Western Civilization

The Birth of Western Civilization

Around 4000 B.C.E, the first people settled down next to the Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia, alongside the Nile in Egypt, and much later in Greece. Naturally, the people in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece developed different lifestyles. To most, Egyptian life was much different than that of the Mesopotamians. Even within Greece, the Hellenistic and Classical Greeks showed discrepancies in their customs. Though massive tracks of land separated them, congruencies between their cultures also existed. Most prominent are the overlaps and disparities between the topics of women, slaves, religion, and the law.

Among the first things settlers in Mesopotamia and Egypt wrote down were laws, most famous among

them being Hammurabi’s Law Code in Mesopotamia, containing approximately 250 laws. Laws dealing with family matters like marriage, inheritance, and adoption became the largest category. In this category woman are labeled the property of their father before marriage. While ownership of their father, women were still entitled to a piece of their father’s estate, in the form of a dowry or profits from his land. As their father, men could choose whomever they saw fit to marry their daughter. Once married, the woman now belongs to her husband. Hence, having relations with a man she wasn’t wed to could lead to the damaging of a woman. If both the man and woman committing adultery were wed, they could both possibly be put to death. Just as in Mesopotamia, Egyptian women were entitled to a dowry. If they were adulterous, however, they lost their dowry to their husband. In addition to losing her property, an adulterous woman could be subject to punishment. Bullough, Shelton, and Slavin pointed out, “We have two folktales form the Middle and New Kingdom of women committing adultery: in the first the woman was burned to death; in the second her husband killed her and threw her corpse to the hounds”. Meanwhile, the men in both societies aren’t considered sinful if they slept with another woman. In both Egypt and Mesopotamia, there is an obvious double standard when it comes to adultery, with women, unfortunately, getting the shorter end of the stick.
By contrast, women in Egypt lived much freer lives than their Mesopotamian counterparts, considering they weren’t legally property. In fact, women in Egypt had the right to own and transmit property and even paid taxes. Possibly the most surprising fact was that some women even ruled Egypt. When compared to Mesopotamia, where women weren’t even allowed govern themselves, Egypt was on the other end of the spectrum concerning the amount of power a woman in their society could possibly hold. There existed some limitations, however. While on the throne, Hatshepsut, a better-known female pharaoh, ruled as a king rather than a queen. Though this distinction may not seem very important, it illuminates a problem with women holding the throne in Egypt. Seeing as Egyptians devised all their ceremonies and titles to fit a male monarch, changing all these tradition-rich practices to fit a queen was apparently too much of a hassle. One could conclude then, that these female pharaohs weren’t taken as seriously as their male counterparts, since altering the titles to fit their sex was too inconvinient.
It’s hard to imagine what the women of the past actually lived through since most of the history is one-sided. Bullough, Shelton, and Slavin, however, organized their article in a way that made it easy to gauge the differences and similarities in how women were treated in these differing cultures. The general similarities and minute disparities made for an interesting read. Overall, Bullough, Shelton, and Slavin depicted Egyptian attitudes towards women to be more akin to modern attitudes than that of Mesopotamia and did it in a fairly entertaining manner.
Dealing with more than just family relations, Hammurabi’s Law Code and other ancient law documents presented guidelines for slavery.

Amid the first slaves in the ancient world were prisoners of war. However, natives weren’t exempted from becoming slaves. There were three instances where a native of the land could become a slave: when a parent sold their children, adults self-sold themselves, and defaulting on debts. Mendelsohn reports interest rates as high as, “20-25% on sliver and 33(1/3)% on grain”, making debt slavery the most common form of enslavement. At first, it seemed that if one defaulted on a debt, they became the property of the creditor for life, but both the Hebrew Bible and Hammurabi’s Law Code set limits on the longevity of the debtor’s servitude. Mendelsohn highlights the fact that for the Hebrews, “a debtor-slave is free after six years of service,” and in Hammurabi’s Law Code it, “demands the release of a debtor-slave in the fourth year”. The process of become a slave was pretty universal, but obtaining freedom is different depending on the person’s location and

circumstance.
Even in the ancient world, the notion that a man owning another man was acceptable was disputed. But as Mendelsohn states, “In Babylonia the person who sold himself received his purchase price and as a result he became a slave, the property of another man”. In Babylonia then, a self-seller couldn’t be freed, because they were true chattel slaves. The Palestinians, however, didn’t give a man a sum of money when he sold himself into slavery. Therefore, he never became property of another man and could be freed. Mendelsohn states that, “According to Biblical law…he who sold himself into slavery is to be freed in the year of jubilee”. The Hebrews perhaps didn’t pay the self-seller a sum of money, because they viewed that owning of man by man as inappropriate.
Mendelsohn’s article did a great job of explaining the different types of slaves in each civilization and the rules surrounding their predicament. It was incredibly easy to skim through to find paragraphs containing desired information. Mendelsohn, did make it hard to find passages about specific civilizations, because he tended to jump from location to location when talking about certain topics rather than organizing it by geography.
Oddly enough, laws concerning punishment in criminal cases weren’t all that common in Egypt.

James, referring to how Egyptians determine punishment states that, “The principle here seems clearly to be that criminal wrong-doing should be dealt with arbitrarily and physically…On the other hand, legal processes ought to be invoked for the settlement of non-criminal cases”. Not only are crimes not being investigated, but also no trials are being held either; a simple, capricious punishment is administered. Concurrently, in Mesopotamia, Hammurabi’s Law Code has assigned pretty specific guidelines for punishment. Most famous among them is, “an eye for an eye”. Furthermore, witnesses, written evidence, and a written verdict were all required in cases held in Mesopotamian courts. So far Mesopotamia looks like the ideal place to have your trial in the ancient world, if you were rich. Getting one’s case heard if they were nobody was impossible in Egypt and Mesopotamia. According to James, “position and influence mattered in ancient Egypt just as they have mattered in other countries and other societies”. No matter where one went to have their case heard, if they had no importance, there was very little chance their case would be heard.

James did a wonderful job illustrating the Egyptian legal system though the use of literary works of the time, but literary works aren’t the same as law codes. Since there were so few law codes and the ones that did exist were vague, it’s very difficult

to determine what the actual practices of the legal system were. I also wish he had had some sort of comparison between other civilizations’ law code’s or their possible practices to paint a better picture of the law in the ancient world.
From the start of myths and folklore, polytheism was a popular idea among many different people. It wasn’t until the Hebrews came along did monotheism become a practice. Soler states that a chief idea between the Hebrews was that, “Man has been made ‘in the image’ of God (Gen. 1:26-67), but he is not, nor can he be God”. This was a bit different than the Mesopotamian and Egyptian idea that the king was often divine. He was either chosen by the gods or was himself a god. In Egypt around the Middle Kingdom, the common people could even hope to join the gods in the afterlife. Sadly, the Jews could never have the opportunity to be as divine as their God, but they did have a more reasonable and logical God. The Jewish God promised his people that as long as they followed his rules, they wouldn’t be punished. Unfortunately for the Mesopotamians and Egyptian, no such promises were made. It’s curious to think of what could cause the Hebrews to come up with the idea of worshipping one god while everyone else was worshipping multiple gods.
For the Hebrew’s, a good majority of the guidelines set out by their God dealt with the food they ate. As time went on, these changed, but a permanent diet was put in place when Moses appeared. Originally, meat eating was prohibited, but according to Soler, “Meat eating, then, will be tolerated by Moses, but with two restrictions. The [taboo] against blood will be reinforced, and certain animals will be forbidden”. With the coming of Moses, the distinction of “clean” and “unclean” food comes, with clean food being what can be consumed. Animals were categorized by their habitat, either land, water, or air, and then deemed safe to eat or not if they met additional requirements. One such requirement was, “Everything in the waters that has fins and scales…you may eat”. This passage in the Hebrew Bible excludes animals like mollusks, shellfish, and eels from the diet. Though these rules may seem like torture to pork-lovers, it’s truly interesting to see a society deciding what is and isn’t ok to do and the justification of their choices.
One of the biggest differences between Classical and Hellenistic Greece is found in their schools of philosophy. Among the first to start teaching philosophy was Socrates. He became famous for teaching people to look to improve their soul, not necessarily look for happiness. The Stoics and Epicureans of Hellenistic Greece, however, preached that people should seek happiness. By seeking happiness, people were living by the natural law, according to the Stoics. The aim of Classical and Hellenistic philosophy differed greatly, one seeking improvement, while the other seeking immediate gratification.