Chapter 2 Summary
9/16
First Civilizations
As I began reading chapter two, something already caught my attention: "urge to 'escape from civilization' has long been a central feature in modern life". This caught my attention because I could see how it is something that could potentially be something we are experiencing in our daily lives. It stated that civilization is a global phenomenon. Around 3500 B.C.E., was when 7 Major locations began civiliations.
The first location, which is known as Mesopotamia, (present day Iraq). Also the Egyptian Civiliation was created around the same time. It said that it took shape as a territorial state. Next, would be known as present-day Peru, which they referred to as Norte Chico. They were smaller than Mesopotamia, and it did not rest on grain farming, unlike the Egyptian and Mesopotamia civilizations. It said that it did not develop poetry or writing, which I think is interesting because I would think they would since they were considered a civilation. However, the author did say they ignted a "culutral fire" in the Andes and created a pattern for Andean civiliations that later came around like Chavin, Moche, Wari, Tiwanaku, and Inca. Another one was called the Indus Valley Civilization. They didn't have any temples, palaces, or kings. They had ritual burning, ceremonies, yoga positions, and had bulls and elephants as symbols. They sounded like a v ery spiritual group of people. After came China, I read about Xia Dynasty. Finally, I read about the Olmec civilization. They competed with cheif doms, had ceremonial centers and temples, and pyraminds.
After reading about the 7 major civiliations, I began to read about the hierarchy of class. Long story short, it sounded like the rich got richer, and the poor just stayed where they were or could be middle class. The upper class enjoyed wealth of land or salaries, barely worked, and had top positions like political, military, or positions in their religious life.
I began reading about gender roles, and it seemed like they preferred sons over daughters, and men had legal and property rights over woman. They could also marry more than one woman, which doesn't surprise me because that's what I grew up hearing ever since I've been learning about history. Women's roles were considered "reprodcutive or productive". I guess what just makes me annoyed about this is because although women have so much more freedom and rights nowadays, it seemes like this is still the case present-day. I feel strongly about women empowerment, and I always enjoy reading these things. I think why I say this is because that's how I feel we still are looked at, we have to productive with our lives and be able to provide a family, or we won't be "wife material". However, I read that in Egypt, women had equal rights to be able to own slaves and sell and purchase land, and even create their own wills. I will never understand why men are seen to be more dominant than woman (physically), but women are physically AND mentally as strong, if not stronger. I think women just want to be submissive.
Something I thought was interesting was the chart with the 7 civilizations with their different writing styles. It was cool comparing each one to each other. It showed how creative they were.
Finally, towards the end of the chapter the author compared both Egypt and Mesopotamia. Egypt was surrounded by deserts, mountains, seas, and cataracts. Whereas Mesopotamia lacked most of those things, and also their location was unpredictable and often environment. This is crazy because it said that this is present day Iraq, and things definitely has NOT changed, at all. Sounds like present-day Iraq to me... It sounded like Egypt was way more predictable, beneficial, and had a positive outlook in life.
_____
How did the First Civilizations differ from one another?
Each Civilization had its own unique traits and things that stood out more than others. Mesopotamia and Egypt were two that stood out because the author put emphasis on comparing them. The Civilizations were larger and more complex societies. Egypt's river was predictsble, while Mesopotamia was not. The Indus valley people were very organized and did urban planning, but had no hierarchy. The Civilization of Notre Chico was smaller than Mesopotamia, and were rich in the fishing industry, and grain based farming. However, it said that there was no evidence in economic specialization. The Indus Valley had no temples, kings, graves, or palaces, which meant no polital hierarchy. China they had rules in charge of governing, so I guess they were strong in leading? The Olmec civilization rose from competing of chiefdoms, and had temples, altars, pyramids, and ceremonial centers.
First Civilizations
As I began reading chapter two, something already caught my attention: "urge to 'escape from civilization' has long been a central feature in modern life". This caught my attention because I could see how it is something that could potentially be something we are experiencing in our daily lives. It stated that civilization is a global phenomenon. Around 3500 B.C.E., was when 7 Major locations began civiliations.
The first location, which is known as Mesopotamia, (present day Iraq). Also the Egyptian Civiliation was created around the same time. It said that it took shape as a territorial state. Next, would be known as present-day Peru, which they referred to as Norte Chico. They were smaller than Mesopotamia, and it did not rest on grain farming, unlike the Egyptian and Mesopotamia civilizations. It said that it did not develop poetry or writing, which I think is interesting because I would think they would since they were considered a civilation. However, the author did say they ignted a "culutral fire" in the Andes and created a pattern for Andean civiliations that later came around like Chavin, Moche, Wari, Tiwanaku, and Inca. Another one was called the Indus Valley Civilization. They didn't have any temples, palaces, or kings. They had ritual burning, ceremonies, yoga positions, and had bulls and elephants as symbols. They sounded like a v ery spiritual group of people. After came China, I read about Xia Dynasty. Finally, I read about the Olmec civilization. They competed with cheif doms, had ceremonial centers and temples, and pyraminds.
After reading about the 7 major civiliations, I began to read about the hierarchy of class. Long story short, it sounded like the rich got richer, and the poor just stayed where they were or could be middle class. The upper class enjoyed wealth of land or salaries, barely worked, and had top positions like political, military, or positions in their religious life.
I began reading about gender roles, and it seemed like they preferred sons over daughters, and men had legal and property rights over woman. They could also marry more than one woman, which doesn't surprise me because that's what I grew up hearing ever since I've been learning about history. Women's roles were considered "reprodcutive or productive". I guess what just makes me annoyed about this is because although women have so much more freedom and rights nowadays, it seemes like this is still the case present-day. I feel strongly about women empowerment, and I always enjoy reading these things. I think why I say this is because that's how I feel we still are looked at, we have to productive with our lives and be able to provide a family, or we won't be "wife material". However, I read that in Egypt, women had equal rights to be able to own slaves and sell and purchase land, and even create their own wills. I will never understand why men are seen to be more dominant than woman (physically), but women are physically AND mentally as strong, if not stronger. I think women just want to be submissive.
Something I thought was interesting was the chart with the 7 civilizations with their different writing styles. It was cool comparing each one to each other. It showed how creative they were.
Finally, towards the end of the chapter the author compared both Egypt and Mesopotamia. Egypt was surrounded by deserts, mountains, seas, and cataracts. Whereas Mesopotamia lacked most of those things, and also their location was unpredictable and often environment. This is crazy because it said that this is present day Iraq, and things definitely has NOT changed, at all. Sounds like present-day Iraq to me... It sounded like Egypt was way more predictable, beneficial, and had a positive outlook in life.
_____
How did the First Civilizations differ from one another?
Each Civilization had its own unique traits and things that stood out more than others. Mesopotamia and Egypt were two that stood out because the author put emphasis on comparing them. The Civilizations were larger and more complex societies. Egypt's river was predictsble, while Mesopotamia was not. The Indus valley people were very organized and did urban planning, but had no hierarchy. The Civilization of Notre Chico was smaller than Mesopotamia, and were rich in the fishing industry, and grain based farming. However, it said that there was no evidence in economic specialization. The Indus Valley had no temples, kings, graves, or palaces, which meant no polital hierarchy. China they had rules in charge of governing, so I guess they were strong in leading? The Olmec civilization rose from competing of chiefdoms, and had temples, altars, pyramids, and ceremonial centers.
Comments
Post a Comment