egypt, which is worth emphasizing. It is this history of the West that Said exposes and criticizes, so his theory of Orientalism contributes to a deep and comprehensive understanding of these tendencies. On the contrary, Western scholars did not deny the influence of ancient Egypt on ancient Greece, but with the decipherment of hieroglyphs and the birth of Egyptian archaeology, they tried to confirm and identify the accounts of classical writers from many aspects such as writing and cultural relics. Therefore, the attitude of Western scholars, especially classical scholars, to ancient Egyptian civilization has gone through a process from mainly basing on the works of the classical period to comparing and criticizing various materials, and the process can hardly be said to be from admiration to depreciation or denial and obliteration.
Li Siqi: When it comes to volume two and volume three, it involves more ancient archaeological materials and documentary materials. From the perspective of Egyptologists, if we talk about the historical materials of ancient Greece, but about the historical materials of ancient Egypt, because Bernard wants to prove that Egypt is the source of ancient Greek civilization, then he must prove that Egypt once colonized the ancient Greek mainland and islands. Teacher Jin, according to your research, are there any Egyptian historical sources that talk about the Egyptians and Phoenicians colonizing Greece?
Jin Shoufu: As I said earlier, Bernard's first volume is really shocking, of course, there are some people who are not convinced, and they have to wait and see. Those of us who do ancient history research know that the literature is a little bit, and if you look closely, Bernard basically uses materials that scholars have used countless times. He makes entirely new explanations that cannot avoid tendencies and selectivity.
Bernard argues that there were three periods in Egyptian history that had a significant impact on Greece (i.e., colonization), namely the Middle Kingdom, the Hyksos, and the New Kingdom, especially the Eighteenth Dynasty. In fact, the Middle Kingdom was founded on the basis of the end of the first intermediate state of state division, and the monarch's main energy was to consolidate his rule. The usurpation of the throne by the last monarch of the Eleventh Dynasty by his prime minister, and the death of the founding monarch of the Twelfth Dynasty in a palace coup, all illustrate the political turmoil. Given this historical context, it is clearly unlikely that the Egyptians would expand their power to Crete or the Aegean islands or even mainland Greece at this time. Interestingly, Herodotus said, there was a place called Colchis in present-day western Georgia, and Greek mythology about the Golden Fleece is associated with this place. Herodotus said that he had come across a group of dark-skinned, curly-haired, thick-lipped people here, and felt strange, asked about their origins, and they said they were Egyptians. Herodotus later went to Egypt and asked the locals about the matter, but no one could give an answer. Bernard argues that What Herodotus said was evidence of the Egyptians' outward expansion during the Middle Kingdom. The scholarly interpretation of this unusual historical source is that during the twenty-fifth dynasty of Egypt, the Nubians of black descent, the Assyrians attacked Egypt, and these Assyrians returned with a number of captives.
The issue of the ethnic and linguistic affiliation of the Hyksos has been controversial in academic circles. Some scholars believe they are a hurian branch, while others believe that their language belongs to the Semitic language family. In any case, the latest archaeological excavations show that while the Hyksos exercised their rule in Egypt, they established kingdoms with their religious and cultural roots in present-day Israel and Palestine, and traded with Crete and other places. Frescoes with characteristics of the Minoan civilization were unearthed in Palestine and found in the capital of the Hyksos people in the Nile Delta of Egypt. Most scholars believe that Minoan art spread to the eastern and northern shores of the Mediterranean, by artists from Crete who, like troubadours, brought popular subjects to the outside world. In Bernard's eyes, this phenomenon can only be explained by the colonization of Crete by the Hyksos who originally lived in Egypt.
On ancient Egyptian frescoes, the Hyksos wore brightly colored clothes
In what Bernard called the Third Stage, or rather the Eighteenth Dynasty of the New Kingdom, murals depicting people from Crete, Mycenae, and other places appeared in the tombs of officials on the west bank of the present-day Luxonello River. The ancient Egyptians portrayed these people who came from afar as tributes, and scholars considered them to be businessmen. In addition, royal statues of this period try to imply that Crete and the Aegean region were trampled at the feet of Egyptian kings. This was the usual method used by the Egyptian pharaohs to emphasize their power and power, and Bernard called Egypt in this period an "empire", thinking that the Egyptian-style objects found in Crete and other places were reliable evidence of the existence of this empire, but this was not the case. When talking about whether the ancient Egyptians colonized the outside world, we should consider the geographical environment of Egypt and the unique concept of life and the afterlife of the Egyptians. Herodotus said that Egypt was a gift from the Nile. Indeed, Egypt undoubtedly had many advantages over the Mediterranean region at that time, and because of this, Egyptians tended to live and work in peace. In the teachings and other literary works, the most unfortunate fate is to leave home. Throughout the ages, immigrants have been displaced for two reasons, one is that the destination is better than the place of residence, and the other is the natural and man-made disaster of the place of residence. In ancient Egypt, these two reasons did not seem to have reached the point where large numbers of people crossed the ocean. Above all, the ancient Egyptians believed that without the specific space made up of the Nile Valley and the west bank desert, the long-standing afterlife ceased to exist. It is in this context that the most effective evidence of filial piety in ancient Egypt is the return of the body of the father who died in the unfortunate country, whether for trade or war, to Egypt and buried according to tomb customs.
Li Siqi: Teacher Huang, according to your understanding, what is the relationship between ancient Greek civilization and Egyptian civilization? Is it mutual influence, or is there a deeper connection? What do you think of the connection between Egyptian and ancient Greek civilizations as understood by Bernard? Is there a sense of impact or identity?
Huang Yang: This is also a very good question. Teacher Jin has just said that trade exchanges, handicrafts, and the exchange of words, such as the Greeks borrowing words from the Phoenicians, this relationship is very close, and there are many mutual influences. This is something that modern people tend to overlook. We can't quite imagine the interaction and influence between ancient civilizations. Like the eastern Mediterranean world is still easier to understand, because the distance is relatively close, through the Mediterranean Sea is also more convenient. But even between ancient civilizations that are far apart, there will be influences and exchanges, although they may be indirect.
For example, ancient Chinese civilization, at least since the Shang Dynasty, has been influenced by the Iranian plateau and even by the Two Rivers Valley, especially like the ornamentation of bronzes, etc. I am not an expert in this area, but I have read some of it, but this influence exists. Therefore, even if the ancient civilizations are far apart, there will be mutual influences.
Returning to our theme, like the influence of Egypt and West Asia on Greek civilization, scholars have long recognized before Bernard, and some scholars have also done a considerable number of case studies on specific issues, such as Bernard mentioning that Cyrus Gorden and Michael Astour, two scholars who did ancient West Asian studies, studied the influence of ancient Phoenician civilization and Jewish civilization on Mycenaean civilization. Another well-known British classicist, Martin West, published Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient in 1971, arguing that early Greek philosophy was influenced by the ideas and ideas of the East and even Iranians.
In 1984, three years before Bernard's Black Athena was published, the world-renowned German-speaking classicist Walter Burkert, an authority on Greek religion, published a book that was later translated into English as The Orientalizing Revolution. When it was first published in German, the title was Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur. He said that in the hundred years from 750 BC to 650 BC, Greek religion and literature were deeply influenced by the East, and of course he spoke mainly of West Asia. There are many case studies like this.
If there is no problem with pure influence, but what does Bernard mean when he proposes the "Asian-African roots" of Greek civilization? I read it and thought he was very vague. Do you talk about influence, or do you mean that Greece came from Asia and Africa and Egypt?
For example, when he talks about the ancient model, he says that these writers in ancient Greece believe that Egypt played a "central role" in the formation of Greek civilization, using the central role, and in another place he said that both Egypt and West Asia had "influence" on Greece, using influence. Including the title of the book "Black Athena", as Teacher Jin just said, Athena is a symbol. Bernard proposed the "Aryan model", and one symbol corresponding to the "Aryan model" was Athena, a Caucasian woman who jumped out of the head of Zeus, the king of the gods, and she was fully formed when she was born. It is not right to use her metaphor for Greek civilization. Bernard's current "black Athena" is the editor's idea for him, which I have read, but the use of "black Athena" is a lot of questions - whether the ancient Egyptians were black people, the first question is a question. Many have questioned whether Bernard used the title "Black Athena" to describe the ancient Egyptians as black, which in itself proves that Bernard was also racist – this is what others attacked him.
In addition, the use of "black Athena" to symbolize Greek civilization, which means that the entire Greek civilization came from Egypt, which most scholars do not recognize. If he had said that Egypt had influenced Greece, he would probably accept it.
Editor-in-Charge: Yu Shujuan
Proofreader: Yan Zhang