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
…show more content…
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. This category labels women as the property of their father before marriage. While under the 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 husband assumes responsibility of his wife, effectively making her his property. Hence, a wife having relations with a man she wasn’t wed to results in the decrease in her value. Punishments for defacing a woman depended on the circumstance. For example, if the man and woman both 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, their husband received their dowry. In addition to losing her property, an adulterous woman could be subject to severe disipline. 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 obtain. 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 inconvenient. 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. Being very similar to the Greeks, the Macedonians shared many traits with the Greeks of the Classical Age. When the two civilizations merged so did their school of philosophy. Socrates focused more on trying to explain human behavior and questioning democracy. While Socrates openly disliked democracy, he fully supported the polis and thought, according to Kagan, “[Laws] had a legitimate claim on the citizen”. So too did the Stoics of the Hellenistic Era. They, like Plato took part in politics, even going as far as creating a new political system. It seems as if politics was an important part of philosophy throughout Classical and Hellenistic Greece.
The first civilization to rise was the Mesopotamia, located in present day Iraq, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, and Egypt, along the Nile River. It’s split in two ecological zones. In the south Babylonia (irrigation is vital) and north Assyria (agriculture is possible with rainfall and wells). By 4000 B.C.E., people had settled in large numbers in the river-watered lowlands of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Archaeologists have shown that large-scale irrigation appeared only long after urban civilization had already developed, meaning major waterworks were a consequence of urbanism (population). Mesopotamia cities were made of people called the Summerians in the land of Sumer located on the south of Babylonia. The Summerian city was one of
The modern world is linked through networks of communication and exchange between peoples. These exchanges between regions has changed cultures, economics, and politics. Through time the cultural influence between regions has consisted of many factors and elements but comes down to the spread of religion and religious teachings , movement of peoples, technological and cultural advancements affecting trade and commerce. Beginning with the Middle Ages in the years 1100-1500 , Africa, Asia, and Europe developed and influenced each other in several different ways. Starting with religion. The birth of Islam in the Middle East rapidly spread throughout Afro- Eurasia. Islam was attractive to people who were uninterested in the requirements of Christianity and the Church.
Overtime, the Archaic period started a spread of Greek culture throughout the Mediterranean area. One of the cultures during this time was the Hellenic culture. The Hellenic culture was based on the work of Socrates and Plato. Socrates was the best-known teacher of wisdom in the fifth century in Athens (Acrobatiq,2014.) Socrates was concerned with real life problems, education, and how people could improve in daily living. While, some criticized him for his belief towards the gods, others admired him and considered him originated scientific knowledge and asking a sequence of
Early restrictions prior to the initiation of Mosaic dietary laws related directly to the belief that the human race originally consumed just vegetable products, and that it was not until the Flood and the prescriptions relative to Noah’s animal ownership that individuals were pushed to consume animal flesh (Genesis 9:3-4). Initially, it was recognized that animal slaughter was an unclean process, and further, from a historical perspective, it can be argued that the consumption of some animals was just unsafe. The lack of refrigeration and the prevalence of bacterial infection in the flesh of animals determined a lack of safety and the people of this region often saw illness related to meat consumption as ...
All three societies had some form of belief in higher powers such as gods and other polytheistic beliefs. Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt had more duties involving their beliefs compared to Greece because both of those societies had ways of taking care of their religious sites such as feeding the gods daily or cleaning the temple area daily whereas there was not a huge emphasis on daily chores for Greece. Each society had originated around an ecologically useful area. Greece had a better advantage when compared to Egypt and Mesopotamia because both were prone to flooding. The Nile in Egypt constantly overflowed or ran dry causing harm to those who lived off of the river. The laws of each society were very male centered. Men were dominant over women in each society, but women in Egypt and Greece had more rights than those of Mesopotamia. Egyptian women could sue and file for divorce while Greek women could get jobs and retain property. The men gained more repercussions in Greece seeing as how rape and adultery would initiate a fine in Athens and not joining the army in Sparta would make you lose citizenship and the right to marry. Each society was also governed in some way making them similar, but the way they were governed makes them different. Mesopotamia was ruled by whoever conquered them, Egypt was ruled by a king, and Greece also had a king or an elected official. Each society did have slaves in some way, along with lower class. Egypt and Greece gave the middle lower class the option to become somewhat of a higher class through education and money. Power was determined mainly by wealth, birth, and income in the societies in some shape or form. Military was more of an important focus in Egypt and Greece than in Mesopotamia. The family structure of each civilization is still male centered and the male typically controls the family. Marriage and divorce is common in all
In the history of humanity, humans have consumed plenty of things, from plants to human flesh. It is all about survival. However as societies became more complex and states began to form, several changes in the diet were created, mostly by religious principles. However there are underlying causes for these dietary restrictions besides the religious aspect. Both Marvin Harris and Mary Douglas propose some of the underlying causes for the dietary restrictions in the old texts. Harris proposes several reasons for the dietary restrictions in the Leviticus, including moral, ethical and functional, while Douglas presents the cost benefit and a historical reasons for dietary restrictions in several religious text.
The ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt began to develop circa 3,000 B.C. Located near rivers, the lands offered fertile soil and an excess of crops that drew in many people. As more people arrived, the small settlements flourished into large, thriving civilizations. Many aspects of Mesopotamia and Egypt, such as their cities, their strongly organized government, and their religion, greatly contributed to the success of these two civilizations.
The reason for avoiding pork and shellfish is because they are environmental scavengers, and regarded as unclean. Large fish are avoided because they feed on smaller fish, and if one is going to eat flesh, it mush be the flesh of plant eaters.
The Western culture has evolved over a span of several years with various civilizations specializing in specific aspects of life or nature. In essence, Western civilization dates back to the BCE periods when Ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, and Ancient Rome reigned. Each of the Western civilizations came with a clear lineage that portrayed such attributes as property rights, free market economy, competition, personal freedoms, and innovation (Perry, 2013). Besides, the western civilizations came at different periods with some of the attributes evolving or remaining unchanged throughout the lineage. However, the non-western civilizations contributed towards such attributes to a given extent, primarily because of the interactions among
The differences in Greek and Roman societies arise primarily because of the different time periods in which they existed. But the geologic characteristics of Greece also played a role in the particularities of Greek society. The Greek peninsula is a mountainous region with neighboring islands that are known for their individualistic nature; in Homer's Odyssey islands are often occupied either by very few people or by people that are socially inept such as cannibals or the Cyclops. The Greek society, which was composed of various individual and independent city-states, followed from its geological surroundings since communication was such a difficult task. The few cultural aspects of life, such as language and religion, were the only things that gave...
Of the first civilizations, Mesopotamia and Egypt left behind the most widely available documented look at the past (92). Interestingly enough, the basis for societal rank was comparable between these two civilizations. But despite similarities in social stratification, Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilization had very dissimilar views on life and the afterlife.
Millions of years ago the procreant low lands in the river basins of Euphrates and Tigris was probably the home of some animal life, but no great civilizations. However, things change over time, and just a few thousand years ago the same fertile low lands in the river basins of Euphrates and Tigris became the home of a very rich and complex society. This first high society of man was located in what some still call "Mesopotamia". The word "Mesopotamia" is in origin a Greek name meaning "land between the rivers." The name is used for the area watered by the Euphrates and Tigris and its tributaries, roughly comprising modern Iraq and part of Syria. South of modern Bagdad, this alluvial plain was called the land of Sumer and Akkad. Sumer is the most southern part, while the land of Akkad is the area around modern Bagdad, where the Euphrates and Tigris are closest to each other. This first high, Mesopotamian society arose as a combined result of various historical, institutional, and religious factors. The reality of these factors occurring at a specific place within the fabric of space / time indeed established the basis for this first high civilization. Items like irrigation, topography, and bronze-age technical innovations played a big part along with the advent of writing and the practice of social conditioning (through the use of organized religion) in this relatively early achievement of man.
Approximately 5500 years ago four of the worlds' most prestigious ancient river civilizations had emerged. Our world has been left in astonishment and awe wondering how these civilizations were developed. Egypt and Mesopotamia were the first ancient river civilizations to create cities and their own ways of living. Society, geography, and religion played an enormous role in the development of the ancient cities. Although there is evidence of early Sumerian contact with the Egyptians, Egypt's civilization was largely self-generated and its history and cultural patterns differed from Mesopotamia.
Three Athenian philosophers flourish in Greece from 470 B. C. until 320 B. C. These philosophers were famous for their "schools of thought." The first of these is Socrates who lived from 469 until 399 B. C. He did not leave any writings behind; therefore, we know about his ways of thinking from those of whom he taught. His famous method of instruction called the Socratic method is still used today. In this method, the teacher allows students to use their own deductive reasoning to see things for themselves through a series of questions and answers. Unfortunately, many did not agree with Socrates teachings. He was accused of corrupting the youth in Athens and sentenced to death.
“Western culture, Western civilization (the modern culture of western Europe and North America)” (Princeton University). The definition of western culture is broad and can be applied to many different aspects of life. In the world of health care, western culture prevails when discussing end of life situations. The main focus of western communication in these situations is keeping trust between patients directly and communicating the situation with them in a clear but respectful manner (Hawryluck). According to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom most health and social care staff have received some basic, generic communication skills training for end of life communication. However seeing as end of life situations are one of the most intense and demanding situation of a health care professionals career to deal with, “most believe they would benefit from further training to address the challenging demands of conversations with people approaching the end of life” (NHS). One of the major factors in these discussions is the age of the patient in question. Since it’s not usual for a family member to die before they are old and considered elderly, different situations are in need of different responses. Especially in the case of a child, teenage, or any other death for people under the age of 60. The dialogue between the patient and doctor or any other health care official is greatly influenced if the patient is a minor or an adult. Conversation structure and even the person the professional is likely to have a conversation with might change. In the western world society tends to be split up into 3 major age groups; children and young adults (under 18 years of age), adults (19-60 years of age)...