Literally all of ancient greek knowledge came from ancient egyptian priests...

(Me)
The white man's fads for faux oriental and exotic shit is prevalent throughout history. In Roman times there was a text called the Chaldean Oracles of Zoroaster (!)(Zoroaster was Persian, not Chaldean, for those of you who don't get it), an obvious Hellenistic fraud that passed as "ancient wisdom". It was Neopythagoric and Neoplatonic and really had nothing to do with Chaldea OR Persia. The same goes for the Neoplatonic On the Egyptian Mysteries by Iamblichus. There's nothing in it remotely similar to any system of Egyptian religion ever.

Don't take the Greeks and Romans' word for it when they say something is "ancient wisdom" that they learned from "Egyptian priests".

I don't think so, in any case I wonder who those "Egyptian priests" were and why did they stay anonymous. They seem like they belong to a huge intellectual/religious society, and of course their relation with Hermes is unquestionable.

with society, I meant some kinda secret society. Like "Brotherhood of Snake" or whatever

>much more European
uh...wut? The concept of "Europe" didn't even exist back then. They didn't see the "barbarians" living in the north as anything resembling kindred spirits.

see those chariots?

That is Indo-European tech.

See, that's the ruling class. The ruling class is informed by the priestly class.

varg go back to your jungle, we are discussing something.

>The concept of "Europe" didn't even exist back then.

sure thing kid

Ever wonder where the tin for that bronze alloy came from?

I am convinced that there are multiple Indo-European peoples, that in fact like the Mongol horde that came after them they were a confederacy of tribes brought together for an unknown purpose and given leave of conquest by the discovery of the spoked wheel.

What? How is that even relevant? Usage of tin in bronze predates any Greek civilization and was made in a lot of places outside of Europe.

>Greek civilization

duh, we're talking about Egyptians.

Chariots were invented by Indo-Iranians long after Indo-Europeans had already spread

Maybe you are, but I wasn't. I was replying to the flawed notion that Classical Greece was somehow more "European" at a time when the concept of "Europe" didn't exist to anyone.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

>be modern day Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan
>called Iranian

>Most researchers associate the Andronovo horizon with early Indo-Iranian languages, though it may have overlapped the early Uralic-speaking area at its northern fringe.[3]

>the concept of "Europe" didn't exist to anyone

you have yet to establish this.

Seems about as likely as the concept of "Africa" or "Asia" not existing to bronze age Mediterranean peoples.

>Indo-Iranian

it seems like all these people with the prefix Indo didn't come from India.

>you have yet to establish this.
It doesn't need to be established.
"European philosophy" all descends from Greek philosophy, and Greek philosophy took an explicitly different form from beliefs and practices of other areas of the landmass called Europe. The Greek gods may have had European counterparts but the Greeks looked to the Egyptians as a race of wise ancients whose priests possessed special knowledge of the gods.
The Greeks viewed every other European group as barbaric. They consciously differentiated themselves from them. The very concept of 'civilization' derives from this.
Your use of the term "European" implies a relevant universal culture among Europeans. Maybe one existed, but it's inconsequential to the point at hand, because "becoming European" effectively means "becoming like the Greeks" at every point after the Greeks become relevant.
"Europe" as a civilization is a product of the transumation of Greek civilization and learning by way of Rome.

>Seems about as likely as the concept of "Africa" or "Asia" not existing to bronze age Mediterranean peoples.
Which they didn't. At most they had terms to distinguish the geography of those areas, but the culture scheme that existed at the same time was drastically different from what it is today. Classical Greeks did not see themselves as a part of some kind of "European" cultural group in tandem with Basques for example, same as how ancient Berbers and Egyptians did not see themselves as a part of some kind of "North African" cultural group.
You're entire idea of "Africa," "Europe," and "Asia" reeks of modern concepts of culture that simply did not exist back then.

>"European philosophy"

that's weasel words and you know it.

>The Greeks viewed every other European group as barbaric.

They viewed every group that wasn't Greek as barbarian.

>relevant universal culture among Europeans

Celtic culture was the closest to universal, but that's iron age.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Bronze_Age

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_Britain

>simply did not exist back then

you have yet to establish this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_burial

They literally viewed almost every culture that wasn't Greek as barbarians. You're concept of European culture didn't exist back then, bucko. Get over it.

>that's weasel words and you know it.
How so? This doesn't look like an argument you're making. "European philosophy" was a distinct entity that I was trying to pick out as opposed to other philosophical traditions beginning in other areas of the world like China or India or Persia, hence the use of quotes. I'm talking about an entity, we call it European philosophy because it has its origins in Europe, specifically in Greece. There's a philosophical canon. It begins with Thales, who thought that water was the universal principle. OP contends that this tradition actually begins in Egypt. Another valid reason to use quotes. I don't even know what "weasel words" is supposed to mean.
>They viewed every group that wasn't Greek as barbarian.
Including Europeans, yes.
>Celtic culture was the closest to universal, but that's iron age.
So you're saying that the Greeks became consciously more Celtic at some point in their history? I'm just confused, what's your argument supposed to be again?
It's a commonly understood fact of history that European civilization as a distinct whole emerged after the medieval period. Prior to this there were civilizations in Europe, but "Europe" as a concept was not seen as having a universal heritage common to all its parts. A common history and common geography, maybe, but this isn't the same as a common heritage.

They were still European.

>you're

AY SO HOL UP

>Your concept of European culture didn't exist back then

I never said it did, and you mentioned nothing about "culture" earlier. All I said was that people were aware of the existence of Europe itself, other wise trade wouldn't have been happening as much as it clearly was.

...

Geographically? Yes. By their own standards of culture? No.

>Including Europeans, yes.

You act as if that's even a significant point.

>European civilization as a distinct whole emerged after the medieval period

Western civilization emerged long before the end of the medieval period, and is by it's core European.

>and you mentioned nothing about "culture" earlier.
This whole conversations has literally been about culture since the very beginning. Yes, people were aware of the existence of the geographical boundaries of a region called "Europe." Literally no one here said they weren't.

But the claim in question was "The Greeks became more European." It isn't whether or not Greeks were European. It's whether or not there was a point in history at which they went out of their way to "be European" as opposed to "being Greek." It's unclear when this would be. Byzantium? The self-consciously Greek state that even when Christianity came along continued the ancient Greek autocratic tradition that went all the way back to Crete? The Roman Empire that was forced to become Roman by Romans and continued to speak Greek until it was conquered by Turks?
When did the Greeks go out of their way, as a civilization, to act more "European?" What did it entail? I'm still unclear on your argument.

>You act as if that's even a significant point.
Of course it fucking is, are you just b8ing?
>Western civilization emerged long before the end of the medieval period, and is by it's core European.
When did it emerge? I never contested that it was European. Get this shit fucking straight, you moron, you're wasting my fucking time. What the fuck is your argument? It sure as hell isn't consistent.

you said the concept of "Europe" did not exist back then.

I said you have yet to establish this as fact.

Then you tried to give me a workaround, which clearly suggests to me you picked up that "Europe" line from college so you assume it's true.

>look the Greeks saw every culture that wasn't Greek as barbaric
>HEY GUYS THE GREEKS SAW EUROPEANS AS BARBARIC
>EUROPE
>CULTURE

NO SHIT RETARD

>When did it emerge?

I'm inclined to argue the Roman Republic, but it really goes back to Athens.

>which clearly suggests to me you picked up that "Europe" line from college so you assume it's true.
So everything someone can learn in college is false?

I originally said that the concept of "Europe" didn't exist back then. The purpose of the quotations was the put my usage of Europe in a cultural context instead of a geographical concept. You obviously have taken it to mean the latter, so let's make my point completely clear. The concept of a universal European culture did NOT exist to the ancient Greeks. Yes they recognized that they lived in a geographical region that was Europe, but that is NOT the same thing.

Geographically, culturally, linguistically, genetically, etc.

I'm not that guy you were arguing with, but I'm guessing he was implying the greeks became more self sufficient and inwardly focused, as opposed to drawing influence from other cultures (i.e. non european) like the op implied.

>>EUROPE
>>CULTURE

>NO SHIT RETARD
Again, nobody is saying there was no commonality among people in Europe. What the fuck don't you understand?
>I'm inclined to argue the Roman Republic, but it really goes back to Athens.
So we're back at the fucking beginning, where you admit that European civilization stems from Greece? Holy fuck, you're dumber than I thought.

>I'm guessing he was implying the greeks became more self sufficient and inwardly focused, as opposed to drawing influence from other cultures (i.e. non european) like the op implied.
How is focusing on Germanic forest life "inward" for an Athenian merchant who owns a fleet of fishing boats?

>Geographically
Yes.
>culturally
Not by their standards
>linguistically
Depends on the language in question. Ancient Greek and Celtic are not very close at all
>genetically
Greeks are genetically closer to Levantines than they are Northern Europeans. Not that the ancient Greeks themselves knew that or gave a shit about that.

I'm that guy.

I meant European as in Greece, as opposed to the cultures in Africa and Asia.

>European civilization stems from Greece

I said western civilization.

European culture =/= western civilization

there were several European cultures that existed alongside the bronze age Greeks, you ponce.

Ever wonder where the bronze age Greek culture came from?

Alright so let's try and get this whole thing straight. Did you mean to imply that ancient Greeks were part of a universal European culture that you believe existed at that time? Yes, or no?

>there were several European cultures that existed alongside the bronze age Greeks

You see how none of those guys were literate?

Up until the Roman Republic, the Greeks were essentially the only literate culture in the region.

No.

I'd say that they were one of the cornerstone influences of what would become European culture later on.

The region was always very unique compared to any of its neighbors.

Okay. Then forgive me for not understanding what you were implying.

So?

>bronze age Greece was heavily influenced by Mesopotamia and Egypt, classical Greece was much more European and inward looking.
>classical Greece was much more European and inward looking.
What did you mean by this? How was it "more European" than it was before?

It's the internet.

Without non-verbal cues everyone is operating off of the equivalent of high functioning autism.

As far as I can tell, Hellenic Greece imitated Mesopotamia and Egypt a lot less than Mycenaean Greece.

You had more distinctive temple designs, more distinctive written works, different philosophies.

>Not by their standards
Greek culture is European.

>Depends on the language in question. Ancient Greek and Celtic are not very close at all

No it doesn't, Greek and Celtic were indo-european and were more closely related to each other than any non indo-european language.

>Greeks are genetically closer to Levantines than they are Northern Europeans.

You realise north europeans aren't the only other group of europeans, right? All Europeans form a distinct cluster with each other, and most male lineages share a recent expansion time stemming from common sources.

t. I don't know shit about central asian history and about why those places are called like that

>take a shower
>wow 36 new posts
>see my thread got derailed as fuck

;_;

>Greek culture is European
If by that, you mean it's a culture that exists in a people who live on the continent of Europe, then I agree.
>No it doesn't, Greek and Celtic were indo-european and were more closely related to each other than any non indo-european language.
Literally every language from Portugal to the Indus River is indo-european. Even Farsi is.
>You realise north europeans aren't the only other group of europeans, right?
The point is that there's a lot more overlap than you're giving credit for. Greeks are just as related to many groups that exist outside of Europe as they are groups that live in it.

>why those places are called like that

Mongols, Turks, and Islam. Easy.

>If by that, you mean it's a culture that exists in a people who live on the continent of Europe, then I agree.
Same guy. And by this I am of course referring to ancient greek culture, not modern greek culture which is definitely in line with the modern definition of Euopean culture.

Iachen is an important name.

>Literally every language from Portugal to the Indus River is indo-european.
Not every language, there are still large pockets of non indo-european speaking peoples, like the basques, turkish, finns and magyars.

>Even Farsi is
Yes, from the indo-iranian branch of the indo-european family, distinct from the european branches of the language that came from mainland europe.

>The point is that there's a lot more overlap than you're giving credit for.
You realise that haploshite chart supports my view, right? R1a and r1b together form the largest single cluster and both likely underwent recent expansion in europe possibly stemming from an eastern european/steppe source during the late neolithic and bronze age, which has been hypothesized as being a part of the spread of indo-european languages across the continent.

>Greeks are just as related to many groups that exist outside of Europe as they are groups that live in it.
No they aren't. ALL europeans form a distinct cluster with each other before other people, and all europeans (greeks included) descend from the same ancestral populations comprised of the mesolithic hunter gatherers, eef, along with the aforementioned bronze age component. The pull of greeks towards levantines/near eastern groups could be due to several things, notably the fact that greeks, like many southern european populations, trace more of their ancestry to the european farmer groups who were believed to be of northwestern anatolian stock, compared to northern europeans. This could partially explain it as sardinians experience a similar pull. Or it could be down to ancient or recent admixture between levantines and greeks/southern europeans, as is often the case between populations who are geographically "close" to each other and experience trade. Regardless, the genetic, linguistic, and cultural foundation of the greeks remains european.

>Indo-Iranian, Hellenic, and Celtic are all on the same "level" in that they all directly split off the original Indo-European mother tongue. You speak as if there's another level of Proto-European language from which both Celtic and Hellenic are split from

Indo-iranian is a seperate branch within the larger indo-european language family. This distinction is clearly shown even in that chart you posted as it shows most european languages share a recent origin and are more closely related to each other than indo-iranian. Both celtic and greek came from mainland europe anyways so it should be obvious.

>It supports your point when talking about Northern and Western Europeans. Not so much for Eastern Europeans
Literally every haplogroup found in eastern europeans can be found in other european groups.

>It's more than just a "pull." I'll refer you back to the image I posted earlier. They're literally more related to Levantines than they are other most other European populations

No they aren't and your image says nothing of the sort. It's just a chart of y-dna frequencies and says nothing of population affinities. Regardless, none of the lineages found in greece are unheard of in other european populations. R1b and r1a are associated with possible steppe migrations, i with mesolithic populations, g and j were spread by the eef populations during the neolithic. Autosomally the greeks cluster like any other southern european population and come together to form a larger european cluster. If greeks aren't european than i guess italians, sicilians, iberians, and sardinians must not be either.