Yet, for some reason, Lefkowitz feels the need to spend the bulk of her article antagonizing Bernal and polarizing him as if he is advocating some sort of Afrocentric stance. This fact is evinced by the preceding passage, in which she references another author -- one who is decidedly pro-Afrocentric -- in what is supposed to be her critique or commentary about ideas advocated by Bernal. Still, the fact remains that even Lefkowitz agrees with Bernal in the notion of the Revised Ancient Model A review of the works of all three authors demonstrates how necessary competitive plausibility is for the study of history. Since none of the authors were present during the historical events they are discussing, they can only surmise (in as logical a fashion as possible) what they believe took place. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that...

and, for all of her posturing and expostulations about the shortcomings of Bernal's viewpoint, not even Lefkowitz offers any evidence for the Aryan Model.
Works Cited

Lefkowitz, Mary R. "Ancient History, Modern Myths." Black Athena Revisited. Eds. Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers. Chapel Hill & London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

2. Bernal, Martin. "Introduction" Black Athena Writes Back. Durham & London: Duke University Press, 2001.

3. Berlinerblau, Jacques. "The Aryan Models." Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: Rutgers University Press, 1999.