Surely this depends on how we view the concept of democracy and its effect on scientific method. If, as for example Peter Jones has argued, the notion of radical democracy ultimately freed scientific thinking of its bondage to religion and enabled the rise of modern scientific thought then the answer is no. Whatever debt Greek culture owed in art and engineering to their neighbours it is outweighed by this intellectual advance which is the true basis of our modern world.

Re Adewale's point, do any archaeologists/classicists actually still accept 'Black Athena' as anything other than a deliberate manipulation of historical record. I haven't come across any serious ones who do.

Quite a number of researches pinpoint with varying levels of exactitude the human debt to diverse sources of modern civilization. The proofs are convincing and the answer to your question is, yes. We should treat the truth in the light of current knowledge. Martin Bernal's Black Athena is one such seminal work among many to prove the debt of human civilization to Africa. Others document other aspects.

The notion of Greece as the creator of modern ideas/ideals is not truly water-tight, but is largely a more recent construction based on the lack of knowledge of earlier cultures. Not necessarily African.

Greece lay on the perifery of other earlier and stronger cultures and echoes those stronger cultures. It was a part of Asian cultures not apart from them. Cultures on the perifery of older, dynamic cultures often take the values of those cultures and alter them to suit their own cultural requirements.

Bernal's ideas are possible but as yet the evidence is not there. Rather we should consider the complexity of inter-group mixing through trade, war and robbery. There is evidence for urban growth in Aegina c2200 BCE, but due to the import of luxury items. The Minoan culture nevertheless shows all evidence of a considerable degree of Egyptian influence.

The point is, Ancient Greece should be seen as an Asian or/and North African cultural entity not visualised as European, the progenitor of France, Germany and the UK. It may have had later much in common with the Hittites or Luwain cultures of Anatolia. Then, Europe was in many ways very different to Greece-although there were lines of influence from Central Europe according to Kris Kristianson. Ancient Greece of democracy, modern philosophy and innovation separate from Asia and Africa was an invention.

Surely this depends on how we view the concept of democracy and its effect on scientific method. If, as for example Peter Jones has argued, the notion of radical democracy ultimately freed scientific thinking of its bondage to religion and enabled the rise of modern scientific thought then the answer is no. Whatever debt Greek culture owed in art and engineering to their neighbours it is outweighed by this intellectual advance which is the true basis of our modern world.

Re Adewale's point, do any archaeologists/classicists actually still accept 'Black Athena' as anything other than a deliberate manipulation of historical record. I haven't come across any serious ones who do.

Rasical democracy and scientific thought? Honestly, not sure about this or that Greece actually did originate either. Democracy was only really in Athens, built upon the slavery. All true citizens, ethnically true, had votes for which they were paid to use on specific occasions-similar to referendums. Pericles was more or less a dictator. Foreigners, slaves (of course), and women (incredibly suppressed-more like UAE than anything otherwise produced by Europe) had no representation. It resembled more ethnic Athenians lording it over others, the common Athenian given noble entitlement.

Scientific thinking, whatever that is, can, I hold, be found in earlier cultures. Pre-Socratic thinkers were really sages (Aristotle designated them, wrongly I suggest, philosophers) often interested only in religion or religious ideas. Their philosophies resemble Egyptian and Mesopotamian religious concepts-arche, or origins, water (Mesopotamia and Egypt), chaos (Mesopotamian). Some modern writers have designated them, rightly I feel, sages-as above-wise men of the kind found in nearby Asia and Egypt.

Whatever the legitimacy of Bernal's claims in Black Athena, he made people increasingly aware (at the time, being done also by others) that Greece was not this stand-alone, miracle society, fitting the 'Glories that was Greece' but a hybrid culture-as the ancient Greeks themselves believed. It is the Classics' Departments that have promulgated this narrative, one that suits their own careers, status and ideologies.

the key issue is where did the concept of challenging orthodoxy arise in Ancient Greece, and yes I admit atheism was a capital crime in Athens although that seems to have more political manoeuvring than anything else- an attempt to strike at Pericles by attacking his circle of friends. The philosophies only superficially resemble the Eastern civilisation ones. The key difference is that a Greek philosopher held these views because that was his considered opinion based on his interpretation of the evidence. The other cultures held these beliefs, note beliefs not views/interpretations, because religious orthodoxy told them to believe this. Whatever faults democratic Athens had, faults which were shared with most societies at the time and subsequently, this itself is enough to justify the teaching of the concept you suggest we should not.

re Bernal, his work should not be defended on the grounds that 'he made people increasingly aware' of something. Bad scholarship is just that and should be binned no matter whom it empowers, if the late Bernal had have done an update in which the very basic scholarly errors were corrected and then redone his analysis to see if his hypothesis still held it might be acceptable. As it stands its junk masquerading as academic writing that is given a free ride exactly because it is perceived as empowering BME groups. A worthwhile idea but it never justifies using and promulgating poor scholarship.

At least for the last 30 years Classics Departments, particularly those which are integrated with Archaeology, have been at the forefront of promoting multiple origins and debts to other cultures of various Classical societies, not maintaining outdated views as your last reply suggests Stanley. But again the changes are based on evidence not empowerment.

Unfortunately, you are wrong about the straightjacketing of Asian/African thought. A common misunderstanding perhaps promoted by the departments you defend. Also, there is immense doubt passed on the actual existence of many of the Pre-Socratic sages and that their ideas were imposed by later thinkers. I disagree anyway as to the superficial elements, which again demonstrates lack of awareness of early African and Asian thought-common to Classicists. The dicotomy of 'scientific' in Europe and belief, magic and priest-ridden logic in Asia needs to be addressed.

I am not seeking to empower Asia/Africa re. Bernal (he wasn't really doing that) but to open up the debate and create greater awareness of both the actual nature of Greek thinkers and thinking, for example (Plato's ideas were surely in imitation of Egyptian thinking). The influence of Mesopotamia on Mycenaen and Classical Greece was immense. The competitive nature of early Greek sages and physicians, publicising themselves through differences or originality (sic) of ideas meant often descending into misrepresentation and hyperbole. The conclusions of Greek physicians (scientific-really?) reveal a cavalcade of such misrepresentation that stayed within world culture for several thousand years causing harm and death to gullible patients.

While I'm aware of the work done by Classicist departments on changing this Eurocentred approach, more could be done with greater acquaintence of other early cultures, knowledge of professional sages in Egypt for example whom Greek philosophers must have read.

the dichotomy will be addressed when evidence is presented of more empirical thought in the Ancient Near East that at least could of influenced such developments in Greece.

whatever Bernal was trying to do his level of factual errors undermines his work meaning that Black Athena cannot be taken seriously. Suggestions that he opened up debates that have been stifled by vested interests is not a scholarly method, its called special pleading. The difference between this and evidence based argument is supposed to be mastered by students at the latest by the end of their 1st year at University.

We should continue to teach Greece as the father of modern civilisation for exactly the reasons you do not think important, it is their contribution to theoretical science not engineering, the latter we have plenty of evidence for in Egypt & Mesopotamia but not for the Socratic Method which is what underpins modern civilisation. The promulgation of which view incidentally these days seems to be more common among the mathematical science faculties than the Classicist ones.

A few points. Firstly, when I did my honours degree at the then Department of Classics and Ancient History, my first subject was on Ancient Mesopotamia from Sumeria to the Persians. (And alternative course on Ancient Egypt was also offered. In later years, I concentrated on Greece and Rome because they were where my interests lay, but I also did additional subjects on the Minoans, Mycenaeans and Hittites under Trevor Bryce, a leading Hittite scholar who is still publishing on the Hittites, and recently on Ancient Syria. If modern schools of Classics and Ancient History have become more focused on Greece and Rome, it’s probably the direct by-product of decades of funding cuts that limit the range of subjects they can teach to the most familiar and popular. Blame the politicians for that. Secondly, on the key point of the question, I have never seen the Greeks as the source of modern civilisation. When I was a student, my peers were strongly divided between those who admired the Greeks (really the Athenians) and those who extoled the virtues of Rome. I agree with Timothy’s points about democracy. I fully agree with you Stanley on the points you raise about the limits of Athenian democracy. In the end it was the idea of democracy that really made the difference to the world, because it was the inspiration for modern democratic practices. That idea, along with the almost parallel notion of the Roman Republic, became the model for giving all free people some form of say in their communities large and small. So for me, the source of modern civilisation is the Greco-Roman culture in all its diversity, the rich explosion of their literatures, architectures, and arts. And then, for all its faults, whether you believe or not, there was the overlay of Christianity whose spread to dominance in the West was ultimately due to the expanse of the Roman Empire.

May I suggest a read of many principal examples of Mesopotamian and Egyptian literature, for example; try Gilgamesh, a few of the Discourse examples of both Mesopotamia and Egypt. Both these ancient societies enjoyed well-formed intelligentsia. Although the formats/frequent lack of surface brilliance can distract from their quality on occasion.

I'm afraid I'm not engaging in special pleading nor have I made a case for Bernal, nor would I dream of doing so. I am attempting to do the very thing you appear to most admire-attempt to get people to look at the evidence and not just believe traditional ideas largely formed two centuries ago as an adjunct to colonialism. Perhaps our ancestors were right? Who knows? But lets put aside our prejudices and multitude of preconceptions and consider what is out there.

PS: Just saw your remarks, Kathleen, and so this is an addition or afterthought.

There were many proto-or actual democracies in the ancient world not just that of Athens or Rome. It appears to have been a fairly common practice. There is some evidence of popular rule in early Mesopotamia before the development of kingly institutions and possibly in the Harrappian culture. German societies of the Iron Age had more gender equality, it seems, than perceptible in either of the above. Lets laud them instead! Why do we single out Rome and Greece, especially as both also had developed dictatorships and kingly institutions. Athens was actually an anomaly within Greek culture not the preferred system of government. Is it possible that people now have such a fierce intellectual and emotional investment in Rome and Greece that they cannot perhaps see the wood for the trees-or the other way around?

What I was talking about, Stanley, was the power of the idea of Democracy (plus the Republic of Rome). It is the ideal of the idea that people in the West have sized on to reshape Western society. I am fully aware of the limitations and the flaws of Athenian democracy and Republican Rome. And of our own society. To quote the great British historian of Ancient Rome, and of Augustus in particular: “In all ages, whatever the form and name of government, be it monarchy, republic, or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behind the façade”. Every state and society is flawed. And the great problem with democracy is its often repeated failure to protect and respect the rights of minorities, because it is always at risk of being overwhelmed by populism. We’re seeing that in the US, Britain, and at least parts of Europe. And it is what destroyed the Roman Republic in the end.

Yes, I realised that Kathleen. And of course I agree with you in many ways. But again, perhaps it raises the question of our perceptions of these two ancient cultures, the one forming a focus of power, driven by military demands, and the other known for a short period in its history during which it borrowed extensively, transmuting cultural developments which its apologisers refuse to accept emerged much earlier elsewhere. (For gods/god sake I'm not referencing Bernal!) Anyway, Kathleen, I welcome your contribution.

P.S It may be that we identify too much with Rome and Greece, imagining they were like us-but really they weren't. Greece was far more 'oriental', not strictly the right description for that period but useful, and to an extent Rome was too (kingship, etc). Both were markedly different from European societies of the period. A linquist I know has recently brought out a paper claiming a proven connection between Etruscan and Anatolian lanquages! Who knows?

P.S 2: I agree with you about the spread of Christianity as possible only within the carapace of the Roman Empire. But equally Islam spread as a consequence of the conquest/conquest paradigms that Rome and the Sassanian Empires developed in the Middle East. Christianity thereby assumed a militaristic tone that Islam assumed within its origins.

Stanley - You may find Oswald Spengler's ideas interesting - and perhaps even relevant. He studied ancient Greek civilization, philosophy and literature in great depth, but despite that he maintained that the main force driving the development of Western civilization came from within its 'soul' - [although, inevitably, in some respects it was influenced by its Classical heritage]. Spengler's ideas are usually considered to be 'unfashionable', nowadays - mainly for political reasons. I tried to summarise his work at http://www.dlmcn.com/oswaldspengler.html#beg ... According to Spengler, the nature and character of the Greek/Roman 'soul' were totally different from the Western one - in fact he even describes them as "complete opposites". His book also discusses and analyses the Arab/Persian and the Sino-Japanese High Cultures (with brief considerations of a few others) .... And if the mathematical aspects of his thesis interest you - when you go through his early chapters you could also take a look at my http://dlmcn.com/spengmaths2.html

I do have some liking for Spengler's ideas here, yes its as heretical as the Black Athena that I dislike so much- probably irrational & Socrates would not be pleased. Indeed I also question to what extent the 'Greco-Roman' soul was the same as the Western one, but then I also question whether or not we can assume a Western approach, Classical accounts of Gallic & Germanic cultures also seem to suggest a difference. Indeed it might be argued that Gallic society was much more like the image of oriental society in its theocratic elements and its cast structure while Germanic society was more based around proto democratic elements.

Thinking about it I have started to wonder whether or not we have in the West adopted the same feel good factor as various BME groups have found in Bernal. The notion that we are linked to the 'virtuous' & 'superior' Greeks is empowering for the descendants of what at the time were, to quote Sellars & Yeatman, natives ripe to be conquered. In this case Ancient Greece is the 'source of modern civilisation' because it makes us feel good to think that it is so, not least because it gives us a longer written history & means we can appropriate the Iliad as 'ours'. While I still think you are wrong Stanley in the question you have posed I totally agree that it is worth asking, so thanks for that.

However, I still think that the democratic aspects of Greece, agreeing with Kathleen here, are critical to answering your question. In which regard I must point out that Athens was not an anomaly, it was part of a continuum. According to some schools of thought, including Aristotle, just forms of government required that real participation in its organs be extended to all those who made a major contribution to the security of the State. If you relied on cavalry, aristocratic government, fully equipped hoplites oligarchy but if you relied on a large navy for security and prosperity then it was only right that as per Athens the franchise was extended to the poor. Seen in this context Athens is not an anomaly merely the maritime based expression of a form of participatory government, the same as Sparta. The difference being that justice required different standards as to who qualified as a citizen.

This last point is why I still consider it to be Ancient Greece to be the origin of modern society since it is this encouragement/right of participation in governmental forms to all citizens that provides our inspiration. This is something I cannot find in Ancient Egypt, with its concept that the king has the power of 'divine utterance'. At present I cannot be as certain re Mesopotamia since I refuse to rely on translations and, while my Middle Egyptian is good enough for me to read original texts, my Akkadian is not yet good enough for me to do this with Mesopotamian texts.

Simply asserting that the Greeks (and Romans who stole from the Greeks) drew on ideas of other Mediterranean cultures is nothing new. When I studied classics 50 years ago every book on the topic I read mentioned this.

And after all, isn't an important aspect of philosophy that it synthesizes ideas from multiple cultures. Otherwise it would simply be parochial ideology. As Nietzsche, who was one of the great classicists of all time, once said, creative cultures arise during times when cultures and their ideas mix. Diversity is creative; homogenous conformity (or as Hitler called it, Gleichschaltung) is stifling, witness many parochial cultures today. Philosophy is synthesis and analysis of value-ideals and truths. Thank god for Plato and Aristotle. (You might add in Cicero.)

& of course James, the man they claimed as spiritual mentor Socrates, the ultimate expression of scientific method in that he was constantly enquiring not into facts but how people could be sure of their knowledge, at least according to his followers' writings, although I admit to finding people like him annoying since the method of enquiry is all based on critique of another's data without proposing a counter interpretation that can be attacked in return, Athenian Socrates seems to be credited with inventing the peer review process. or at least moving it from acceptance of religious orthodoxy to evidential based review- a step towards 'modern civilisation' in theory if not in practice?

Aristotle made countless "counter interpretations" and you are welcome, as has history of philosophers, to "attack" them.

Plato used basically a theatrical method of placing one argument against another, often to show they were complementary, as in the Cratylus, showing Parmenides and Heraclitus's principles were complementary. In this regard similar to technique of Derrida.

Socrates was credited with inventing not the 'peer-review' process but self-examination of one's own psyche, to see if one is arrogant or of a more gentle sort. In this regard, similar to Torah notion of 'two spirits' in us, good and bad. Also, fundamental notion taken up by Ibsen and Kierkegaard, and countless others. What's your theory?

my understanding of Socrates was it is not just the self examination process that he is credited with inventing but also of the attempt to understand how certainties are acquired. That is why I jokingly referred to him as inventing the modern peer review process since that is how this is supposed to work, how robust is your methodology? and, potentially, what is your falsification condition?

ironically there seem to be two discordant interpretations at work re what Socrates was up to. When I am looking at what is supposed to have motivated him, i.e. the oracle 'no one is wiser than Socrates' which he decided to try to understand, as a Classicist then I agree with you James that it does seem to be a spiritual thing since he seems to be trying to determine his own level of hubris. However, when looking at what he is actually supposed to have done in terms of his interrogating people about what underpinned their certainties he is acting much more as the father of scientific method. This is how he is presented in at least some mathematical science programmes.

A further irony in terms of seeing Ancient Greece as the progenitor of modern civilisation is that this approach, as lampooned by Aristophanes, is what got him executed since his fellow citizens thought this to be atheism. So from a scientists view perhaps we should teach Socrates as the source of modern civilisation rather than Greeks in general, that is a joke by the way since I am aware that there were plenty of other natural philosophers and indeed Socrates in his later days seems to have moved to a far more esoteric view of knowledge.

All history is contemporary history, said Benedetto Croce in the 30s. The traditional construction of world history mirrors our narrative of 'how we got where we are'. The Greeks are indeed our moral ancestors because we actively pursued such hereditary connection for a long time (at the very least since neoclassicism). If, now, we feel the need to detach ourselves from the Greeks this is just an indication of a changing feeling on the status of the present in the flow of history.

I don't want to be mistaken for a constructivist. Indeed I believe that history can be known in a perspectival, though accurate, way. It is the connections we establish between every point in history and our own civilization that I judge as being fundamentally determined by contemporary concerns.

Indeed Maria the concept of perceived ancestry has always been important, judging by both the past cultures that gave themselves Classical & Biblical ancestors and modern minority groups who use such sentiments to promote their claims. However, I am uncertain whether there are enough scholars who feel the need to detach ourselves from the Greeks to justify the use of 'we'. At present it sees to be a fringe concern, or is it different in other countries. In the UK the impulse seems more to acknowledge the differences but still to regard the roots of our civilisation as lying in Ancient Greece.

It is certainly a fringe in Italy as well, the use of 'we' was probably too generic.

Moreover, while these critical ideas have quite a strong appeal in universities, they hardly even enter the picture in high school. If you consider that Greek history is a compulsory part of the program for each and every Italian adolescent, this says a lot.

Maria when you say that these ideas have 'quite a strong appeal in universities' can you be more specific? Is this generic across departments or is it specific to some. The last time I really came across this idea was at Bangor and there it was the sociologists who were stepping outside their field to make these claims. The science and Ancient History departments kept to the view of Greece as our cultural ancestor.

Surely Western/European culture has widespread roots. We got philosophy from Greece, and Greek classical art inspired the Renaissance. We got law from Rome, religion from the Hebrews, and science from the Arabic empire including Persia (that is, alchemy, probably originating in China, arrived in Europe via Arabic scholars, and this introduced the idea of laboratory research, using a lot of the equipment you would see in a modern chemistry lab. Many other kinds of research were conducted by Muslim scientists - e.g. Ibn al-Nafis described the pulmonary circulation of the blood in 1242, four centuries before William Harvey's De motu cordis, 1628). The first books printed in movable type in Europe, immediately following Guttenberg's Bible, included the works of Muslim scientists, such as Ibn Sina ("Avicenna"), Al-Battani ("Albategnius"), Al-Razi "Rhazes" and many others - which is one indication of their perceived importance and revolutionary impact.

But what I think are grossly overlooked are our indigenous roots in northern Europe. I believe western culture inherited its unique individualism, its concept of freedom, and much of its dynamism from Gaelic, Germanic, and Scandinavian warrior societies of the late Iron Age. European fairy tales hint at even more ancient indigenous sources - possibly dating back to the origins of human culture in Africa (see Chris Knight's "Blood Relations").

The question would be : who is "we", because Dodds already wrote (and very well) about the influences of other cultures on the Greeks. Some Classicists may still believe Greece, and they mean Classical Greece (with Pericles) is the top, sometimes because it's an indirect way to consider they are themselves the top :-), since they study what is supposed to be the top ;-). We all know about the importance of Phenicians for the alphabet (and they owned a lot from Aegypt), and Mesopotamia brought its own laws. The fact is occidental culture has two feet, ie Graeco-Roman culture and Biblical culture : so it would be hard to forget about it, as I could notice while bringing students to an exhibition of paintings (Poussin, French painter). But we are in 21th century and I'm sure China, which also has a very old civilization, has a lot to say about it : may be the occidental culture is not supposed to be the most important anymore in the times to come. Wait and see...

Your assessment of Classicists, as one myself, is accurate. They certainly consider themselves, wrongly, as top of the intellectual pole and therefore I believe limit deep investigation into influences on Classical Greece-against the views of the Greeks themselves.

In the 19th century Classical Greece was seen as evidence of European intellectual superiority, Europeans embraced intellectual freedom while oriental societies were highly conservative and ruled forever by kings. Europeans were the inventors, the East invented nothing.

Did philosophy really begin in Ancient Greece? What of Mesopotamian societies? Doesn't Gilgamesh precede and didn't it influence Homer and the Bible? Isn't it better than both?

Thank you : I'm a Classicist too, but I chose Rome :-). Still I chose Rome, because it implied to keep on studying Greece (not only Pericles ;-)). But I remember a visit at the Museum for civilization in Helsinki when seeing stuff from 14th century and thinking of Ming vases at the same time : Ming was infinitely more civilization than Europe at the same time, and I prefer Ming vases. Hmm tout est relatif, so they say :-).

My concern has always been the seperation of Greek civilisation from Asia, then as now a mere hop away, including it in Europe-I see it as always part or on perifery of Asia-and believing that they were fundamentally different, sparking off the modern world.

Of course, Classicists have colluded with this view. The Classicists who taught me were Upper Middle Class and privileged, entitled and superior, but they were teaching out-of-date notions that merely informed their status, re-gurgitating tropes generation after generation.

Stanley - you write "The East invented nothing"....

However, take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China

>> In particular, the crossbow originated in ancient China; that article also says:

"The Four Great Inventions – the compass, gunpowder, papermaking, and printing – were among the most important technological advances, only known to Europe by the end of the Middle Ages 1000 years later".

Later, we read:

" Among the engineering accomplishments of early China were matches, dry docks, the double-action piston pump, cast iron, the iron plough, the horse collar, the multi-tube seed drill, the wheelbarrow, the suspension bridge, the parachute, natural gas as fuel, the raised-relief map, the propeller, the sluice gate, and the pound lock".

Where did I write that-only surely to offer a rebuttal. This is the reverse of my stance.

Stolen. Greek Philosophy Is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy.1992. Africa World Press, Inc.

George James was a renegade, but nevertheless his views should be considered alongside a wider reading of ancient Egyptian thought.

Also:

Genesis in Egypt. The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts. Yale Egyptological Studies. 1988. New Haven. Connecticut.

Jan Assmann on Egyptian thinking and:

The Mind of Egypt. History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. Trans. Jenkins, Andrew. 2002. Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company. New York.

And: Uzdavinys: 2008:

For the direct influence of Egyptian thinking on ancient Greek philosophy.

Other Literary texts: Discourses (medet) and Dialogue.

In this section other important literary works will be briefly reviewed, illustrating the role of words in the creation of the Egyptian character. According to Parkinson (page 15), the discourses, many of which are dealt with here, are not prescriptive but reflective. Literature advised or occasioned thought not, as in the Abrahamic books, told. It is not the work of the autocrat but was nevertheless directed at an elite, the stories and wisdom regaled by someone of much lower status. They concern complaints on the world’s imperfections, representing the alternative to Maat and its ideals. An ‘ideal’ form of rule, the universe, justice (think here of Plato) creates endless dissatisfaction that requires examination, and for the Middle Kingdom elite, re-assertion of those ideals. An abiding belief in Egyptian literature was that the universe was subject to decay and chaos and had to be vigilantly prevented from doing so. Underlying much Egyptian literature is a questioning motif.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian discourses and debates may possibly have provided the template for Plato's philosophical writings.

Of course the Greek got their ideas from elsewhere. They even knew they came from elsewhere. Which is what the whole 'Invasion of the Dorids' is about (a memory of the Indo-European invasion). But generally speeking, it strikes me as a moot point.

Read Dumézil and you know that Greek isn't the origin of anything. The notion of an Indo-European civilization is at least 200 years old. What becomes interesting is to note that the Greeks saw themselves as the source and apex of civilization, whereas the Romans didn't - they acknowledged Greece's intellectual and cultural superiority. (see Paul Veyne's Empire Greco-Romain.)

Rome invented other things without even knowing it, such as a permanent civil service, without which the Empire would have collapsed by the time of Calligula (the army served as much as an administrative middle-management as anything else). The Romans are brilliant adaptors, expanding on Etruscan engineering or Gallic military equipment, and so it is important to know and explore these sources.

What strikes me as important isn't that Greece is the origin of Civilization, but that it is a principal source for our civilization. That Pythagore and Plato got their ideas form earlier sources. Celtic druids knew Pythagore. Some most likely knew of him personally. Medieval thought also built on the Greeks, either directly or through later Roman (and Arabic) thinkers, as well as drawing on biblical and hebraic thought, and most importantly on Celtic and Germanic paradygms.

None of this should belittle the central importance of Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian thought in our cultural make-up (this is true for European civilization. It of course doesn't hold true anywhere else). It is of course important to know what influenced that thought if only to better understand it. Yes, Egypt, Baylon, India, Africa all have exchanged ideas with the West since the earliest Antiquity. It strikes me therefore as logical that Confucious and Socrates (as well as the Buddha, if memory serves) are contemporaries. But it does not mean that there is but one single source of civilization. quite the cotrary. Each became a point of departure for different cultures and societies. Greece, then Rome (and perhaps the Celts) are the sources for our society. It is that thought, and none other, which we stem from. To say otherwise is a greater lie than to say that there are other, previous sources.

Thanks but we should surely be more critical of Ancient Greek ideas, let alone their cultural importance to Europe (are we really that dependent upon them, or is it just a bit of cultural determinism?), and is the route you've identified, now seen as a truism, really true? What exactly did we gain? Roman culture was based more on Eastern culture, its Imperial constructs, construct of power, than Greece. It aped Persian state-development, not Greek small town perspectives. Hellenistic imperialism? Surely the same. Roman bureaucracy which you correctly identify as important was scarcely acquired from the Greeks. Such administrative technigues were widely used in Mesopotamia, Egypt and Persia. Is it possible you are repeating the developmental line propagated for several centuries, but not necessarily adequately critigued? The tripartism you invoke has been cheerfully invoked in many bygone Classics departments.

In one of my papers, I suggest the Renaissance (not so much based on a utilisation of logic, etc, but on Church power and religious reassessment) and the Enlightenment (paper: An Unusual Power)had more to do with European trading expansion.

In explaining influence, one should not confuse source and origin (an idea that springs to mind while reading this string of comments). Greek ideas are most likely not originally from Greece, but the Greek attitude and outlook certainly colored the ideas they received. And it is that attitude that greatly influenced modern (Renaissance and Classical) thought. Read Baxandall's Giotto and the Orators. It is only Contemporary relativism that makes us say that that isn't true.

Even if the ideas originated elsewhere (a proposition which deserves much thought and research), it is Greek and Latin writing and thought (as filtered through the Middle Ages) that structure the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. It isn't Persia and Mesopotamia. The very expression Renaissance means a revival (of Classical culture). Architecture was reinvinted by rereading Vitruvius. Eloquence by rereading Cicero, and later Demosthenes.

BTW, I never said that Roman beaurocracy was derived from the Greeks, as a matter of fact, I think it one of the few truly Roman inventions (even if it did exist previously elsewhere, we would be hard put to prove a link). I've always seen Rome as something of an abberation in the Western world of localized city states. It could be said that the idea of Empire came to Western Europe from the Phoenecians when they founded the Carthagenian Empire.

What I find troublesome in all this is the necessity of a single linear historical perspective. Your entire premise is to state that there must be a source where that source cannot be definitively confirmed (the Greeeks come from Mesopotamia) but deny it where it has been championed, hammered and constantly repeated as a fact from the get go (The Renaissance come from the Romans and the Greeks, which is stated as the origin on civilization.). Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. What matters is that generation accepted it as true and built their concepts on the fact that it was true.

While obviously Greece was neither the origin, nor really the Apex of civilization in reality. They saw themselves that way, the contemporary cultures saw that to be true, and Europe later accepted that as fact, and built their society on that fact. What to me is truly mind boggling isn't the unsurprising idea that Greek thought comes from the Middle East. It is how the Renaissance generation managed to erase the ideas, inventions and advances of a thousand years from our collective memory.

To understand European civilization is to understand the (incomplete) concept that it was built on a fusion of Classical, Judaic and Christian thought...

Francis S M >> Differential and Integral Calculus did not come from the Greeks (nor from Babylon or Persia) ... And Electronic Engineering did not owe those earlier civilizations any debt, surely? I would argue, too, that the same is true of perspective painting, and of Western-style music (although these are admittedly harder to demonstrate).

Well perspective painting may have done, but there are elements of these throughout the history of a number of civilisations. Although we now accept this, it is as much to do with how people think and what they wish to convey to viewer. Ancient Egyptian painting conveyed the stability of the cosmos, for example. Perspective painting concentrates on a delineation of the object.

Although this was not the point of your remarks, I've never quite understood the blind admiration for the Renaissance and the belief in its innovatory qualities. Look at medieval cathedrals-plenty of realistic sculture there at least.

Also, the ancient world, from Mesopotamian societies onward, had engineering if not the kind you have stated, although surely the practical and creativbe mindsets must be similar. But early Mesopotamian society created professions, that is an independent type of skilled people who performed a set number of tasks. Without this, focus on select skills would surely have proved difficult.

Thanks Francis, but again I must say that these are particular, perhaps idealised notions of origins. While the independence of European society is a given, or semi-independence, influence, as you reference the Renaissance, is not surely the same as origins? You say that where ideas come from doesn't matter, but surely it does if the knowledge isn't there?

Does it matter that there was rthetoric before Cicero? Yes, if we try and ignore that fact and discourses a thousand years before Plato. We then ignore roots. Those roots are larger than Europe and ignoring them provides us with a narrow understanding of world developments.

Let me attempt to answer several points you have made. While your ideas on the Renaissance are within their limits correct, claimed influences are never the same as actual influences, although probably the recovery of Roman statures (surely they had been visible to some extent before the 14th century onwards) created the desire to reproduce or/and compete with their makers what you consider truisms of the Renaissance refer to its later developments. Read Waldemar on the Renaissance. He does not accept the traditional view on the Renaissance and veers closer to mine. Can you accept that your views are merely traditional?

Why do your believe that Europe has a tradition of localised city states? Isn't that the Greek concept, then transmitted to Italy? Europe had tribal groups of considerable longevity, which probably, or possibly, would havewithout Roman interference developed into bureaucratic entities. Mesopotamia and Canaan had the same traditions. It certainly was not perculiar to Europe. It was a commonplace institution of the Bronze Age.

Is it possible, with all due respect, that you've imbibed a certain view on world history and continue running with it?

Thanks Francis, but again I must say that these are particular, perhaps idealised notions of origins. While the independence of European society is a given, or semi-independence, influence, as you reference the Renaissance, is not surely the same as origins? You say that where ideas come from doesn't matter, but surely it does if the knowledge isn't there?

Does it matter that there was rthetoric before Cicero? Yes, if we try and ignore that fact and discourses a thousand years before Plato. We then ignore roots. Those roots are larger than Europe and ignoring them provides us with a narrow understanding of world developments.

Let me attempt to answer several points you have made. While your ideas on the Renaissance are within their limits correct, claimed influences are never the same as actual influences, although probably the recovery of Roman statures (surely they had been visible to some extent before the 14th century onwards) created the desire to reproduce or/and compete with their makers what you consider truisms of the Renaissance refer to its later developments. Read Waldemar on the Renaissance. He does not accept the traditional view on the Renaissance and veers closer to mine. Can you accept that your views are merely traditional?

Why do your believe that Europe has a tradition of localised city states? Isn't that the Greek concept, then transmitted to Italy? Europe had tribal groups of considerable longevity, which probably, or possibly, would havewithout Roman interference developed into bureaucratic entities. Mesopotamia and Canaan had the same traditions. It certainly was not perculiar to Europe. It was a commonplace institution of the Bronze Age.

Is it possible, with all due respect, that you've imbibed a certain view on world history and continue running with it?

Franicis two additions:

You suggest I am trying to create or propagate linear progressions while surely your triple centres of excellence are the same. Is Christianity to be considered an ideal entity or one constructed from numerous sources? It is also highly unlikely that Rome developed its bureaucracy in some European blaze of originality, but took in on as a learned process. That Europe made unusual, even original, use of the material it inherited is true, but knowledge is not helped by imagining that orientalising, for example, was not one key amongst many.

In fact, most of the developments you consider essentially European came from elsewhere or were subject to specific influences.

Ancient Greece, to make yet another addition, developed through a relationship mainly with the Near East, very much throughout the Bronze Age and equally during the millennium before Cristianity; and with Christianity Greece and Rome both.

To David McNaughton:

Indeed, Greek mathematics fell apart when faced with irrational numbers (what fraction describes the square root of two?) There are many things that have been discovered far later than the Greeks, such as Gravitation and General Relativity. Or even positional notation in Math. No one dares translate Euclides, quite simply because the Greceans are afraid of the math and the mathematician can't handle the notation!

Perspective painting is an interesting paradox in its own right, at it is a Renaissance invention that stems from an idealized (and faulty) notion of art from the Antiquity. (The idea of visual 'composition' is a visual transliteration of verbal composition; cf. Baxandall op.cit.)

Western Music is essentially Medieval, as far as we can gather (one of my most important points is how the Renaisance conciously ignored all things Medieval).

To Stanley Wilkin:

I think is is a difference between origins and sources. There has been rhetoric since the beginning of articulate speech, I do not deny it. And there is obviously a traditions since the beginning of time, just as there are traditions in painting and music, and even story telling. There is a stemology of stories can purportes to trace stories back to the Paleolithic.

The specific case of 'city states' being a more European politic construct comes from visitng places like Bibracte in France. Gaul was also a grouping of city states, as were the Germanic tribes. Greec was just a more polished outgrowth of that basic political tribal structure. to my knowledge, few emipres in the Antiquity lasted more than a few generations. The Roman Empire held for a half a millenia.

To repeat myself, what really surprises me is the wonton ignorance the modern era had of its Medieval past. The Renaissance saw itself as revitalizing the Antiquity The Classical era exacerbated that ideology. Our society stems from those concepts. Obviously the reality of history is that there was much from elsewhere. We like to forget for instance that much of what we knopw from the Greeks comes from Arab philosophers. Jewish thought is as much a European construct os Greece or Rome.

I don't say that Greece and Rome are the real origins of our society (the weight of Celtic, Norse and Germanic ideas are far more important in our daily lives). I'm saying that they are the perceived origins and that Modern Europe built its ideology on that perception.

Again Francis, let me take the city states, they were a well known phenomenon not remotely specific to Europe, but reflecting certain economic conditions and sizes of ancient populations.

Understanding the contribution of ancient cultures in the construction of European institutions remains essential and in fact has been going on for many years. Holding on to outdated modes of thinking, perhaps not.

Francis,

Germany and France were groupings of city states? This is history, not fantasy! The oppidum were late developments based on relationships with Rome-wealth objects, etc.

Gaul is not France. Yes, the Eduens, The Allobroges the Séquanes were small groupings within the territories we now consider France. These were not tribes in ragged robes, but flourishing cities - that were independant of one another... The same probalby holds true for the Norsemaen or Gwhat is todat Germany... It is Rome that is exceptional.

The myth of Trojan origins is an interesting point in your favor.

My point being that Yes, the Pre-Socratics (and even most likey Plato himself) built on thoughts and ideas that preceeded Greek civilization. The roman adapted Etruscan water techniques (the Romans were the ultimate scavengers). But its doesn' matter in understanding modern thought (that is, pre-industrial thought). it is even fascintating to see how these earlier xultures supplied the later cultures. But we don't know...

My point is more that we Know that Michelanglo saw ancient Greek sculpture, That Lydgate read Homer, that playwrites such as Corneille, Racine and Molière worked from Latin originals. They themselves discussed it at length That is what I mean by the difference between sources and origins.

This is too fun to pass up!

First sorry for the typos in the previous post. I was writing just as I had to leave. :-)

Your intitial question was: "shouldn't we stop believing - and teaching - that the ancient Greeks were the source of modern civilization?"

It is an interesting question, but one that cannot be answered with a glib Yes or No. First because there are in fact more than one question in that one sentence:

Explicitly:

Are the Greeks the source of Modern Civilization?

Should we believe they are? (not the same thing)

Should we teach that they are? (again another problem)

Implicitly:

What is the source of Modern Civilization?

(correlaries: what do we understand as 'Modern Civilization'?

Is there but one source of Modern Civilization? (Provided we

have presented a satisfactory answer to the previous question.)

Are the sources of Modern Civilization previous to the Greeks?

(A question that implies an answer to the previous correlary)

Is there only one modern civilization?

An intital answer to your question would obviously have to be No. But your subsequent paragraph implies yet another series of questions:

What are the sources of Greek thought? (which is a slightly different question from 'what is the source of Greek civilization').

Are they the source of modern civilization?

The first question we have known about and begun answering since the late eighteenth century, when we cracked Egyptian and discovered the Mesopotamian civilizations. And have been continuously exploring this avenue ever since. But that does not mean that they are the source of modern civilization? Which brings us back to the first (implicit) question...

I hope this helps to explain my answers, and will help to clarify many of the assumptions that we all have been making.

Happy New Year to all!