There are two facets to the Black Athena debate. There is Black Athena, the book, and Black Athena, the debate. Both revolve around the cultural origins of Ancient Greece.

In 1987, Martin Bernal published the book Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. Vol. I. The book sparked open hostility from scholars but was soon in the public eye because of interest from the mainstream and smaller subgroups of the population who benefited from its publication, mainly Afrocentric organizations and groups looking to highlight the achievements of Africans throughout history.

Black Athena turned the way people study the ancient world on its head by stating that the racism of the past (the early 1800s until his book came out) buried the fact that Ancient Greece was heavily influenced by Egyptian and Phoenician influences. He wrote the Egyptian and Phoenician influences on Ancient Greece were widely accepted even by the Greeks themselves, but the modern Western world with their ethnocentric views wanted to believe Aryans had the largest influence on the culture (Bernal 1987).

With the flurry of attempts to disprove his work, Bernal published a second volume in 2001 in response. Black Athena Writes Back goes methodically through criticisms of his first book to defend his research and findings. There is a second volume to Black Athena that provides an archeological foundation for the original. He has also written numerous articles on the subject and has spoken at college campuses around the world. His views have been the subject of documentaries, such as Black Athena, a film made in the U.K. in 1991.

What's the big deal?
As academics, we should care about the debate for three reasons.

1. Many of his critics have attacked Bernal for not being a historian, archeologist, or anthropologist, which gives the impression that enthusiasts from other specialties can’t present their own research on issues, or if they do it doesn’t carry the weight of research brought forth by someone in a more traditional field.

2. Another criticism of his work cited by many of his detractors is that he uses his resources to prove his theories instead of using the scientific method or researching to come up with his views on the subject, which would make all of his research pseudo-historical and suspect.

3. Western history has focused on Europeans at the expense of other cultures; Bernal’s work has led to a serious discussion as to whether or not non-Western influences shaped our history, in which critics have had to demonstrate why his theories don’t work with their own research and evidence. Lively debate is always good for academia and keeps the scholarly populace on its toes.