Yeah Poe's so called authorities are all individuals who hold on to mythical beliefs that are vehemently rejected by all main stream ancient Greek historians.Lets see Bernal a Chinese
studies instructor who bases his theory on interpitation of myths is qualified to reject the work of Greek Historian/Acheologist Nicholas Hammond who spend 50 yrs in Greece studing Archelogical remains and who's specialty is Greek history.The Greek government awarded Hammond formal recognition something that Bernal/Poe will never get .Bernal himself acknowleges that he bases his theory almost entirely on linquistics.He points out that a large percentage of Greek words have similarities with Semetic ones.The moron is obviously to stupid to recognize that 30 % of iIndoEuropean words have Semetic counterparts as well as some Urlic similarities.That Greek is more related to PIE then Latin.Non Indoeuro Greek words were derived from Pelasgians who's language is similar to that of the Etruscans of Italy not the language of Egyptian/Cannites .The Minoan language has yet to be decoded so there is no proof it derives from Egypt.

THE REASON WHY VIRTUALLY ALL ANCIENT GREEK SCHOLARS REJECT BERNALS THEOROIES IS THEY ARE BASED ON PURE BULLSHIT!!!!!

NOTE Bernal even acknowleges that ercheological evidence to support his theories are lacking.

erase the repeated message, thanks

J.A. thanks for the tip. That kind of thing doesn't concern me though. I will just keep on doing what I do.

Martin Bernal is misrepresented.

The very basis of his theory is not that any one culture civilised another but that neighbouring culture is interlinked.

Wether or not he is right I can't say but his mythical comparisons between Greece and Egypt are sensible.

His definition of black does not strictly mean Negroid, unlike Afrocentrists. He is referring to the Caucasian "blacks" of East Africa.

He is a Marxist, but he is a Stalinist. If you know the Stalinists, you know they aren't fond of ethnic minority agendas. In volume 1, he even suggested that predynastic Egypt was settled by white Mesopotamians, who brought white culture to Egypt. If Bernal is "pro-black", isnt he "anti-black" at the same time for believing that?

>> Martin Bernal is misrepresented.

I have read Martin Bernal myself, and hence I am not influenced of others' representations of him.

>> The very basis of his theory is not that any one culture civilised another but that neighbouring culture is interlinked.

Yes, but you won't find much about Greek influence on Egypt and the Levant in his book. You'll only find about Levantine and Egyptian influence in Greece. It's the foundations of Hellenism that are the crucible. Also, Bernal questions the very centrality of Hellas as the unique source of classical civilization, by replacing it with a nebulous and mythological "Afroasiatic" source.

>> Wether or not he is right I can't say but his mythical comparisons between Greece and Egypt are sensible.

That is a matter of opinion

>> His definition of black does not strictly mean Negroid, unlike Afrocentrists. He is referring to the Caucasian "blacks" of East Africa.

There were a few blacks in Egypt, and a few mulattoes, but Egypt was mainly a North African, Mediterranean entity.

>> He is a Marxist, but he is a Stalinist. If you know the Stalinists, you know they aren't fond of ethnic minority agendas. In volume 1, he even suggested that predynastic Egypt was settled by white Mesopotamians, who brought white culture to Egypt. If Bernal is "pro-black", isnt he "anti-black" at the same time for believing that?

Rather than thinking of him as pro-this or anti-that, I prefer to think of him as either right, or wrong in his speculations. I think of him mostly as wrong.

"Yes, but you won't find much about Greek influence on Egypt and the Levant in his book. You'll only find about Levantine and Egyptian influence in Greece. It's the foundations of Hellenism that are the crucible."

That is why he doesn't mention the reverse influence much - Greece was a culture sink at first that later had a massive influence elsewhere He does actually compare Hellenisation to the coming of Islam in terms of effect.

"Also, Bernal questions the very centrality of Hellas as the unique source of classical civilization, by replacing it with a nebulous and mythological "Afroasiatic" source."

No, he certainly does not. Hellas is the origin of classical civilisation. But where was the origin of classical civilisation? It is obviously partly European - Greece speaks an Indo-European language. But it is also obviously linked to the Afro-Asiatic speaking cultures of the region.

>> But where was the origin of classical civilisation?

In Greece.

>> It is obviously partly European - Greece speaks an Indo-European language. But it is also obviously linked to the Afro-Asiatic speaking cultures of the region.

It's not partly European/partly Afro-Asiatic. If Greek civilization was a melting of pre-existing elements, then that would be the case. Greek civilization was however about the invention of non-existing cultural elements.

Incidentally, Greece's neighbors were Indo-European speaking or spoke other languages indigenous to the region. Afro-Asiatic speakers were not neighbors of Greece.

Where were the origins of Greek culture? Cultures don't just spring from nowhere. Each culture is defined by uniqueness but all have roots elsewhere. What foreign influences do you accept on Greece and when?

Afro-asiatic speakers were neighbours of Greece in the sense of inhabiting the eastern Mediterranean. It is hard to believe that there was no early influence to Greece from Egypt and especially Phoenicia.

Incidentally regarding Bernal and the Greeks, he does believe that the Philistines were Greek (not Minoan but Greek speakers). So the presence of very early Greek colonies would be a way in which Afro-Asiatic influence could reach Greece.

>> Where were the origins of Greek culture? Cultures don't just spring from nowhere. Each culture is defined by uniqueness but all have roots elsewhere. What foreign influences do you accept on Greece and when?

According to mainstream archaeology it is hard to identify any great breaks in Greek cultural continuity. Most of the foreign cultural influences tend to be of Anatolian inspiration.

Sure, the Greeks borrowed e.g., decorative motifs from Egypt, or a god or two from the Thracians, or clothing styles from Lydians, etc. etc.

But, if we look at the things that are usually associated with Greek civilization, these did not originate anywhere else. They were created only in Greece and were completely unknown previously.

>> So the presence of very early Greek colonies would be a way in which Afro-Asiatic influence could reach Greece.

If the Philistines were Greek, then they influenced the Levant, not the other way around. The Philistines are absent from Greek history.

In any case, Poe and his think-alikes make elaborate theories about what 'might' have happened. But, they can't name a single of the distinguishing elements of classical civilization that pre-existed outside Greece.

Whoever wrote this piece of nonsense really ought to learn how to spell and to write "Semitic" for example instead of "Semetic." G. Post

The mere existence of the pyramids is sufficent to expose the fraud that Greece is the origin of civilization.It was the Greeks that sent their scholars to Egypt for higher learning.Both Aristotle and Plato were among the many Greeks educated by Egyptian Preists. The Academy,founded by Aristotle,was based upon all the knowledge he aquired at the Temple universities in Egypt.These were the world's first universities and it was amongst this system that the scientists,nmathematicians,engineers,etc.,were trained that conceived the pyramids.All this at a period (2600B.C.)when both the Greeks and Romans were yet BARBARIANS.

Nonsense. When the Greeks conquered Egypt, scientific discourse was carried out in the Greek language. The Library contained books in the Greek language. There are virtually no references to "Egyptian" philosophers and scientists in the Greek authors of the Hellenistic age. If you visit a library, you will see several aisles of Greek books and half a shelf of Egyptian ones. This is even more suprising since the climate of Egypt favors the preservation of written texts.

The flourishment of both Greek and Roman culture coincides with each's sucessive conquest of Egypt.The primary spoils of Egypt's conquest were cultural and intellectual.Everything that had been Egyptian became "Graeco-Roman".One of the covert facts of history is the extent to which the Romans orchestrated the demise(extinction) of Egyptian culture.The genocide exacted against the native Egyptians is beguiled by history as a "persecution" based upon their "christianity", the Western name assigned to their religious cult after it's "persecution", expropiation,and re-emergence as "Roman Catholicism".For both Rome and Greece,Egypt was "the jewel of the nile".

The Greeks conquered Egypt in the third century B.C.,more than twenty centuries after pyramid construction,not to even mention the astounding complex of temples that are thousands of years older and as many times grandiose as anything in Rome or Greece.It was the GReeks and Romans who laced their capitols with Egyptian obelisks(plundered of course) and watered down versions 0f Egyptian archetecture,religion,philosophy,ect.The Romans and Greeks should pay homage to the ancient Egyptians,and tyey probably do in secret,for the Greeks and Italians(modern Romans),have to know the truth.Most of the delusion is from racist Americas.