History study materials

Change and civilization

To ask how things change is a difficult but important question for historians. But to ask if the change was good or bad is a question most historians would rather avoid. "Good for whom?" they might ask. "We should be careful not to impose our values on the past." Yet as citizens, we make judgments about how the world is changing all the time. In fact, we would be ill equipped to shape our future without an understanding of how things were changing and without an ability to evaluate those changes. The Bias of "Civilization." No change in human history is more loaded with value judgments than the development of cities and state societies. Traditionally, they are called "civilizations," a word related to "cities," "civic," and "civility," which implies urban sophistication, high culture, and great achievement. In addition, "civilized" has long had a special meaning of emotional control, maturity, and politeness. The problem with all these associations is that they reflect the viewpoint of people in city-based societies. It is a self-congratulatory view that originated in the first cities themselves. The Epic of Gilgamesh presents such a perspective: . . . ramparted Uruk, Where fellows are resplendent in holiday clothing, Where every day is set for celebration. Moreover, it is the view that the upper class and literate class developed of itself. The ideas of civilization, progress, and perhaps even change were urban inventions, created to denigrate the people of farm and pasture as "uncivilized" or "barbaric." Thus, to ask if city society was an improvement is to open a huge can of worms. Clearly, we are well advised to ask "good for whom?" The Egyptian official described above lived far better than his chief fowler; he, in turn, lived far more comfortably than the rowers in the master's ship. But did the rise of cities and state societies improve the lives of most people? Did it raise the level of living 67 state societies improve the lives of most people? Did it raise the level of living for future generations? There are many reasons to say "no": increased inequality, suppression of women, slavery, organized warfare, conscription, heavy taxation, and forced labor, to name some of the most obvious. A list like this is enough to make one wonder if anything good came out of the first state societies. But we do not have to wonder long. Achievements of Ancient Civilizations. Our museums are full of the art and artifacts of the ancient civilizations. The monuments of the ancient world, the pyramids of Egypt and of Mexico, and the ziggurats of Mesopotamia are among the wonders of the world. Does it matter that the great pyramids of Egypt were built from the forced labor of thousands to provide a resting place for a single person (and those who were entombed alive in order to serve him)? We can view them today as a remarkable achievement of engineering and organization while still condemning their manner of execution. We can admire the art in the tombs, thrill to the revealing detail of ancient Egyptian life, and marvel at the persistence of vivid colors mixed almost 5,000 years ago and still detest their purpose. We can do this because these monuments have become something different for us than what they were for the ancients. They have become testaments to human achievement, regardless of the cost. These ancient city-based societies were the first in which humans produced abundant works of art and architecture that still astound us in their range, scope, and design. The significance of the urban revolution is that it produced things that lasted beyond their utility or meaning—thanks to new techniques in stonecutting and hauling; baking brick, tile, and glass; and smelting tin, copper, and bronze—as a legacy for future generations. Even 3,000 years ago, Egyptian engineers studied the ancient pyramids to understand a very distant past, 1,500 years before, and to learn, adapt, revive, or revise ancient techniques. In short, the achievement of the urban revolution is that it made knowledge cumulative so that each generation could stand on the shoulders of its predecessors. Writing. The invention of writing was the single most important step in the urban revolution. Almost all the ancient city societies created some form of writing. The techniques and symbols differed widely. The earliest system in Mesopotamia, called cuneiform, began with wedge markings in clay, sun-dried or oven-baked to form a permanent record. Egyptians and Mesoamericans developed hieroglyphic systems of pictures and symbols painted on a sort of paper that the Egyptians made from papyrus leaves and the Mexicans made from bark. The Inca of Peru devised one of the most unusual systems for recording 68 information; they tied knots at particular intervals on strings of different colors and weaves and hung dozens of these strings from a horizontal belt called a khipu. The combination of knot placement and color and weave of string gave an Inca khipu maker 1,500 separate units of information, like digital bits according to a recent study,8 cuneiform signs. a number equal to the approximately 1,500 Sumerian Remarkably, writing was invented for different purposes in different societies, and creating literature was not one of them. The first writing in Mesopotamia registered economic information about temple workers, such as work schedules and ration payments. In Egypt, writing designated kinship relations and property ownership. Mayan writing related the ancestors and achievements of Mayan kings. The earliest examples of Chinese writing that we have are the inscriptions written on animal bones that were used in the Shang dynasty about 4,000 years ago. Priests would inscribe their questions on the bones and then put them in a fire until they cracked. The lines of the cracks were interpreted as answers to their questions. Control and Change. In these and other ancient state societies, writing was invented as a means of social control and administration by the wealthy and powerful. In its origins, writing had nothing to do with self-expression or literature, and it served only the interests of a tiny portion of the population. But writing was too powerful an invention to be contained within a narrow class. Despite frequent efforts by priests and scribes to preserve their monopoly, they could not control the spread or use of reading and writing. By 1700 BCE, at the latest, the story of Gilgamesh had been written down, and Egyptian scribes were copying sample letters and descriptions of society to learn to write. Writing was one of the most important forces for change in the Bronze Age. Even if it had been limited to the scribes, it would have inevitably led to innovation. Writing enabled a range of other crucial breakthroughs. Calendars were written representations of the changes in evening light (lunar) and the seasons (solar). At first an aid to determine the time of planting, especially in Egypt, where the river rose predictably, solar calendars became complex records of the movement of the stars and in Mayan society remarkably accurate measures of time. In conjunction with written observations about the movement of the stars and the natural rhythms of the earth, the beginnings of astronomy and earth science evolved. There were other important forces of change in state societies. All technological innovation takes on a certain momentum of its own as improvements are made and problems lead to new breakthroughs. In ancient societies, however, such improvements were by no means as rapid as they have become in modern times. The class divisions of the ancient world generally 69 become in modern times. The class divisions of the ancient world generally divided manual labor and technical knowledge on the one hand from science and the power to innovate on the other. Markets were a richer source of change in the Bronze Age, as was the meeting of traders in market areas, especially in city states, where markets played a greater role than they did in territorial states. Before the invention of coinage in the seventh century BCE in Lydia (modern Turkey), however, the range of trade and markets was limited. Not all forces of change in ancient society came from inside the society. Traders often came from distant lands, for example, and their very presence would encourage thoughts about different ways of doing things. In addition, there was a very powerful force of change restlessly looking on from the frontiers of ancient states. Perhaps the most important of these frontier societies consisted of the people of the pasture

The spread of salvation religions 

 The routes that carried precious commodities from one side of Eurasia to the other, by land and sea, also carried new ideas. At the end of the classical age (around 200 CE), religions swept over the walls that had separated the great classical civilizations. It was as if suddenly religion replaced older systems of identity and meaning. People who had been Greeks or Indians or Romans or Chinese became Christians and Buddhists. It was not as if religion itself was entirely new. All the classical civilizations had priests, temples, and religious festivals. All worshiped the appropriate deities, paid tribute to the gods, and celebrated their feast days. Chinese sons worshipped at the altars of their fathers, Indian Brahmins supervised age-old rites, and Greek and Roman priests made offerings and interpreted oracles. But during the classical age—in fact, during most of the previous thousands of years of urban civilization—religion was a matter for the specialists, and the role of the common person was limited. Further, most people rarely took their religions beyond their own clan or town. The new religions leapt old boundaries and entered people's hearts. And it was not just the hearts of officials and priests that turned toward the new gods but the hearts of people who had previously given little thought to such matters —poor people, lower castes, women, and merchants. The appeal of these new religions was so powerful that the followers established new networks. Monasteries sprouted over vast areas, connecting pilgrimage routes to holy sites but paying little regard to the boundaries of territorial states. Governments ignored these new forces at their peril. Only those that seized the initiative and supported the new religions survived. Even then, their people often thought of themselves as Christians or Buddhists rather than Romans, 147 often thought of themselves as Christians or Buddhists rather than Romans, Greeks, Indians, or Chinese. We call these new religions "universal" and "salvation" religions. Christianity and Buddhism offered salvation to anyone who chose to participate, regardless of caste, class, birth, or background. The ministers and monastics of these new religions counseled the sick, poor, and dispossessed. They nursed the suffering, gave alms to the needy, and offered an alternative to the world of sin and illusion. The Christian heaven and the Buddhist nirvana promised a more satisfying future than an ailing world could deliver.