Why start with the greeks and not with the beginning? The

File: Woman Holding a Sistrum, ca. 1250-1200 BC (New Kingdom).jpg (232KB, 540x772px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 540x772px

>>8525522
Because everything the Mesopotamians wrote is horribly terse and short and pretty much devoid of any literary (as opposed to historical/anthropological) merit.
You can't blame anyone for skipping them and starting with the Vedic Aryans instead.
Even the Egyptians- who were writing things of interest centuries before the Sumerians- were better stylists- much more æsthetic art and writing system too. And the literary gap from them to the Greeks and Hebrews is still enormous.

Did people even have those available for most of western history?
The point of "start with the greeks" isn't in order to satisfy some kind of chronological autism, but to read the common literary heritage of western civilization. The Epic of Gilgamesh was discovered in the 19th century, so it's not gonna be referenced and assumed in the majority of the "Canon".

>>8525566
They influenced the bible. The bible's a big deal in the common literary heritage of western civilization.

>>8525566
REDISCOVERED

people knew about it

>>8525566
Ah I see

So because we discovered this Epic too late, we should not start with it? How is Gilgamesh compared to the Greek myths in your opinion?

>>8525584
you can read gilgamesh in like 20 minutes

>>8525584
I'm not saying it's not worth reading obviously, it's interesting. But it's dumb to get bogged down in tracing influences because you'll never be finished with it, and I doubt most people have the willpower to get through every important work of ancient and medieval literature. It's fine to just start with Homer.

>>8525522
>he doesn't start with the myths of apes

>>8525604
He came to 4chan didn't he