Martin Bernal

Quotes

1. It is absurd to try to summarize this book in a dozen paragraphs, when even the previous hundreds of pages in which I have attempted to set out some of the complications of this vast and extraordinarily ramified theme can best be described by the Chinese expression ‘looking at flowers from horseback’.

   p. 439

2. 

   As...Giorgio de Santillana has pointed out, it is not accidental that Dupuis is so little known today. His beliefs continue to form a coherent challenge to both Christianity and the myth of Greece as a cultural beginning; thus he and his work had to be buried. Dupuis was a brilliant scientist and the inventor of semaphore, and was also active in politics during the French Revolution. His great reputation as a scholar and his dedication to moderate revolutionary principles made him a natural choice for director of cultural events during the Directory from 1795 to 1799, and he became president of the legislative body during the Consulate under Napoleon that followed.

   p. 182

3. 

   After the 1780s, the intensification of racism and the new belief in the central importance of ‘ethnicity’ as a principle of historical explanation became critical for perceptions of Ancient Egypt. The Egyptians were increasingly detached from the noble Caucasians, and their ‘black’ and African nature was more and more emphasized. Thus the idea that they were the cultural ancestors of the Greeks – the epitome and pure childhood of Europe – became unbearable. There was also a new crisis between Egyptian mythology and Christianity with the works of Dupuis, which represented the ideological or theological counterpart of the French Revolution’s attack on European social order. It is only with this background that one can make sense of the tormented career of Champollion during the years of reaction between 1815 and 1830. Although Champollion was an avowed revolutionary and an enthusiastic Bonapartist, one of his earliest discoveries discredited some of the theories of Dupuis’s supporters, and he and his decipherment were therefore welcomed by the Church and the Restoration nobility. On the other hand, his championing of Egypt over Greece combined with his political beliefs to infuriate Hellenist and Indianist scholars, who continued to do all they could to block his academic career.

   p. 224

4. 

   The fact that much of the uniquely Spartan political vocabulary can be plausibly derived from Late Egyptian is linked to the tradition that the Spartan lawgiver Lykourgos visited the East and Egypt to study their institutions. Moreover, the notion of Egyptian cultural influence there in the 9th and 8th centuries is strengthened by the strikingly Egyptian appearance of early Spartan art. All these link up with the Spartan kings’ belief in their Heraklid—hence Egyptian or Hyksos—ancestry; and would thus explain such anomalies in the Aryan Model as the building of a pyramid at the Menelaion, the Spartan ‘national’ shrine, and the letter one of the last Spartan kings wrote to the High Priest in Jerusalem, claiming kinship with him.

   p. 53

5. 

   In the Timaios, ... Plato admitted an ancient ‘genetic’ relationship between Egypt and Greece, in general; and Athens and Sais, the major city at the north-western edge of the Delta, in particular. But, rather implausibly, he claimed priority for Athens. Like some other Greeks, Aischylos and Plato appear to have been offended by the legends of colonization because they put Hellenic culture in an inferior position to that of the Egyptians and Phoenicians, towards whom most Greeks of this time appear to have felt an acute ambivalence. The Egyptians and Phoenicians were despised and feared, but at the same time deeply respected for their antiquity and well-preserved ancient religion and philosophy. The fact that so many Greeks overcame their antipathies and transmitted these ‘traditions [of colonization] so little accommodating to national prejudice’ greatly impressed the 18th-century historian William Mitford, who used it to maintain that ‘for their essential circumstances they seem unquestionable.’ Before Mitford no one questioned the Ancient Model, so there was no need to articulate a defence of it. Such motives of ‘national prejudice’ would help explain Thucydides’ failure to mention these legends, of which he was certainly aware.

   p. 22

6. 

   The ‘Ancient Model’ was the conventional view among Greeks in the Classical and Hellenistic ages. According to it, Greek culture had arisen as the result of colonization, around 1500 BC, by Egyptians and Phoenicians who had civilized the native inhabitants. Furthermore, Greeks had continued to borrow heavily from Near Eastern cultures.

   p. 1

7. 

   Despite his enthusiasm for the character and institutions of the Aryan Hellenes, Gobineau was convinced that Ancient Greece as a whole had been thoroughly ‘blackened’ and ‘Semitized’. He was among those who maintained that the modern Greeks were so mongrelized that they could no longer be considered as descendants of the Ancients. Indeed, his belief in the Phoenician influence on Greece was part of his general belief that Southern Europe had been irredeemably ‘Semitized’ and that only the Germanic peoples of the north had retained their ‘white’ purity. In this, however, he was clearly in the minority. While they were coming to share his views on Aryan superiority, most Northern Europeans were not prepared to give up Greece and Rome.

   p. 361

8. 

   Unlike the Ancients, the proponents of the Aryan Model were firm believers in ‘progress.’ Victors were seen as more advanced, and hence ‘better’, than the vanquished. Thus, despite apparent and short-term anomalies, history—now seen as the biographies of races—consisted of the triumphs of strong and vital peoples over weak and feeble ones. ‘Races’, formed by the landscape and climates of their homelands, retained permanent essences, even though they took on new forms in every new age. For these scholars, in addition, it was self-evident that the greatest ‘race’ in world history was the European or Aryan one. It alone had, and always would have, the capacity to conquer all other peoples and to create advanced, dynamic civilizations—as opposed to the static societies ruled by Asians or Africans.

   p. 31

9. 

   Most people are surprised to learn that the Aryan Model, which most of us have been brought up to believe, developed only during the first half of the 19th century. In its earlier or ‘Broad’ form, the new model denied the truth of the Egyptian settlements and questioned those of the Phoenicians. What I call the ‘Extreme’ Aryan Model, which flourished during the twin peaks of anti-Semitism in the 1890s and again in the 1920s and 30s, denied even the Phoenician cultural influence.

   p. 1

10. 

    I was staggered to discover that what I began to call the ‘Ancient Model’ had not been overthrown until the early 19th century, and that the version of Greek history which I had been taught—far from being as old as the Greeks themselves—had been developed only in the 1840s and 50s. Astour had taught me that attitudes towards the Phoenicians in historiography were profoundly affected by anti-Semitism; it was therefore easy for me to make a connection between the dismissal of the Egyptians and the explosion of Northern European racism in the 19th century.

11. 

    It seems...that the Aryan Model is being maintained very largely by its own tradition and academic inertia. Neither of these forces should be underestimated; nevertheless, they have been considerably weakened by a number of startling internal developments – all of which show that the Bronze Age civilizations were much more advanced and cosmopolitan than had been thought, and that in general the ancient records are more reliable than more recent reconstructions. Given these externalist and internalist contexts, I am convinced that even the Broad Aryan Model is untenable and that the Ancient Model will be restored at some point in the early 21st century.

    p. 402

12. 

    The scattered Jewish components of my ancestry would have given nightmares to assessors trying to apply the Nuremberg Laws, and although pleased to have these fractions, I had not previously given much thought to them or to Jewish culture. It was at this stage that I became intrigued—in a Romantic way—in this part of my 'roots'. I started looking into ancient Jewish history and— being on the periphery myself—into the relationship between the Israelites and the surrounding peoples, particularly the Canaanites and the Phoenicians....During this time, I was beginning to study Hebrew and I found what seemed to me a number of striking similarities between it and Greek.