[robbiep]

Regarding your fascination about western history ‘beginning with the Greeks’ I would say the reason why is fairly obvious if you follow the history.

Despite the locus of civilisation being in Mesopotamia and Egypt from 5-6000BCE to 500BCE by the time of this discovery (1-200BCE) Egypt had been conquered by Alexander and the (Mid East and Eastern Mediterranean) world divided between his generals. Additionally, whilst there is so much we don’t know of the thought and philiosophy of the area, what has survived to us today in terms of philosophy and law comes from the Greeks and Romans.

So for the very early antiquity, you had mathematics and other vestiges of civilisation flowing from Egypt and Mesopotamia to other parts of the world, and then later the conquest of these areas by the Greeks first and then others.

Anyway, your comments mark you as being well informed on the history so I am sure you don’t need a lesson from me, maybe the other point I’d make is that the breadth and detail of history makes generalisations such as ‘western history begins with the Greeks’ a more palatable launchpad for consumption than breaking down the nuance that inevitably unfolds on more profound study

[JudgePenitent]

>the breadth and detail of history makes generalisations such as ‘western history begins with the Greeks’ a more palatable launchpad for consumption than breaking down the nuance that inevitably unfolds on more profound study

Absolutely. Your comment on Alexander is correct. It doesn't explain why we still do not teach pre Greek/Roman as a foundation. Yes Alexander encouraged the severing of cultural-historical links; today we can look for and around that, as we know a lot about the pre Greek/Roman civs, and they were arguably more important for setting the civilizational foundations upon which more fortunate individuals copied from.

I guess I wish the launchpad was "begin with the Sumerians".

[Archelaos]

I have been teaching European history (with an emphasis on the history of ideas) at university for almost two decades. In those cases were I dealt with the origins of "Europe" I started even earlier than the Sumerians: with the end of the last ice age.

As to the ancient Greeks: I am extremly impressed about how fast and innovative they had become from the 6th century BC onward. But in almost all fields their culture rested on outside precursors: Their mythology includes many stories and aspects that can be found in earlier stories or pictures from Asia Minor; their alphabet is an advancement of the Phoenicians, probably adopted via Cyprus; their early sculpture and metal works clearly shows Egyptian influences, etc.

History in my view is a discipline to tell interesting stories in anwsering interesting questions. And part of this story telling is to tell the stories of the terminology of the very question. So if someone is asking whether the Greeks are the start of the history of the Western world, one has already a lot to think about all the concept included in the question.

What defined being Greek in those days? -- Interesting story: the center of the early Greek culture was the west of Asia Minor which become incorporated for the first time in the Persian empire in the middle of the 6th century BC. Refuges went to southern Italy were they settled in close proximity to Etruscian towns. The Etruscians adopted their more sophisticated craftsmenship for luxury items. They traded it with the Celts from north of the Alps in exchange for iron. The economy in Italy benefited. Larger political units formed. After many struggles Rome emerged as the most supirior.

When does history start? -- Interesting story: People argued that it starts with writing and all else is prehistory, because it is writing which provides us with so much more knowledge about what happend in the past. But in recent years we have seen extraordinary progress in archeology. Both in an extraordinary number of new interesting finds as well as in an extraordinary advancement in new or improved research methods like in dating or genome analysis. In view of this, is the distinction between history and prehistory still appropriate?

Is the concept of the Western world in this context really so relevant? -- Interesting story: There has been a long standing story in Europe about a so-called 'translatio imperii', a gradual movement of the cultural and political center from the East to the West. But a similar story can be told about a movement from Greece towards the East: Alexander, the Sasanians, the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom (in todays Afganistan), the Indo-Greek Kingdom. And the cultural influence did not stop there. The art of the Greek statue and especially of the high relief was adopted by the Buddhist and Hindu art of India and Southeast Asia and even influenced Chinese art indirectly. If Greek culture travelled both towards the West and towards the East should we not put more emphasis on the Greeks as something that unites Europe, Africa and Asia instead of claiming them primarily for Europe or a Western world?

[JudgePenitent]

>>In those cases were I dealt with the origins of "Europe" I started even earlier than the Sumerians: with the end of the last ice age.

I applaud your breadth. The vast majority of instructors I've had prefer not noticing the broad trends that cultivated the soil for its people to prosper.

>> In view of this, is the distinction between history and prehistory still appropriate?

Great question- I'd say we do it for historical purposes!

>>If Greek culture travelled both towards the West and towards the East should we not put more emphasis on the Greeks as something that unites Europe, Africa and Asia instead of claiming them primarily for Europe or a Western world?

This is a world I know little of, the connections between Greece and Asia. You've piqued my interest in the subject; any good reads that deal with it?

[Archelaos]

> The vast majority of instructors I've had prefer not noticing the broad trends that cultivated the soil for its people to prosper.

I observe a trend away from this, at least here in Germany. A symptom of this is that museums and exhibitions nowadays put things into a much broader context than previously. Typically by explaining how far the raw materials of what is shown had travelled (eg. the blue of medieval illuminated manuscripts coming from Afgan lapis lazuli). But of course, there is much room for more improvement.

The most important cause for the spacial and termporal devisions we observe in the disciplin of history has nothing to do with exclusive ideology, but it is the fact that any research across such subdisciplinary borders is much more difficult than inside a subdisciplin. In case of ancient Greece: It is already very difficult to establish a good enough proficiency in Ancient Greek and Latin to study the "European" sources as well as accumulating the expert knowledge about the multiple aspects of the narrower Greek history.

My ambition was to gather expert knowledge in my research fields, but integrate that, at least when I was teaching students, into a wide horizon, where I rely on the expert knowledge of others.

This brings me to your question about good reads: My caveat is that I am all but an expert about the eastward influence of Ancient Greek culture. What I know I catched from various books.

If you can read German, you might be interested in the "Fischer Weltgeschichte"[1], published in 36 volumns from 1965 to 1983 (vol. 5, 6 and 16 are relevant for your question). However, they need to be read with not only one but some grains of salt, because much of their contents is outdated. Nevertheless, their authors have been leading experts in their fields of study at the time. So the books are still often much better than more recent introductions.

For the history of Central Asia a very nice overview is Susan Whitfield's "Silk Roads: Peoples, Cultures, Landscapes"[2]. It is not specific about the Greek influence to the East, but if you are new to this topic, it is perhaps a better idea to start broader.

I first learned, if I remember it correctly, about the Greeco-Roman high relief travelling eastwards, when reading E.H. Gombrich: "The Story of Art"[3] -- the best introduction into global art history I know of.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_Weltgeschichte

[2] ISBN-10: 0500021570, ISBN-13: ‎978-0500021576.

[3] "The Story of Art" was first published in 1950 and is still available. There exists a cheap pocket edition in smaller sizes, small font and small images, which I cannot recommend: the illustrations are too small. Go for the normal edition. Chances are good that you find a cheap one at your local Antiquarian bookshop.

[fsloth]

Well, it's not all greek. For example the glyphs we use in this discussion AFAIK are based on egyptian hieroglyphs that were simplified by phoenicians into phoenician script from which greek and latin writing was then based on.

Greeks did develop their own literacy, but apparently became illeterate again circa 1000 bc - and when they again picked up writing they use phoenician glyphs.

Greek world did suck up most of knowledge that had accumulated and added very much to it, so they are a good reference point.

Greek culture predates Rome's rise - and in some ways also lives longer since East-Roman emperors again used greek.

[robbiep]

I don’t think we’re disagreeing, it’s just at what point do you try to pick up the threads of history to try to begin to understand things?

One of the most fascinating things I find of our history is Linear A & B and Minoan civilisation - apparently wiped out by the eruption of what is now Santorini. You just gave me a few new threads to chase with the loss of Greek literacy - my previous understanding was that Minoan civilisation was poised to dominate the Mediterranean prior to them being wiped out and the vestiges eventually coalesced into the greeks, with the minoans acting as the seed civilisation. (With aggressive abbreviation and many potential mistakes for the pedants out there, I do not claim to be a authority here, only a fan)

Another thing I find fascinating is how all the tribes of the Italian peninsula basically organised their cities around a forum with similar architecture and similar god worship well before the romans dominated…. As well as the fact that prior to the Punic wars, Rome was really in doubt as to whether it would dominate the med.

History is amazing and I truly believe that by better understanding it we can better understand ourselves, so often I find myself reflecting that had this element of history been better known then perhaps we could be avoiding this particular aspect of human behaviour… there is very little that is new under the sun

[fsloth]

I don't think we are disagreeing on any points either - my intention was to expand the discussion I think. I totally agree history is very interesting.

[jfoutz]

If you like, feel free to educate observers of this exchange. All I really believe is that the pyramids are absurdly old.

[tephra]

There's this quote that I think is from Dan Carlin and I can't really remember how it goes but something like: "the birth of Cleopatra is closer to us in time than the building of the pyramids in Giza was to Cleopatra".

[spullara]

Reminds me that the latest dinosaur period is closer to us then the previous ones start. Human intelligence is not inevitable.

[throwaway894345]

I’ve also heard that humans are closer to tuna than tuna are to sharks. Not sure if it’s true, but it offends my sensibilities.

[spullara]

Sharks are extremely old, ~450m years. They are older than dinosaurs by ~140m years.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17453-timeline-the-ev...

[wkearney99]

And the Appalachian mountains are older than just about all animal life.