Fitting that Diodorus should post this to hn.
"So far, archaeologists have explored less than five percent of the ancient city." So still much more to come.
The story of Heraklion is a great example of climate change and its impacts on human civilization.
The other story of Heraklion is its great multiculturalism; it exhibits both Greek and Egyptian influences. I am always fascinated when I hear other nerds describe the process of learning Western history as "begin with the Greeks." And we often base Western civilization upon Greek thought, Roman law. At the same time, I am reminded of the story of Thales who supposedly learned his mathematical talents from Egypt. The interconnection between the two worlds seems obvious to me today, and I often wonder the reasons Westerners usually begin (and, for some, end) with the Greeks.
Hopefully Heraklion/Thonis can teach us more about the interrelations between Greece and Egypt; not only how they traded, but who they sat in between, how long this city had been here, did the Sea-Peoples (Phoenicians if you ask me) trade here, and were the populations of Greece and Egypt far closer in cultural heritage than we acknowledge today.
Folks who find this interesting might find the Roman Nemi ships interesting. They were likely large scale pleasure barges.
> Recovered from the lake bed in 1929, the ships were destroyed by fire during World War II in 1944.
These are fantastical!
I would add that people would likely be interested to the drainage tunnel that the Romans excavated (emissarium) which is an incredible engineering feat, not only because it has an exceptionally accurate (low, 0,8/1% gradient) slope, but because it was excavated from both sides of the mountain and at the connection there was an error of only a few meters. I don't seem to be able to find a dedicated article/site, there is a description in this .pdf:
http://soci.romasotterranea.it/image/rassegna_stampa/pdf/12....
In 1929 the tunnel was re-used pumping in it (with mechanical pumps) the water to be able to recover the wrecks.
Also interesting are reports of previous attempts to inspect the ships in the 15th, 16th and 19th century:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/mi...
Wow, that was a great read and I’m grateful for the English version on the second page.
The billionaires yachts of the ancient world. It's a shame they were destroyed in WW2.
How do I get an invite one of those boat parties?! They really knew how to party back then.
The same as today. Be very rich or be young and very attractive.
live in a large metropolis and be a social butterfly, or be a social climber.
FYI: The site of the European Institute of Underwater Archeology has a lot of information about the site (https://ieasm.institute/egypt.php?lang=en).
Thanks for posting this!
Made me think of this song. I’m skeptical of the last line - might still be a little love.
The ocean is a desert with it's life underground
And a perfect disguise above
Under the cities lies a heart made of ground
But the humans will give no love
I read: Archaeologists find ancient Egyptian worship near Antarctica, and thought: What? Cthulhu?
> Some of the techniques used in building the warship are clearly Greek, like the mortise-and-tenon joints (ones in which a tab from one piece of wood fits into a slot cut into the adjoining piece) that hold many of its timbers together. But other aspects of the ship’s design and construction are distinctly ancient Egyptian. Those clues, combined with some timbers that had evidently been salvaged and re-used from older ships, suggest that the warship was built somewhere in Egypt.
Everything is a remix…
> Clearly, this was no cargo vessel; ships built to haul cargo or passengers tend to be wider, built for capacity rather than speed and agility.
Wouldn't a wider ship be more agile? Maybe my intuition fails me, but to me it would seem like like a longer ship is far harder to turn (think of rotating one of those large chef knives in water vs a bowl).
On the water, speed is agility, and speed is limited to the square root of length for displacement hulls (which these are). Wider means heavier for a given length, taking longer to speed up, and more friction to overcome.
wider also means more frontal surface area. Just like a car going through air, less frontal surface area means more aerodynamic (or hydrodynamic), ie lower coefficient of drag. Olympic rowing shells and flatwater kayaks provide good visuals of what a fast displacement hull boat looks like - long and as narrow as possible.
I think GP is thinking about a row boat, how it can turn on a dime quickly, which is true, but not useful in a sea battle.
I think that longer = more rowers; less wide = less mass.
Wouldn't that mean a more powerful and agile ship?
Wide relates in the end to drag. And yes the number of rowers matters -- a bigger ship requires more rowers, thus more mass etc. Generally, there is the "optimization problem" with each such system that a bigger vehicle requires bigger engine and more fuel which means more mass. But here they mainly refer to the ratio of length versus width and from my and above posters guess they refer to the profile of the boat in the water.
Edit: to amend and clarify: mass in a fluid affects displacement (assuming you stay above surface) and thus drag and maximum speed. Here is a crude reference about boat speeds https://www.boats.com/reviews/crunching-numbers-hull-speed-b... -- if I get time I will do more Google fu but I am pretty sure anyone can find the complete derivation online.
The wave making resistance is generally much larger than pure viscous drag/friction on the hull for conventional boat.
I was hoping to see few more pictures of the ship. Does anyone have a better link?
High-res of that 'spiral' detail: https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/elcome...
Unfortunately it seems like all that's available is the 3 pictures disseminated by Reuters. The third is an interesting fragment- if those are bore holes, they sure look like they might've had a function. Gallery: https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/egypt-finds-ancient-mil...
How do you write "Ever Given" in heiroglyphics?
This is a good question for r/AncientEgyptian
Just because the ship was discovered off the coast of Egypt does not mean it has anything to do with the culture and people of Modern day Egypt.
It’s funny, I don’t think you’d say that about today’s Greeks.
>> am always fascinated when I hear other nerds describe the process of learning Western history as "begin with the Greeks."
A good example of frames being "made up," in the sense that they can be constructed multiple ways.
Another frame might be that Greeks were not "Western" at all. They were simply the western fringe of the greater "fertile crescent" culture. This frame would have made more sense to the Greeks themselves, who considered Egypt the source of much knowledge and urban culture. Writers like Plato credited scholars visiting egypt (Eg his uncle Solon) for bringing this knowledge back, especially during the Athenian golden age. The greek alphabet is also derived from the phoenician/canaanite/semitic alphabet. Archeology of older periods, like the Minoan Greek era, suggest Egyptian cultural influence started very early.
"The West" (also near east, and far east) is actually a Greek concept, and the directions are relative to Greece. Rome is "The West" because its west of Greece. But, both Greek and Roman empires were a lot more active in the east than in the west.
Ancient Greeks were Indo-Europeans, though, unlike any of the contemporary Ferticle Crescent cultures. In many ways that does make them very much western, e.g. their invention of vowel graphemes was one that other western peoples such as Latins/Romans who were also Indo-European and needed them as well could take advantage of.
The Persians were just as much descended from Indo-Europeans as the Greeks were and they were squarely in the Near East by any Greek account. If anything Indo-European ancestry is what can point out commonalities rather than be a source of categorical division.
> Ancient Greeks were Indo-Europeans, though,
So were the Hittites, and the ruling class of the Mittani.
We also had to decipher Egyptian. I don't think having to do so speaks to the cultural irrelevance of a civilization.
The Hittites were gone, but languages related to Hittite were still spoken throughout Asia Minor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_languages
Whether we call classical Greece "western" is not is ultimately not all that relevant. What matters more to me is that, reading the ancient Greek sources, we see attitudes, philosophies, dreams, and goals that are immediately recognizable as being "us" in an important way.
Consider the justly famous and beautiful funeral oration of Pericles:
"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace."
""In short, I say that as a city we are the school of Hellas, while I doubt if the world can produce a man who, where he has only himself to depend upon, is equal to so many emergencies, and graced by so happy a versatility, as the Athenian. And that this is no mere boast thrown out for the occasion, but plain matter of fact, the power of the state acquired by these habits proves. For Athens alone of her contemporaries is found when tested to be greater than her reputation, and alone gives no occasion to her assailants to blush at the antagonist by whom they have been worsted, or to her subjects to question her title by merit to rule. Rather, the admiration of the present and succeeding ages will be ours, since we have not left our power without witness, but have shown it by mighty proofs; and far from needing a Homer for our panegyrist, or other of his craft whose verses might charm for the moment only for the impression which they gave to melt at the touch of fact, we have forced every sea and land to be the highway of our daring, and everywhere, whether for evil or for good, have left imperishable monuments behind us. Such is the Athens for which these men, in the assertion of their resolve not to lose her, nobly fought and died; and well may every one of their survivors be ready to suffer in her cause."
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/pericles-funeralspee...
These are words that you can imagine coming out of the mouth of a figure like Lincoln or FDR. Pericles reaches into many of the same ideals we still venerate today. I've never seen anything chiseled into some Egyptian obelisk or scrawled onto a Sumerian tablet that feels so, well, familiar, so recognizable, so modern.
>>These are words that you can imagine coming out of the mouth of a figure like Lincoln or FDR. Pericles reaches into many of the same ideals we still venerate today. I've never seen anything chiseled into some Egyptian obelisk or scrawled onto a Sumerian tablet that feels so, well, familiar, so recognizable, so modern.
Absolutely, well said.
The oldest known written joke: Something which has never occurred since time immemorial: a young woman sat in her husband's lap and did not fart. Sumer, 2300-1900 BCE.
Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet 10:
The tavern-keeper was gazing off into the distance, puzzling to herself, she said, wondering to herself: "That fellow is surely a murderer(!)! Where is he heading! ..." As soon as the tavern-keeper saw him, she bolted her door, bolted her gate, bolted the lock.
But at her noise Gilgamesh pricked up his ears, lifted his chin (to look about) and then laid his eyes on her. Gilgamesh spoke to the tavern-keeper, saying: "Tavern-keeper, what have you seen that made you bolt your door, bolt your gate, bolt the lock! if you do not let me in I will break your door, and smash the lock!"
Gilgamesh said to the tavern-keeper: "I am Gilgamesh, I killed the Guardian! I destroyed Humbaba who lived in the Cedar Forest, I slew lions in the mountain passes! I grappled with the Bull that came down from heaven, and killed him."
The tavern-keeper spoke to Gilgamesh, saying: why are your cheeks emaciated, your expression desolate! Why is your heart so wretched, your features so haggard! Why is there such sadness deep within you! Why do you look like one who has been traveling a long distance so that ice and heat have seared your face! ... you roam the wilderness!"
Gilgamesh spoke to her, to the tavern-keeper he said: "Tavern-keeper, should not my cheeks be emaciated? Should my heart not be wretched, my features not haggard? Should there not be sadness deep within me! ... Enkidu, the wild ass who chased the wild donkey, panther of the wilderness, we joined together, and went up into the mountain. We grappled with and killed the Bull of Heaven, we destroyed Humbaba who lived in the Cedar Forest, we slew lions in the mountain passes! My friend, whom I love deeply, who went through every hard- ship with me, Enkidu, whom I love deeply, who went through every hardship with me, the fate of mankind has overtaken him. Six days and seven nights I mourned over him and would not allow him to be buried until a maggot fell out of his nose. I was terrified by his appearance(!), I began to fear death, and so roam the wilderness. The issue of my friend oppresses me, so I have been roaming long trails through the wilderness. The issue of Enkidu, my friend, oppresses me, so I have been roaming long roads through the wilderness. How can I stay silent, how can 1 be still! My friend whom I love has turned to clay. Am I not like him? Will I lie down, never to get up again?"'
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
>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".
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?
> 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.
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.
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
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.
If you like, feel free to educate observers of this exchange. All I really believe is that the pyramids are absurdly old.
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".
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.
> The other story of Heraklion is its great multiculturalism; it exhibits both Greek and Egyptian influences. I am always fascinated when I hear other nerds describe the process of learning Western history as "begin with the Greeks." And we often base Western civilization upon Greek thought, Roman law. At the same time, I am reminded of the story of Thales who supposedly learned his mathematical talents from Egypt. The interconnection between the two worlds seems obvious to me today, and I often wonder the reasons Westerners usually begin (and, for some, end) with the Greeks.
Note that the Greece at the time was not restricted to modern geographical greece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Greece#/media/File:Gre...
It was mostly a coastal entity (not dissimilar to Portugal during the age of discovery), but there were greek colonies throughout the mediterranean and black seas, with the exception of the phoenician south-west (the southern spain maghreb), as well as Phoenicia proper (the levant)
> I am always fascinated when I hear other nerds describe the process of learning Western history as "begin with the Greeks."
Why not start with the written word[1]?
It seems to me for the origins of today's "Western" civilization, one ought to look further northwest than Greece[2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_wri...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples#Origins
The problem here is that Egyptian culture/connection to the rest of the world changed in massive amounts over time. If you looked at really ancient Egypt you would not find much that could be extrapolated to the “Western civilization” compared to the Greeks.
The period of time where Egypt produced many scholars who we still know by name, and their works and how influential they are, was in the Hellenistic period during which they essentially were culturally Greek. It was a result of conquest and increasing Greek economic/cultural influence across the Mediterranean. Yes it’s likely much of that knowledge was due to a kind of syncretization of Egyptian knowledge stretching back Millenia and it finally being recorded and disseminated across the Greek speaking world in a way that was preserved until know, but that’s what makes it history. We simply don’t have a lot of records about ancient Egyptian scholarship before the Hellenistic period.
>>We simply don’t have a lot of records about ancient Egyptian scholarship before the Hellenistic period.
Agreed. As robbiep mentioned, this is probably because of Alexander in general.
>>The period of time where Egypt produced many scholars who we still know by name, and their works and how influential they are, was in the Hellenistic period during which they essentially were culturally Greek.
It is interesting to me, how as soon as the Greeks came on to the scene, this process of identifying thought with individuals (the Socratic method, Platonic dialogues, Pythagorean theorem etc) becomes the standard in the West. I personally believe that this is one of the great achievements of Greece, but at the same time, it has blinded us to the ways that civs tended to create and maintain knowledge in a much more communal process.
>>If you looked at really ancient Egypt you would not find much that could be extrapolated to the “Western civilization” compared to the Greeks.
I agree in general it is easier to relate to the Greeks. I suppose I tend to find very deep civilizational roots from the period 6K~ BCE to about 2k~ BCE, an era which included the rise of the first mega civs like Egypt and Sumer among others. Its the broad outlines that fascinate me; mass religions, class structures, very long distance trade, massive monuments and urban environs, etc. I suppose I tend to see much in common in the broad outlines. (and for me, broad outlines always have a greater impact than any Homerian epic)
Typically historical books and lessons begin earlier than Greece. Greek is suggested over Egyptian for language learning due to the number of worthwhile works it accesses and its interplay with the next leg of language learning and research. Perhaps more immediately move on to Rome than should but that doesn’t condemn the starting point.
Western civilization begins with Pythagoras (b. 570 BC) who deliberately synthesized a large number of cultural/philosophical traditions (Thracian, Syrian, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian and Greek). In other words, from the very beginning, Western Civilization was about cross-national integration. By 200 BC, Greek was the lingua franca from India (e.g., Ashoka pillars written in Greek) to Egypt to Britain (reference on request).
Also read the adventures of Wen Amun
See the Amarna letters.
Ugh... these comments...
First of all, Greece was not the start of the western civilization. Rome was. They borrowed a lot from Greece (which they eventually conquered) as Greece was more advanced initially. Greeks themselves had borrowed a lot form middle east and north african civilizations/cultures, and initially from the Minonians.
The city you mention, Heraklion, was a Minionan city, which fell on a decline (a volcano/earthquake is thought to be the culprit) eventually was conquered by the Myceneans (greek percursors), who themselves were initially 'barbaric' indo-european tribes/civilization. Greeks were able to adopt, curate and evolve a lot of the knowlege of their neighbors and eventually ascend into being a prominent cultural place and create their own governing system, which was direct democracy for the main cities (Athens and Thebe), as Sparta had its own weird system, and Macedonia (if you consider it greek) was a traditional kingdom.
The flow of knowledge is bidirectional, but some places borrowed more from others, and evolved knowledge, which itself was borrowed by other cultures:
Early Civilization (Mesopotamia, Babylon) -> Egypt - Hittite - Minonian - > Mycenean -> (Bronze Collapse) -> Classical Greece -> Rome -> Western Civilization
Of course I left out a lot of other cultures who contributed to today's 'western knowledge', from the Phoenicians, to Parthian / Persia, to later arabs, and indian and even east asian / chinese indirect contributions. But they were secondary to the flow I described.
Even after the split of the Roman empire in two, Greece was on the Eastern part, so it is are more of a south-east / mediterranean culture/civilization, and not necessary western pre se, but it gave a lot to the western world.
> First of all, Greece was not the start of the western civilization.
Possibly, but if the question is "where in the western world did history start", Greece seems like a fine answer, since 1) it's unquestionably a part of the western world, and 2) history starts with writing, and Mycenaean Greeks are (at least off the top of my head) the oldest culture in the western world the writings of which we can read. So that's the beginning of western history, even if not the root of its civilization.
> it's unquestionably a part of the western world
'Western' means west of... Greece. So Rome, which is west of Greece, was when civilisation moved west and when western civilisation began.
Sure, within Europe, and especially from the perspective of the Great Schism, Greece is eastern. From the global perspective, not so much. I have yet to meet a person who'd argue that the region with Greco-Roman cultural heritage somehow excludes Greece, of all places.
First of all, Greece was not the start of the western civilization. Rome was. They borrowed a lot from Greece (which they eventually conquered) as Greece was more advanced initially
Er, QED?
Are you confusing the Heraklion mentioned in the article and the Heraklion in Crete?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracleion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraklion
I think that what you replied to is the comment ’ am always fascinated when I hear other nerds describe the process of learning Western history as "begin with the Greeks.’
When I think everyone who is also commenting here recognises that that is just a talking point for where to pick up the threads of history.