Write an essay on the influence of the grographic environment on the origin and development of civilzation in Mesopotamia and Egypt. How were these environment similar and how were they different? What limitations and opportunities did these environments offer to the inhabitants living in them? What elements of these civilizations seem to be pre-determined by their respective geographical settings?

Although both are arid and riverine, Mesopotamia (a region now called Iraq) both challenges and nurtures residents while Egypt provides a limitless cradle. For very disparate reasons, both sites pushed their inhabitants to develop mature social complexes which reflected their geographic environments culturally.

Mesopotamia was hostile and provided only the bare necessities for civilization. It lacked enough rainfall to support even primite dry farming, and temperatures often exceeded 110°F. The soil was arid and unuseable unless heavily irrigated. Although the Tigris and Euphrates rivers provided water, they also flooded unpredictably and resulted in violent and destructive rampages which wiped out the flat land. After such a rampage, the Tigris river oftentimes settled back into a different course and left an entire city miles away from its sole water source. In addition, Mesopotamia was unprotected; lacking no natural boundaries, it was easily accessible for raids due to the Tigris-Euphrates rivers and a nearby mountain range. This mountain range, inhabited by pre-civilized Gutians, would for 60 years plunge Mesopotamia into a murderous and draining chaos. The soil itself worked against the Mesopotamians: it lacked nutrients and easily became overcultivated and just a few hundred feet below were tremendous salt beds which would eventually leech and cause famine. However, there were several positive aspects of mesopotamia. The soil was laden with tremendous amounts of clay, and this allowed architecture, tools and art to fluourish. Also, the rivers provided fish and the plains proided gazelle and horses.

Although Mesopotamia made everyday survival a daunting task, it was this same pressure which caused people to unite and form the first large-scale civilization. As the population increased, agriculture became necessary. Farming, though, required irrigation. Since irrigation required tremendous effort and investment, the residents needed to cooperate and operate as a single unit to provide water to populated regions. Also, important natural resources such as building- and precious-stone, wood and metal were unavailable in Mesopotamia. As a result, trade developed; this lead to an economy. The economy, driven by irrigation and importation, ran a civilization which was a direct response to the population pressure which needed to unite in order to live in an inhospitable region.

Mesopotamia’s lethal conditions predetermined its fatalistic perspective, pessimistic and gloomy perspective. Enuma Elish, Mesopotamia’s creation story, depicts Earth’s violent conception followed by the conception of humans from blood riddled with the contempt and blame of the Gods. This created a mentality that humans were innate slaves to their universe. Excessive Mesopotamian toil due to flooding, overcultivation and attack was conveniently yet depressingly explained as beyond human comprehension. After a lifetime of gloomy outlook, it was believed that soils would wander around in a purgatory as they faded away into nonexistence.

Egypt, however, had idyllic geography. Located along the Nile, which flowed with nutrient-laden water and lots of fish, it had tremendous natural resources (except wood) and very rich soil. Although there were annual floods, they were very predicable and less violent than Mesopotamia’s unpredictable and destructive overflows. In addition, the Niles’ floods would wash the soil with a layer of organic material. This yearly deposit of mulch was agriculturally beneficial and meant that Egyptian farms could never overcultivate. This spring was largely invulnerable to raids, as it was protected by vast deserts to the East and West and cataracts along the Southern Nile. This also made import slow, though, as the only ready way to access Egypt was to drift along the Nile via air and/or water currents. Upon encountering a cataract, a ship could either be taken onto dry land and carried beyond the cataract or unloaded so that another ship (already over the cataract) could be used. However, this setback was greatly outweighed and Egypt readily and rapidly fostered a tremendous and prolific civilization.

An obsession with immortality and worship dominated Egyptian culture. While initially only Pharaohs (equivalent to a king, and considered only one degree of separation from divinity) could attain immortality, the afterlife was rapidly democratized and after only a few generations the entire populace could cheaply and easily attain immortality through a lifetime of worship, respect and good form. Strikingly enough, it was believed that heaven was much like the land of living: essentially, Egypt itself was the same as heaven.

Both civilizations, despite being prosperous, eventually crumbled. Egypt was destroyed by an invasion and Mespotamia crumbled when undergorund salt beds, moisturized by irrigation, leeched back to the surface and rended the soil unfarmable.

The zeitgeist of the ancient Mesopotamian civilzations has been described as fatalistic, pessimistic and gloomy. Support this assessment by citing examples from your assigned readings in Early Western Civilization Source Readings and the class lectures. To what geographical factors can this attitude be attributed?

Mesopotamia’s fatalistic, pessimistic and gloomy zeitgeist was nurtured by a terrifyingly unstable environment which eventually led to the downfall of the entire civilization. Mesopotamia’s lethal conditions predetermined its fatalistic, pessimistic and gloomy perspective.

Mesopotamia was hostile and provided only the bare necessities for civilization. It lacked enough rainfall to support even primite dry farming, and temperatures often exceeded 110°F. The soil was arid and unuseable unless heavily irrigated. Although the Tigris and Euphrates rivers provided water, they also flooded unpredictably and resulted in violent and destructive rampages which wiped out the flat land. After such a rampage, the Tigris river oftentimes settled back into a different course and left an entire city miles away from its sole water source. In addition, Mesopotamia was unprotected; lacking no natural boundaries, it was easily accessible for raids due to the Tigris-Euphrates rivers and a nearby mountain range. This mountain range, inhabited by pre-civilized Gutians, would for 60 years plunge Mesopotamia into a murderous and draining chaos. The soil itself worked against the Mesopotamians: it lacked nutrients and easily became overcultivated and just a few hundred feet below were tremendous salt beds which would eventually leech and cause famine. However, there were several positive aspects of mesopotamia. The soil was laden with tremendous amounts of clay, and this allowed architecture, tools and art to fluourish. Also, the rivers provided fish and the plains proided gazelle and horses.

According to Enuma Elish, Mesopotamia’s creation story, the world began as a void. From this void came Apsu (fresh water) and Tiamat (salt water). These entities produced mane fe/male couples. Apsu, Tiamat and Muumu conspire to kill younger Gods. However, Ea kills Apsu in his slee and Marduk is born from Ea. Marduk, an evil being, becomes king of the Gods and singularly combats and subdues Tiamat. Marduk splits Tiamat’s body in two, one half being the sky and the second half the Earth and underground. Kingu becomes a scapegoat and is killed. Humans are conceived from his blood, which is now riddled with the contempt and blame of the Gods. This created a mentality that humans were innate slaves to their universe. Excessive Mesopotamian toil due to flooding, overcultivation and attack was conveniently yet depressingly explained as beyond human comprehension. After a lifetime of gloomy outlook, it was believed that soils would wander around in a purgatory as they faded away into nonexistence.

The characteristic Mesopotamian temple was a ziggurat, a stepped platform made out of mud-bricks, with a temple at the summit. Some have suggested that the ziggurat was contructed as a means to reconstruct the mountain “peak sanctuaries” that had been used when people lived in the mountains and hills around the valleys — notice that this is the creation of an artificial urban landscape. The ziggurat was not only a religious center but also an economic redistribution center–the temple base was a huge warehouse where grain and other valuable substances were stored. Mesopotamian religion was essentially fatalistic–the gods were removed from people, who were basically the slaves of the gods: the most humans could hope for was that the gods would ignore them! There was a slave-master relationship between humanity and the Gods.

Very early votive statues were very crude and depicted with huge, staring and harrowed eyes. Indeed, this is an extension of the morose outlook that is distinctively Mesopotamian. It also represents awe and respect, though, as these votive statues were placed in temples as part of religious rituals. Even the entity meant to word off evil, Pazuzu, was a daemon from the underworld. Mesopotamia’s polytheistic belief system, an elemental religion involving the belief that the natural forces such as storms and winds have spirit forces animating them (a vitalistic interpretation of the universe and experience; the (non-Semitic) Sumerians changed the elemental deities into astral deities) meant that if anything bad happened it was either because the population either displeased the Gods or did not worship them enough.

At the beginning of Egyptian history, only the Pharaoh, due to his special relationship to the gods, could hope to attain immortality beyond the grave. However, by the time of the New Kingdom even the “common people” could hope to achieve an afterlife. Trace and explain this “democratization” of the next world. Cite examples from the assigned readings to support arguments.

The top-to-bottom spread of access to the next world in Egyptian society is called the democratization of the afterlife. The journey to immortality was dangerous and difficult and thereby required the assistance and support of the Gods.

The assistance and support of the Gods was at first attainable only by the Pharaoh. During the Old Kingdom, pyramid texts were inscribed upon the walls of pharaohic tombs and served as a passport. In the later part of the Old Kingdom, however, politicians and relatives near to the pharaoh began to piggyback, claiming that they were necessary for the pharaoh to lead a fulfilling afterlife. By building tombs near the pharaoh’s pyramid they would gain immortality by association.

The Old Kingdom became weak due to civil war and a new religious doctrine (where the masses worshipped the pharaoh, who was the one and only able to worship the Gods directly), but what truly caused it to crumble was a cold spell which prevented precipitation and resulted in a lack of Nile floods. Famine ensued for decades, and from this point on Egypt was plagued by civil unrest. This resulted in a change in public perception of the pharaoh. While once a divine entity capable of enacting any decision (the pharaoh’s word was law), the pharaoh was now considered a king imbued with the responsibilities of upholding justice and order. After so many years of havoc and repression, the commoners needed to feel more equality and order. At this point, anybody able to afford a tomb and mummificaiton could attain immortality with the god Osiris. Association with Osiris was accomplished by worshipping him at his temple, living an ethical life and participating in the rituals and festivals of the Osiris cult. Coffin texts were used as afterlife passports for the masses, which were based on Osiris myth rather than the pharaoh’s formulae based on sun-god mythology). These coffin texts were placed directly on the mummy cases.

Capitalist motivations eventually meant that anybody could attain immortality. Scribes selling cheap and shabby copies of the Book of the Dead (a new reincarnation of the pyramid texts) allowed even the poorest persons to enter the afterlife. This was a very profitable market and indulged the renewed love of life which had been suppressed by the desperate years of famine just decades prior.

Compare and contrast the constitutions of Sparta and Athens. Discuss the underlying cultural and social elements that prodced these constitutions. What were the shortcomings and the benefits of each system?

Athens and Sparta, the two superpowers of the Hellas, had several similarities which were the foundation for radically different societies.

Athens and Sparta were both centered around a polis and had similar social structures. The polis was a city built around a citadel (acropolis) surrounded by an agricultural area large enough to support the entire population. As small sovereign units, the bonds between the citizen and state (as dictated by law) were more basic than personal ties. They had 4 social classes: free native-born male citizens, Metics(Athens)/Priokoi(Sparta) aka free-born non-citizens, chattel property aka slaves and citizen women (citizen women were essentially chattel property in Athens, although Sparta gave women considerable responsibility, education and training).

Sparta was initially culturally and artistically active, yet it quickly became radically isolationist and militaristic. Sparta was at one point a creative hub, yet when it overtook its western neighbors–the Messenians–it changed dramatically to keep the Messenians as slaves (aka helots). Since there were 10 times as many helots as there were Spartans, a strong military force was needed to keep the helots oppressed. This began Spartan militarism, although it still remained culturally and artistically important. Following the Messenian conquest the Spartans dispatched malcontents to Southern Italy to found Tarentum: this was the only colony they ever sent out. Intellectual horizons were darkened due to a lack of contact with the outside world. However, this was just the beginning of Sparta’s severe mentality. When the helots staged a revolt, the Spartans were terrified and from thereon enacted an even more radical constitution. Although no laws were written and the entire civilization was constructed upon traditions which lasted until Sparta’s downfall, these traditions were deeply imprinted onto new generations and thereby were obeyed innately. There was no cultural nor artistic development at this point, and the sole creative outlet was via theater. It was an oligarchal constitution ruled by a small group of aristocrats tempered by a bit of democracy. It was a military state to its very core.

Although Sparta’s transformation resulted in the strongest military of the era, it also stifled creative development and resulted in a decreasing population. Although Sparta valued the beauty of the human body, it was also very violent and killed those who were not sufficient to further Sparta’s mentality. In addition, until the age of 30 men could not live with their families. This meant that when men were at their sexual peak they were not allowed to conceive children without sneaking out of their barracks to spend a few hours with their wives at night. As a result, Sparta constantly faced a waning population.

Athens became the first democracy. It began as many villages and a polis caled Athens. The polis’ king united the villages such that they became known as Athenians. Eventually, though, an aristocracy prevailed. The leading families were wealty from wine and oil crops, while the commoners were given small plots of land. As the commoners began to sink into debt they resorted into selling themselves into slavery. To help alleviate this suffering, a tyrrany was installed by a high-ranking aristocrat. He used violent means to isolate conspirators, but they fled to a mountain. Upon their decent, on conditions of peace, they slaughtered the tyrant. This resulted in further mistrust of aristocrats among the masses. Draco was commissioned to write a law code, but it was exceedingly harsh and operated in favor of land owners. Narrowly escaping civil war, Athens handed power over to Solomon, who became a hospitable tyrant. He cancelled debts and repatriated many citizens who had been exiled or shipped away to be slaves. He also put in place a new social system which organized citizens by wealth. This resulted in another prison of poverty.

This time, another leader (Peisistratidae) executed numerous aristocrats due to his excessive paranoia. This weakened the aristocracy. Peisisratidae’s offspring continued their fathers legacy, but were assassinated. However, the masses had prospered under Peisratidaean rule and to maintain this growth Cleisthenes installed what could be considered the first democracy. By mixing all the individual cliques, he made sure that an individual interest did not overwhelm the success of Athenian civilization. By stripping old political entities of their power, they gradually faded away under Cleisthenes’ rule without any violence. Through several minor modifications, including the ostracism, Athens became truly democratic.

This led to corruption, though, as aristocrats again tried to gain power; in addition, it was hotly contested by philosophers with superiority complexes. Democracy did, however, foster tremendous scientific and artistic growth.

Plato and Aristotle held contrasting views on many ethical and political issues. Demonstrate and support this statement with material from the assigned readings in Early Western Civilization Source Readings.

Numerous experts in modern time regard Plato as the first genuine political philosopher and Aristotle as the first political scientist. Plato and Aristotle each had ideas in how to proceed with improving the society in which they were part of during their existence. It is necessary therefore to analyze their different theoretical approaches regarding their philosophical perspectives. The main objective in Plato’s philosophy is a creation of a perfect society. He constructs a foundation for a utopian society in his book “The Republic”. The purpose of his thought process was to cleanse his society of the woes he felt plagued it and construct a new one. Plato lived during the Peloponnesian War, which consequently lead to the end of the Athenian democracy. He had eyewitness account of his mentor’s (Socrates) trial and execution. Bitter and angered by the political corruption that gripped the Athenian democratic government, he disengaged from participating in politics. He strongly felt that neither a moral individual nor a state that is rational could be established in a democratic environment. Plato felt that the common man wasn’t intelligent or capable of dealing with concepts that influence the state such as economics, policy of foreign affairs and other relative matters. He viewed political incumbents in Athens government as being elected for matters that were irrelevant to main factors that affected the state. Another danger was that excessive liberty for the people of the democratic society could potentially lead to anarchy. In Plato’s perfect society, he forged ahead to eliminate the disease (pluralism of friendship) that plagued the human character and society (Class Notes). Essentially, Plato wanted to establish the perfect form of society, linked by one single entity. Plato’s perfect society would consist of three basic groups, which are Guardians (Gold), Auxiliaries (Silver), and the Artisan (Bronze). The highest of these classes are the gold people, which consist of rulers and non-rulers. Those that are rulers are society’s decision & policy makers and non-rulers occupy levels of civil servants. The fundamental prerequisite to becoming a genuine philosopher is to have knowledge of forms, thus enabling you to know the truth. Plato’s theory of the forms is partly logical and part metaphysical. Armed with the truth, he believed that philosophical ruler will always make the right decision, and rule with total wisdom, justice and virtue. The rulers, he felt, wouldn’t posses any money or property, they would be free of desires, excesses, and vices. The Auxiliaries (Silver) are people of strength, courage, and military capacity; they occupy a small sector of society. All auxiliaries would be subjected to a series of tests, which will check their powers of resistance to self-interest, pleasure and other temptations. The last level, Artisan (Bronze), are the workers which might be composed of farmers and artist, essentially non-skilled workers. They would produce all the consumable and non-consumable goods deemed necessary for consumption and the continued economic viability of the society. Plato whole-heartedly felt that if ever the bronze or iron people rule the state would collapse (Class Notes). He sought to establish the concept of the gold class having wisdom, thus they should be wise and good rulers. It was imperative that those who rule be philosophers and skilled in areas that pertained to the interest of the state.

Aristotle, unlike Plato, was not focused or concerned about the idea of a perfect society, instead he wanted to improve upon the one that he was part of during his existence. Rather than develop a framework for a society that is perfect, he suggested that society should, in it self, strive to utilize the best system it can attain. He felt that utopia was abstract and superficial. It wouldn’t allow for realistic problem solving solutions. He felt that Plato’s view of a strict overhaul of society in general wasn’t necessary. He believed that society was at its optimum and you can only improve upon the existing one. Aristotle’s disagreed with Plato in regards to allowing one particular class to govern the state politically for indefinite period of time. He felt that to not allow interaction among the various classes would inhibit those who posses the ability to engage in political life, an injustice. He feels Plato’s structure of classes is politically incorrect for the state. He quotes “It is a further objection that he deprives his Guardians even of happiness, maintaining that happiness of the whole state which should be the object of legislation”, ultimately he is stating that those who rule (Guardians), sacrifice their happiness for control and absolute power. Those who are of the gold class, lead such a rigid life, that it will become necessary to impose the same strict way of life on those being governed. He places the idea of moderation on a high pedestal. Many individuals come to favor the concept of moderation because it is flexible, part liberal and part conservative. Plato’s ideal society is so difficult to conceive that Aristotle believes that no human being can achieve its rudimentary requirements. He decided to express in the “Republic” how men should conduct it self in a perfect society and what attitude they should posses. In retrospect, Aristotle felt by using real world experience along with real people, he can see first hand how and what way can he improve society.

Plato and Aristotle both agreed on justice and viewed it objectively; that is it controls the belief a life of good nature would be provided for all people no matter their ranking in society. Aristotle’s states ” In democracies, for example, justice is considered to mean equality, no oligarchies, again inequality in the distribution of office to considered just”. Plato views the idea of law and justice as what sets the standard for society’s behavior in a state.

Aristotle puts emphasis on the institution of the polis or civilized community. The polis was structured to allow the average individual in society to participate in political matters. This institutional forum is not the city-state or the community, but merely the larger of the two entities. It is rather a partnership between households, clans, and villages for the sake of a fully developed and self-sufficient life. The polis enables those individuals who naturally posses moral intellect and wisdom an opportunity to rise to higher positions (Class Notes). Justice is the political good within the polis, and it must promote the common interest of the people of the state. What is seen as good must be distributed and regulated through out the state. The law is also the regulating factor that arises from equal and free people in civil institution. The well being of a society is solely based upon the connection between the effort in which the citizens of the state adhere to the law of the land. A good citizen of the state will posses prudence, moderation, and justice, and above all to rule and be ruled.

His belief contradicts Plato theory of one controlling class, governing the political matters and decisions that effect the state. The Theory of Democracy that Aristotle states is that democracy is a “perversion” form of government of “polity” (Class Notes). He clearly states “The people at large should be sovereign rather than the few best”. Plato on the other hand, wouldn’t permit citizens to engage in public participation concerning governmental issues, as Aristotle would have enjoyed. Plato also felt that public judgments of disapproval and approval were based on emotional belief, instead of factual knowledge. He believes that if a revolution occurred it would happened within the corridors of the palace, hence palace revolution. This type of revolution happens when there is a transmission of power from one holder of power to another. Aristotle perceives such an event occurring between the wealthy and less fortunate in society. He feels to prevent such actions, one must participate in them. Plato thinks that in a utopia a disgruntled group of Guardians will emerge and disengage themselves from the ruling law of the state. He feels that an oligarchy two things may initiate a possible revolution: the first one is the ruler and their offspring would grow to be weak, sympathetic, and second is that the number of poor individuals will grow larger and there for be taken advantage of by the ruling class. Aristotle states that to know the factors that caused the revolution, which destroys the constitution, is to also know the principal of effect, which in turn ensure its preservation.

Aristotle and Plato also have contrasting views on ethics, psychology and metaphysics. In regards to ethics, Aristotle believes that virtue is necessary for happiness, while Plato says virtue is enough for happiness. The psychological difference between the two is that Plato feels the body is a prison for the soul; body and soul are two different entities, capable of maintaining independence from one another. As for Aristotle, he claims that the body and soul are two different things, one consisting of matter the other form. He sees everything in the universe being composed of matter and form, so its not surprising that he perceives human being are too. To him form is simply the way matter is arranged. For example, a cat is composed in a feline way; that’s what makes a cat. Human being for that matter, have a unique method of structure, too; that’s their form. In fact, Aristotle strongly feels that nothing in existence can be without form and matter. If you eliminate its structure and form you have nothing left. So for Aristotle, the concept of soul without body or body without soul is incoherent. In regards to form, Plato expressed how things should be through utilizing vague language and poetry.

Describe the essential differences between the Hellenic (Classical) and the Hellenistic ages. How did these differences affect the every-day lives of the people? How were the diferences reflected in the art, literature, and philosophy of the two periods?

Hellenic (Greek) refers to the people who lived in classical Greece before Alexander the Great’s death. Greeks (Hellenic) were isolated and their civilization was termed classic because it was not heavily influenced by outside forces. Hellenistic (Greek-like) refers to Greeks and others who lived during the period after AtG’s conquests. The shift from “Hellenic” to “Hellenistic” represents the shift from a culture dominated by ethnic Greeks, however scattered geographically, to a culture dominated by Greek-speakers of whatever ethnicity, and from the political dominance of the city-state to that of larger monarchies. This differs from Hellenic in territory (geographic influences), culture (philosophy and religion), and political systems (changed from a democracy to many small monarchies and ultimately to be controlled by Rome).

After the collapse of Mycenae around 1100 B.C. and Dorian invasions, the Greek Dark Ages ensued and the Archaic period began around 800BC. By 600BC the Archaic Period was in full swing, and this paved the way for hoplites (8 or more rows of soldiers carrying shields to keep the entire unit well protected) in 650BC. This rapid military development was due to a common Hellenic theme: constant warfare.

Initially, around 750-500BC, during the archaic period, the predominant sculpture was the kuoros. It depicted a nude male with simplified anatomy and a monumental attitude, baring an archain (slight) smile, almond-shaped eyes and detailed hair. Based on formulaic Egyptian statues, kuoros (and their female counterparts, kore, which were always clothed) eventually became more flexible. This resulted in the classical period where anatomy became more detailed. The artist overcame limitations of his medium by making cold hard marble look soft supple and warm. The period from 500-323 B.C. is the Classical or Hellenic age of Greek civilization.

From the past came a profound religious belief in the just action of the gods and the attainment of virtue in the polis; this belief helped develop a specific Greek “mind” which focused on the importance of the individual and a rationalistic spirit. The Classical Greek world was, in essence, a skillful combination of these qualities. The Greeks also created the concept (if not quite the reality) of political freedom. The state was conceived as a community of free citizens who made laws in their own interest. As a direct democracy, for example, the Athenian citizen discussed, debated and voted on issues that affected him directly. The Greek discovery that man (the citizen) is capable of governing himself was a profound one. Underlying the Greek achievement was humanism. The Greeks expressed a belief in the worth, significance, and dignity of the individual. Man should develop his personality fully in the city-state, a development which would, in turn, create a sound city-state as well. The pursuit of excellence — arete — was paramount. Such an aspiration required effort, discipline and intelligence. Man was master of himself.

The Athenian polis sponsored the production of dramas and required that wealthy citizens pay the expenses of production. At the beginning of every year, dramatists submitted their plays to the archon, or chief magistrate. Each comedian presented one play for review; those who wrote tragedy had to submit a set of three plays, plus an afterpiece called a satyr play. It was the archon who chose those dramas he considered best. The archon allotted to each tragedian his actors, paid at state expense, and a producer (choregus). On the appointed day the Athenian public would gather at the theatre of Dionysus on the south slope of the Acropolis, paid their admission of two obols, and witnessed a series of plays. Judges drawn by lot awarded prizes to the poet (crown of ivy), the actor (an inscription on a state list in the agora) and to the choregus (a triumphal tablet). The Athenian dramatists were the first artists in Western society to examine such basic questions as the rights of the individual, the demands of society upon the individual and the nature of good and evil. Conflict, the basic stuff of life, is the constant element in Athenian drama.

• AESCHYLUS (525-456 B.C.), the first of the great Athenian dramatists, was also the first to express the agony of the individual caught in conflict.
• SOPHOCLES (496-406 B.C.), the premier playwright of the second generation, also dealt with personal and political matters.
• However, whereas Aeschylus concentrated on religious matters, Sophocles dealt with the perennial problem of well-meaning men struggling, unwisely and vainly, against their own fate. The characters in the tragedies of Sophocles resist all warnings and inescapably meet with disaster. EURIPIDES (c.480-406 B.C.), the last of the three great Greek tragic dramatists, also explored the theme of personal conflict within the polis and the depths of the individual. With Euripides drama enters a new, more personal phase – the gods were far less important than human beings. Euripides viewed the human soul as a place where opposing forces struggle, where strong passions such as hatred and jealousy conflict with reason. The essence of Euripides’ tragedy is the flawed character – men and women who bring disaster on themselves and their loved ones because their passions overwhelm their reason. It is the rationalist spirit of 5th century Greek philosophic thought that permeates the tragedies of Euripides. He subjected the problems of human life to critical analysis and challenged Athenian conventions.

The Greeks of the classical age not only perfected the art of drama, but of comedy as well. ARISTOPHANES (c.448-c.380 B.C.) was an ardent lover of the city and a ruthless critic of cranks and quacks. He lampooned eminent generals, at times depicting them as little more than morons. He commented snidely on Pericles, and poked fun at Socrates and Euripides. Even at the height of the Peloponnesian War, Aristophanes proclaimed that peace was preferable to war. Like Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, Aristophanes used his art to dramatize his ideas on the right conduct of the citizen and the value of the polis.

The main differences between Hellenistic and Hellenic are far-reaching. Hellenistic Greece was a predominately urban culture. The cities founded by Alexander were centers of government and trade as well as culture. These were large cities by ancient standards. For instance, Alexandria in Egypt contained perhaps 500,000 people. The Greeks brought their temples, their theatres and schools to other cities, thus exporting their culture and Greek culture became a way of life. The upper classes began to copy the Greek spirit. They sent their children to Greek schools and the Greek language (Koine) became a common, almost international language, in the same way that Latin was for Europe for fifteen centuries, or French in the 19th century.

Hellenistic cities were extremely large by Hellenic standards, but they contained the same public features (temples, gyms, etc) as the polis. The economy yielded large operations and more modern financial systems. New crops and agricultural techniques were introduced into the conquered areas. However, these revolutions increased disparity between rich and poor and caused social conflict. Koiné became international language. Hellenistic cities were cosmopolitan. The lifestyle became private, in contrast to the public lifestyle of the polis. Literature changed, too: Pastoral poetry, which recalled the lost joys of rural life, was most popular; Menander wrote masterpieces of New Comedy; The novel, a new Hellenistic literary form, centered on the family and everyday life. Science fluorished, and the library at Alexandria contained over 1 million books, as well as scientific research facilities. Euclid complied a handbook on geometry. Archimedes built complex lifting machines. In Astronomy, Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric solar system. Hipparchus calculated the length of the lunar month. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth. Philosophy was very diferent as well. While classical philosophy was concerned with the individual’s relationship to the polis, that relationship changed drastically with the institution of the Hellensistic kingdoms. Hellenistic philosophy attempted to deal with this new reality:

The breakdown of Alexander’s empire Hellenized the Mediterranean world. Cultures once foreign to the Hellenic world now became more Greek-like – they were Hellenized. One of the most important developments in association with this process of Hellenization, was the shift from the world of the polis to the new world of the cosmopolis. Such a shift was decisive in creating the Hellenistic world as a world of conflicting identities, and when identities are challenged or changed, intense internal conflicts are the result.

We can identify this sense of conflict in the transition from Classical to Hellenistic philosophy. Classical Greek philosophy, the philosophy of the Sophists and of Socrates in the 5th century, was concerned with the citizen’s intimate relationship with the polis or city-state. You can see this clearly in the philosophy of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Big questions such as what is the good life, what is the best form of government and what is virtue loomed large in their thinking. When we enter the world of the Hellenistic philosopher we encounter something very different. The world of the polis had clearly given way to the world of the cosmopolis. And with that change from the smallness of the city-state to the immensity of the world-city, there were corresponding changes in the world view. The city-state was no longer run by citizens, citizens whose private and public duties were identical. In the world-state, bureaucrats and officials took over the duties formerly given over to citizens. Citizens lost their sense of importance as they became subjects under the control of vast bureaucratic kingdoms. From the face-to-face contact of the Athenian public Assembly, the people now became little more than numbers. As a result, they lost their identity.

Hellenistic Philosophy:This tendency was reflected in philosophy, which turned to concern itself with the possibilities of survival in a world that had become much larger, less personal, and more complex. Philosophy then, became less the love of wisdom, than it did a therapy used to cope with a strange, fragmented world of disorder and isolation. And as a result of this, there were two schools of thought – two therapies – which made their appearance during the Hellenistic Age. Both were therapies addressing themselves to an individualistic age. People seemed less concerned about the nature of politics and their role in it. They became more concerned about their own lives and were searching for some kind of personal guidance. And all this was reflected in Hellenistic thought as THERAPY.

Both Epicureanism and Stoicism are therapies which reflected the change in man’s social and political life during the Hellenistic Age. On the one hand, both therapies suggest a disenchantment with the overtly political world of a Pericles or Thucydides, Athenian or Spartan. So, they can be seen as direct reactions to the philosophy of both Plato and Aristotle. On the other hand, the Stoics and Epicureans also reflect profound social changes within Greece itself. Greek society had become more complex and more urban as a result of Alexander’s conquests. Politics fell into the hands of the wealthy few and the citizens were left with nothing. And Hellenistic politics became little more than an affair of aristocrats and their bureaucratic lackeys and experts.

Given this, Hellenistic Greeks turned to personal philosophies – therapies – for comfort and, if you will, salvation. What do we turn to? Do we turn inward? No! the majority of us “find ourselves” reflected in things external to us. We become members of “the club,” losing our own identity in collective identities. We are asked to say, “don’t worry, be happy.” In the Hellenistic world, Stoicism became the point of view and therapy of choice for individuals who were still trying to bring order out of the chaos of Hellenistic life. The Epicureans appealed to those people who had resigned themselves to all the chaos and instead turned to the quest for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

Whereas the Epicureans withdrew from the evils of the world, and the Stoics sought happiness by working in harmony with the Logos, the Skeptics held that one could achieve some kind of spiritual equilibrium only by accepting that none of the beliefs by which people lived were true or could bring happiness. Speculative thought did not bring happiness either. For the most part, the Skeptics were suspicious of ideas and maintained no great love for intellectuals.

The Cynics rejected all material possessions and luxuries and lived simple lives totally divorced from the hustle and bustle of the Hellenistic world-city. The most famous of the Cynics was Diogenes the Dog (412-323 B.C.). Diogenes lived in a bath tub. He carried a lantern in daylight, proclaiming to all that he was looking for a “virtuous man.” It is said that one day Alexander the Great approached Diogenes, who was near death, and asked if there was anything that he could do for him. Diogenes is said to have replied, “would you mind moving – you are blocking the sun.” Plato described Diogenes as “Socrates gone mad.” He called himself “citizen of the world and when asked what the finest thing in the world might be, replied “freedom of speech.” Diogenes was a serious teacher who, disillusioned with a corrupt society and hostile world, protested by advocating happiness as self-mastery of an inner spiritual freedom from all wants except the barest minimum. In his crusade against the corrupting influence of money, power, fame, pleasure and luxury, Diogenes extolled the painful effort involved in the mental and physical training required for self-sufficiency.

From Epicurean to Stoic and from Skeptic and Cynic to Neo-Platonist, none of these therapies provided any sort of relief for the ordinary man and woman. After all, these therapies were specifically “upper class” philosophies, intended for citizens feeling the burdens of the cosmopolis upon their social, political and economic life. In other words, one studied with Zeno or Diogenes or they read the books of Epicurus or the Neo-Platonists. The common person required something more concrete, more practical and less demanding as well as more helpful than the philosophic therapists could offer. They found what they wanted in the mystery cults, cults which could explain their suffering in less complex and more down-to-earth terms.

On a spiritual level, the 4th century witnessed a permanent change in the attitudes of all Greeks. What resulted was a new attitude toward life and its expectations – a new world view. In the classical world of the polis, public and private lives were fused. Duty to the city-state was in itself virtuous. But in the Hellenistic world, public and private lives were made separate, and the individual’s only duty was to himself. In art, sculpture, architecture, or philosophy or wherever we choose to look, we see more attention paid to individualism and introspection. Universal principles of truth – Plato’s Ideas and Forms – were rejected in favor of individual traits. By the 4th century, Greek citizens became more interested in their private affairs rather than in the affairs of the polis. For example, in the 5th century, we will find comedies in which the polis is criticized, parodied and lampooned. But in the 4th century, the subject matter has changed and has turned to private and domestic life. In other words, whereas 5th century comedies focused on the relationship between the citizen and city-state, 4th century comedies made jokes about cooks, the price of fish, and incompetent doctors.

Write an essay on the constitution of the Roman Republic. What did Polybius mean by “balance of Power”? How did the republican institutions reflect this concept?

The king was initially a military and religious leader. He levied taxes and drafted men into the army. Yet his power was diluted by state institutions. Roman society was always a patriarichal system, and many aspects of the law were governed by paterfamilias. There was a senate (advisory board composed of men with highest authority and reputation) and assembly of free Roman citizens.

Monarchy ended when Rome could no longer endure King Tarquinius Supertus’ tyranny. To prevent kingship from ever again arising, the royal power (imperium) was divided between two elected magistrates, the consuls. 509 BCE is considered the republic’s beginning. This is symptomatic to the Lucretian legend, about how officer Collatinus’ wife was raped by Sextus Tarquinius (son of king Tarquinius Superbus). In response, her husband Collatinis and his best friend Lucius Brutus armed citizens and ld them against the king to drive him and his family out of Rome. I 509 Collatinus and Brutus were the first consuls of Roman republic to be establishd.

The constitution of Roman Republic was like this one of the Greek city-states, not a written document. Ancient Rome operated under a traditional constitution which was the product of precedent, consensus, and a series of compromises between the various power blocks and interest groups of the population. It was based with something real and strong, the mos majorum (custom of our ancestors) had he same force as “unconstitutional” has in the modern world.

One of the most important sources for shaping the Roman Republic structure is the description of the Greek historian Polybius (201-120 BCE) who wrote the history of Rome. The structure was complex. In essence, the government consisted of 3 components which chcked and balanced each other. Polybius believed that each one of these elements worked as one of the three basic types of government: the senate, represented by aristocracy (oligarchy); the magistrate, wielding the administrative power of the king (monarchy); the sovereignty, was vested in the assembly of the people (democracy).

The Greeks believed that each of these forms of government had advantages and disadvantages. Monarchy: the very best individual is chosen to be the king, the king rules justly and in the common interest, royal family becomes selfish and rules for its own benefit and becomes oppressive. Oligarchy: the rule of a small upper class. Democracy: it has benefits in the beginning but after some time different problems, which result in stasis (governmental paralysis), appear such as: demagogue, where people with oratorical skills lead the others to violence and self destruction; the tyranny of the majority, oppressive acts of the majority towards the minority.

Polybius attributed the great success of Rome to its consitution, which he perceived to be an almost perfect combination of the 3 types of government:

Discuss the Gracchi reforms. Support your discussion with information from the biographies of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus contained in the Source Readings and from the lectures.

Rome’s military and diplomatic successes around the Mediterranean resulted in unforeseen economic and political pressures on the state. While factional strife had always been part of Roman political life, the stakes were now far higher; a corrupt provincial governor could acquire unbelievable wealth; a successful military commander needed only the support of his legions to rule vast territories. Starting with the Punic Wars, the Roman economy began to change, concentrating wealth in the hands of a few powerful clans and causing political tension within Rome.

Much of the newly conquered territories were seized by rich and powerful families. Additionally, as only men who could provide their own arms were eligible to serve in the Legions, the majority of Roman troops came from the middle class land holders who theoretically would be fighting to defend their own lands. With military campaigns now lasting years rather than just a few months, soldiers could not return to work their farms. With their holdings lying fallow, their families quickly fell into debt, and their lands were lost to creditors- typically wealthy landholders who consolidated these properties into vast latifundia. Formerly middle-class soldiers would return from years of campaigning to find themselves landless, unable to support their families, and ironically, unemployable because the successes of the Legions made slaves a much cheaper source of labor.

By 133 BC the economic imbalance was too acute to ignore, but the wealthy patricians and old families in the Senate had a vested interest in preserving the status quo. It seemed that a land reform through the traditional channels was an unlikely prospect. In 133 BC, a tribune, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, tried to introduce land reform to redistribute “publicly held land” to the now landless returning soldiers. He proposed the enforcement of a Roman law, which had mostly been ignored, which limited the use of public lands. While “public lands” were technically state owned, such land was often used by wealthy landholders, many of them Senators. Under the enforcement of this law many of them would lose property.

As it seemed unlikely that the Senate would agree to enforce the law, Tiberius bypassed the Senate entirely, and tried to pass his reform through the Plebeian Assembly as a plebiscite, using the legal principle of Lex Hortensia. While technically legal, this was a violation of political custom, and outraged many patricians. The Senate blocked Tiberius by bribing his fellow tribune to veto the bill. Tiberius then passed a bill to depose his colleague from office, violating the principle of collegiality. With the veto withdrawn, the land reform passed. An incensed Senate refused to fund the land commission. Tiberius used the plebeian assembly to divert funds from the income of Pergamon to fund the commission, challenging Senate control of state finances and foreign policy. When it became clear that Tiberius did not have enough time to finish his land reforms, even with political and economic backing, he announced that he would run again for the tribunate, violating annuality. This was the last straw for the patricians, who, fearing that Tiberius was setting himself up as a tyrant, responded by slaughtering Tiberius and 300 of his followers in the streets of Rome.

Tiberius’ younger brother Gaius Sempronius Gracchus attempted to continue political reforms using similar tactics almost ten years later. He seems to have been more of a demagogue who attempted to pass a slew of popular laws to gain popular support rather than to be a political reformer with a specific agenda like his brother. He was neither as successful, nor as popular, as his elder brother, but he managed to create many political enemies. Escalating political tensions finally exploded once again in violence on the Capitoline Hill, where Gaius Gracchus and 3,000 of his followers were killed.

Whatever their intentions, the political careers of the Gracchi brothers had broken the political traditions of Rome, and introduced mob violence as a tool of Roman political life. It was a change that the Republic would not recover from.

Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus attempted land reform. They confiscated land from the wealthy classes and distributed it among the proletarii. They were both assassinated. This was the first bloodshed in Roman domestic politics.

Discuss the collapse of the Roman Republic and isolate the causes. Include an analysis of the impact of war and imperialism on the internal political health of the republic.

The Roman Republic was a phase of the ancient Roman civilization characterized by a republican form of government. The republican period began with the overthrow of the Monarchy in 510 BC and lasted until its subversion, through a series of civil wars, into the Roman Empire. The precise date in which the Roman Republic changed into the Roman Empire is a matter of interpretation, with the dates of Julius Caesar’s appointment as perpetual dictator (44 BC), the Battle of Actium (September 2, 31 BC), and the date which the Roman Senate granted Octavian the title “Augustus” (January 16, 27 BC), being some of the common choices.

Technically, the republic did not end. Octavian (and his “heirs”) was said to have “saved the republic” and ruled by “will of the Senate” until a future date, when he would return his extraordinary powers. All of Octavians successors carefully maintained this lie (at least at the beginning). In truth, however, the Republic had been dying since 133 BC, with the killing of the Gracchi brothers. Their deaths signaled the end of debate and legal procedure. From that point on, whoever was willing to go the farthest dictated policy. Murder became commonplace during election time, and mobs were often whipped up by opposing parties to frighten enemies into submission. It became accepted, even encouraged, to use force to ‘preserve the Republic’. Senators who could not legally block reform used assassination and trumped-up criminal charges to stop it; reformers who could not legally pass their bills used the steadily growing anger of the Roman populace to terrify the Senate or appealed to powerful generals and their armies for military support. Each time someone used violence to achieve an end, someone else hit back even harder to counter it. When Marius used his army of gladiators, slaves, and plebeians to seize Rome, Sulla hit back using professional legions. The result was a short-term stability and further weakening of the underlying structure of government.

The change also became one that put the men before the Republic — no longer was it possible to survive in the new vicious world of Roman politics by being humble and loyal to the ideals of the ancestors. Powerful politicians vied to become “Primus inter pares” – “First amongst equals” through whatever means necessary, and ambitious men were only kept in check by other equally ambitious competitors. Marius and Sulla were the first, and their example gave rise to the first Triumvirate of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, and of the second one composed by Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus.

Moreover, the Senate had proven, time and time again, to be so selfish, arrogant, incompetent and shortsighted that the Roman population no longer trusted them to lead. The Senate was often too willing to protect its friends, allies and members from lawful prosecution for even the most evident and extraordinary crimes; and because of this it lost the trust of the Roman citizens at large. When someone did come from their ranks and proved himself capable, the Romans flocked to them in a desperate hope that he might pull together the Republic and restore peace, law, and order. The Senate, using what means necessary, struck down these champions one by one, starting with the Gracchi. Each time this happened, the Roman people became more willing to accept the extreme measures of the reformers to ensure their laws, and their lives. Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon was technically treason, but no one outside the Senate cared, because it promised real change for a corrupt and unworkable Republic.

Within the Senate itself, the heavily entrenched, tradition-bound, rich conservative party was constantly at odds with any reformer that arose. The Gracchi worked outside the constitutional system by using the popular assemblies instead of the Senate; Marius had to fight tooth and nail just to get the necessary changes needed to recruit lower class soldiers; Sulla terrified the Senators with executions to enact reforms that were intended to actually preserve the powers of the Senate; and Caesar had to effectively conquer the whole Roman dominion in order to pass laws that were at least a century overdue. The harder the Senate fought to keep the status quo, the farther the reformers were willing to go, until at last it ended in Caesar’s dictatorship.

The distrust the Roman citizens felt for the Senate was evident in the reaction of the troops to their commanders asking them to commit treason. The legions were willing to follow their commanders because they had no special love for the Senate, who only refused them pay and often fought over their rights to receive land upon returning home from war. There was no time when a commander asked his men to march with him on Rome and they refused, not one time where legionaries sided with the Senate. They chose to rally around names like Sulla and Pompey and Caesar, not the antiquated ideals of a Republic that rarely worked for them. The only thing that kept them in check, was each other. The Senate’s inability to see this new reality cost it dearly. The Senate could not and did not want to adapt itself to the changing power structure, and as a result was pushed aside by those who could.

Part of the problem was that Rome’s government was not designed to rule an empire. The Republic was meant to govern a city-state; one that was, even at its founding, growing in scope and power, but nevertheless only supposed to extend through the regions of central Italy. When territory was captured overseas, the Republic proved itself unable to effectively govern it. The provinces became fiefdoms of the governors, who proceeded to plunder them at will and engage in military adventures that did not have the approval of the Senate. These governors eventually took on Rome itself whenever they were threatened. There was no system of accountability, no ancient tradition of dealing with corrupt governors — the problem was new, and the Republic, so tradition-bound, would not change to handle it. Once the Republic became an Empire, only an Emperor could effectively rule it, not an oligarchic assembly. But it took nearly a century before that was fully realized. In the end, the failure to control the generals caused the downfall of Rome’s Republic. When Caesar finally took Rome for himself, he was greeted with thunderous applause, because he, at long last, promised, and even delivered, reforms the Roman people had wanted since the Gracchi.

The legions of Rome physically dismantled the Republic, but it was the Senate that set up a world where such a thing could happen as the citizens looked on and cheered.

The 3 wars w/ Carthage (North Africa), known as the Punic Wars, established the foundation for Roman Empirialism. Carthage empire (600-500 BCE) included the North African coast, Corsice, Sardinia, parts of Spain and much of Sicily. Carthage was the 2nd most populaous city of its time after Alexandria. The carthageans were successful commercial people, and their city was the richest in the ncient world. Their industry aimed mass-production and cheapness rather than beauty. They exploited the caravan routes of Egypt and African and sailed to Britiain and Senepal. Carthage exploited the habitants of its empire. The natives of Sardinia and Spain were exploited commerciall and forced to supply mercenary troops. Rome and Carthage live in peace with each other untl their empires came into contact through mutual expansion and at that point Sicily, the contact ignited into war: First Punic War (264-241 BCE). In that war the Romans scored victory. The city of Carthage remained unconquered and its merchant fleets continued to generate wealth. Hannibal was one of history’s great generals. He had great tactics and strategies. However, he based his strategy on incorrect assumptions. Because Carthegian empire was based on the conquest and exploitation of the subject peoples, these oppressed people were waiting for any opportunity to revolt against their masters. Hannibal assumed that the Roman Empire as similar.
The Second Punic War (218-201BCE) and Hannibal’s stratgy was bankrupt when Rome did not collapse after Cannae. Although he gained Carentum (212 BCE) he lost Cpea (211 BCE) and Carthage was defeated at a battle on the plain of Lamo (212 BCE).

The outcome of the 2nd Punic War was a major turning point in ancient history of Western Civilization. It had profound effects on the political, economic and religious life of Italy, as well as the entire Mediterranean basin. For many generations, no power could endanger or threaten the existence of Rome. But Italy suffered horribly in the war. During th war many fields were burned and livestock and villages were decimated. The topsoil was lost leaving Italy permanently impoverished. Many other wars happened afterward, w/ Syria, Macedonia, Greece and Asia Minor and most of the Levant which got conquered by the Romans. In 133 BCE the King Attalus II of Pergamum (with Asia Minor just across the Bosporus gave his kingdom to th romans after his death). The benefits of peace spread across all its adversaries and now was rich and proud and powerful.

But its suscces oversears was not without severe social and political cost at home. Expansion created pressure groups within the Roman population, which evetually tore apart the very fa bric of the republic. A new class of the “equites” was created, much like the middle class since it was below the senatorial class. But in practice the equites were members of the upper class and many of them were memers of Senaotorial class or noble families. They contacted almost all of the commercial activity and they invested their overseaas.

During Hannibal’s invsion, smal farmers were forcd to desert their farms and migrate to cities for protection. After the war, equites and senators bought this land and formed it into large estates (latifundia) which they worked with gangs of slaves. NUmbers of slaves were imported from overseas as a result of Rome’s imperialism (prisoners of war were the chief source of slavery int eh ancient world). Cheap slave labor naturally drives out more expensiv free labor, so Rome’s success overseas exacerbated the plight of the small farmers and forced increasing numbers of them off their land and into the cities, especially Rome. These farmers, unemployed citizens, formed yet another class: the proleteratii.

During the 2nd Punic War the proleteratii began to increase while small farmers were driven off their land. Since they were the mainstay of the army and the backbone of the army, this caused an alarming and harmful change in Roman society. The small farmers formed the manpower pool from which the Roman army was drawn and they had made the Roman expansion possible. Without them, all the gains of imperalism would be lost. Yet this class which had borne the brunt of the fighting which made Rome great received none of the rewards. This situation of rapid social change and distorting economic desplacement among Italy’s population put such a severe strain on the body politic of the Roman Republic that it was eventually ripped asunder.

The policy of granting citizenship to the Italian allies had slowed down, resulting in a social war (90-88 BCE) which resulted in citizenship for all those who had put down arms. After civil conflicts, which led to bloody battles, Rome was entire in Sulla’s hands who revived the obsolete office of dictator that had not much in common witht he old office which had maximum duration of 6 months. This office would be terminated only by his death. Although the Roman Republic would last another 50 years, Sulla pretty much sealed its demise. He stood as an example for future generals that it was possibl to tke Rome by force and rule it. During the 2 decades following his death in 78 bCE, 4 mean played the leading role of the final demise of the roman republic. Pompey, Crassus, Cicero and Caesar.

Pompey understood that talenet and accomplishment are shadowed by image. Crasses used his tremendous wealth to gain power. Cicero was a great orator who had studied in Greece and Asia Minor. When a revolt was staged against him, he was given total power and illegally executed them. Caesar aligned himself with the masses and slowly was given complete power. He was a peaceful dictator, and his reign marked the end of the republic. He maintained the facade of a republic, though, even increasing the size of the senate and creating many colonies for this veteran soldiers and extending Roman citizenship into some provinces. He adopted the Egyptian calendar. His main charge, though, was in installing a military monarchy. He operated within the bound of the republic, though, and when optimates trying to contest him thy merely stripped themselves of their own power.

Augustus transformed the government of the Roman state from a republic to a monarchy. How did he accomplish this? Why did the people of Rome accept this new regime?

The Roman Empire was ruled by a monarch bearing the title of emperor. This was established by Julius Caesar’s adopted son, Gaius Octavius (Octavian), in 27 BCE when he was renamed Augustus and he was deemed emperor. This monarchy survived until 476 of the Common Era, the fall of the Roman Empire.

After Caesar’s death, two of his partisans (Antony and Lepidus) and his adopted son Octavian formed the second triumvirate. They were twice given 5 years of supreme power. During this time, they slaughtered their enemies and revolutionized the old republic. At this point, Octavian took Italy and part of Gaul, Antony took the rest of Gaul and Lepidus was given Africa. Antony cultivated his region to fund the 100,000 veteran soldiers, and he and Octavian consolidated their positions. When Antony was denied admittance to visit Italy, though, a civil war nearly erupted before an agreement was reached. Neither Antony nor Octavian were ready to fight for supremacy.

When the ruler (Sextus) of nearby islands restricted Rome’s grain supply, Octavian acknowledged his power and stabilized their relationship by marrying into the family. He eventually divorced the family, though, to marry a fellow Roman’s wife. The grain supply was again disrupted, and Octavian used Antony’s assistance to defeat Sextus. Shortly thereafter, Lepidus tried to seize Siciliy but his troops joined Octavian and Africa was thereby acquired without bloodshed. The legions simply refused to fight against Caesar. This gave Octavian control of all the West and Antony control of the East.

Antony and Cleopatra formed a lusty powercouple. Yet when they confronted Octavian for total domination, Octavian won. He was now not only master of the world but also unified all of Rome into a peaceful superpower. For the first time in 700 years, the bruised and exhausted Rome was peaceful. Octavian was credited with this peace. In addition, he had acquired for Rome more land than ever before. At this point, by carefully avoiding the mistakes of his predecessors, he stopped countless orgies of violence before they ever began. For example, instead of having 70 legions he only had 26. This prevented the military from revolting and trying to seize control. Also, he gave the veterans generous retirement plans. By already establishing credibility as a successful politician capable of glorifying Rome, the senate was more likely to compromise with him to avoid another civil war.

By presenting himself as a successful politician wanting to help Rome, rather than its future emperor, Octavian was able to slyly ready Rome for his takeover. Although the senate had grown into a corrupt pawn, Octavian cleansed the senate and restored its exclusiveness. He also began preparing secretively to restore the republic. He manipulated Rome into giving him total control of most territories by offering the senate total control and resigning. This caused such a frenzy that they pleaded with him to return and offered him special command for 10 years. In addition, he was renamed Augustus now that he was emperor in the year 27 BCE.

Augustus initially seized control of the consul, but then reinstated it so that wealthy citizens could eagerly become politicians and maintain their dignity. However, to compensate for loss of the consul he was given imperium procunsalare maius; Augustus was given power over the entire empire and was able to retain control of Rome. So far, Augustus had accomplished so much via simple manipulation. He had established himself as an excellent candidate, then when he declared retirement he was given greater control in order to tempt him; after this, he relinquished the control to wealthy aristocrats and in exchange took an even higher position. In addition, he attained tribunal power. He was now able to control both domestic and foreign affairs of the state: he stood upon Rome’s twin pillars. Next, Augustus attained censorial powers and then became chief priest. At this point, Augustus had so much power that he was declared the Father of His Country. Augustus’ supreme autoritas allowed him to have done anything he wanted.

The citizens of Rome, given tremendous liberty, eventually became broken by civil war and disorder. They gladly handed exchanged their freedom for a strict government which gave them tremendous security and peace. As Augustus slowly, legally and constitutionally transformed the republic into a monarchy, he made sure that it functioned with the consent and delegation of the masses. Governmental decisions were not arbitrary, but rather were made to further and stabilize Rome. In addition, his generosity toward the military ensured their allegiance to him rather than to their generals.

Discuss the Christian Persecutions. Since the Romans are usually perceived to hav been tolerant towrd the customs and religions of the peoples of the empire, what were the reasons behind these events? What was the legal basis?

A pagan, originally a hillbilly or country yokel, was a contemptuous term applied by early Christians to non-Christians. A mystery cult was a sytem of religious beliefs and rituals, much unlike the modern usage. The Cult of Isis began as Cult of Osiris in ancient Egypt. By the 3^rd century, it had been Hellenized as the Cult of Isis and became the most popular mystery religion in the Roman Empire. Salvationist eschatologies: eschatology refers to the apocalypse; salvation refers to afterlife via association with a cult figure. In Taurobolium, a bull was slaughtered on a perforated altar such that the believers beneath could bath in the warm blood to become “reborn for eternity.” Humanism vs. mysticism: Humanism: Carpe diem, “seize the day.” The good life is to be sought here is this world in the context of human existence. Mysticism: This human world is only a temporary existence through which we pass on our journey to eternity in the spiritual world beyond the grave.

Christianity: Required a moral life in addition to the usual rituals, mysteries and sacraments. Claimed a total monopoly on truth, and the exclusive possession of salvation. All non-Christians were viewed as the enemies of truth and instruments of evil. The Christians’ rigid and intolerant monotheism rejected the traditional gods. In addition to refusing to participate in the established public sacrifices and ceremonies of their pagan neigbors, the mainstream empire was greatly insulted. This bred hostility toward the Christians and led to persecution.

Why did the pagans demand persecution? The first official government intervention was the persecution of Nero in C.E. 64 after a fire destroyed much of Rome. Christians were perceived as a threat to the pagan way of life, which had been prevalent in the Mediterranean world for thousands of years. So they were chosen as a scapegoat and that, according to historian Nacitus, they should be punished for hating humanity instead of committing arson. They were use as scapegoats bcause they were consiered by the public to be capable of even the most horrendous crimes. So choosing them for the arsonry blame was acceptable to most Romans. Still viewed as a renegade sect of Judaism and still without a securre population hold in the Roman congregation, were very mysterious.

What legal principles were involved? Once Christians had been tried and condemned upon arson, they were next charged for merely being Christian. This crime, titled Nomen Christionum (‘The name of Christian’) was similar to modern conspiracy and anti-racketeering laws. These laws make it possible to prosecute people for who they are, rather than for the crimes they commit. This was an attempt to preserve society, sinc they were disrupting and destabilizing a way of life and thereby they were destroying the old values. The persecutions were isolated and brief between 64 – 250 and local. In 250, though, there was the first of 3 systematic persecutions: Decius: 250 – 251; Valerian: 257 – 259; Diocletian: Western Empire, 303 – 304, Eastern Empire through to 311

Case Study: Pliny, an experienced lawyer and civil servant, had never before encountered a Christian persecution. This indicates that they were relatively rare because Christians were scarce. He asked Emperor Trajan for assistance. Emperor Trajan responded that charges must be brought in open court and the accused given an opportunity to clear himself. The procedure must be accusatory, not inquisitional. Anonymous accusations were uncredible and no roundups were allowed. No crime was necessary, as being a Christian was criminal enough.

Why were Christians singled out? Most often Christians got into trouble for refusing to sacrifice to the gods (a political offense). Maintaining the pax deorum (‘peace of the gods’) was important to the state as well as all its individual members. Refusal to sacrifice was an insult to the gods.

What role did martyrdom play? Christians were one of several mystery religions. They were alienated, however, because they refused to sacrifice to the Gods (not just Roman Gods). This made them an easy target. The other mystery religions, for the most part, remained within the mainstream. Refusing to sacrifice to the Gods struck at the very heart of the pagan value system. Keeping the Gods satisfied was necessary to ensure the health and prosperity of the state and individual citizens. In addition, this refusal to sacrifice made the Christians seem unusual. Other mystery religions were not so arrogant as to disregard the mainstream pagan life.

What about the Jews? The Jews refused to sacrifice. But Jews practiced an ancient and established religion; they conformed to their own mos majorum. Compromise was possible: The Jews offered prayers to their own god for the health and prosperity of emperor and state.

What part did martyrdom play? Christians often could not be prevented from voluntarily confessing their guilt. This prolonged the persecutions and made them more intense. Examples of martyrdom:

1. In Pergamum, when Carpus and Papylus were being burned at the stake, Agathonice suddenly ran from the audience shouting “praise be to God”, and jumped into the flames and died with the martyrs.
2. In Carthage, when the proconsul Saterninus pronounced sentence on a group confessed Christians, several more from the audience rose and joined those already convicted.

Discuss and explain the Christian triumph over paganism in historical terms. What were the major historical factors responsible for its success?

Appeal of Christianity. Since nobody truly believed in pagan gods and goddesses, ancients yearned for a proper religion. Christianity was introduced and was accepted overwhelmingly. However, this theory is easily countered: dismantling paganism was a desperate struggle. After paganism had ruled for thousands of years, Christianity was accepted because it was founded by a historical person, it had high moral standards, it incorporated rich Jewish culture, and it promised that the meek will inherit the Earth. Since all other mystery cults had fatal disadvantages or demanded sacrifices or unrealistic changes in lifestyle (Mithras’ men-only code, Cycbellic priests were castrated, etc). This theory is silly. When Constantine made Christianity the favored Roman religion in 313, it succeeded by absorbing competiting religions’ major aspects. For example, the celibacy of Catholic priests represents Cybellic castration. Christmas, the celebration of Christs’ birth, was enstated to overtake the pagan Saturnalia. Saturnalia elebrated winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. It was so popular that many Christians did not attend congregation during Saturnalia. Christmas was merely a counterattack. Easter, celebrating Christs’ resurrection, was based on a pagan spring festival. Many Christian holidays were developed to prevent worshippers from deserting the church to celebrate pagan festivals. This indicates that Christianity was indeed not very desirable, and only became so after many pagan aspects had been incorporated.

Christianity’s rational theology. Christianity is the triumph of truth and rationality over polytheistic superstition. However, the basic tenets of Christianity are not at all rational. Religion has never been discovered via scientific research. As Greek philosophers questioned Christianity, its Hellenized leaders incorporated Greek philosophy. This is not a triumph over superstition. This is a mixture of two systems of thought.

Christianity’s superior organization. Rome’s organizational and administrative techniques, combined with a Greek rational framework, made Christianity into an efficient machine. The church had an administration, tax system, welfare program, judicial process, etc.

Governmental support. The most important factor in Christianity’s triumph was Roman governmental support. No other religion has had universal success without support of wealthy citizens and the government. When emperor Constantine was converted, he made Christianity Rome’s favored religion in 313. Christianity managed to spread by first converting the rulers or upper classes of societies. After this, the masses could be easily coerced.

Reasons for Constantine’s conversion from paganism to Christianity are contested. Upon coming to power in 306, Constantine ended the Christian persecution and gave restitution. Then, during a battle, Constantine saw a sign in the sky and then Christ appeared to him that evening. Constantine was ordered to place crosses on his army’s battle standards or face defeat. He followed Christ’s instructions and upon victory converted to Christianity. However, Constantine then used his conversion as an imperial tool. He continued to worship pagan lords, but needed to unite the deeply divided Rome. The republican image of Rome had peeled away to reveal it as a monarchy, and by becoming monotheistic Constantine made Earth mirror heaven. He resolved problem within the Christian institution, and moved his empire to the intersection of the two largest routes in the mideival world: north-south from Europe to the near East and the Black and Mediterranean Sea connecting road.

The Study Guide lists several theories for the fall of the Roman Empire that have been proposed by scholars. In reality no single factor can account for the demise of the empire. What do you think were the causes for the fall of the Roman Empire? Support your view with specific historical facts and examples.

The weakness of the border troops meant that emperors needed more mobile troops, so they expanded the army. This in turn increased the number of recruits needed, while a simultaneous reluctance of landowners to lose scarce workers led to the recruitment of the militarily inferior barbarians.

External problems exacerbated the internal crises of the empire. The small barbarian tribes who had opposed the early empire now banded together to form more powerful confederations such as Goths, Franks and Alamanni. However, some historians are doubtful about the increased power of these groups. Vigorous emperors like Diocletian, Constantine, Constantius II (337-361) and Valentinian I (364-375) kept the barbarians beyond the borders. Then the Huns arrived and drove the Goths into the Empire, defeating the army of Valens (364-378) at Adrianople in 378. From now on, the Romans could not destroy these Goths, although Theodosius I (379-395) finally settled them in the Balkans in 382. Once one group of barbarians had entered the Empire, the Romans could not muster the military strength to keep others out. Vandals, Alans and Suevi crossed the Rhine in 406 and barbarians went on to settle all over the western Empire. Visigoths, Alans and Suevi took land in Spain, Vandals in Africa and Burgundians, Visigoths and Franks in Gaul. Elsewhere, Saxons invaded Britain and at the end of the fifth century, Ostrogoths occupied Italy.

In addition, there were financial problems faced by the Empire. In the 395 division of the Empire, the West received fewer of the wealthy provinces. This in turn decreased the taxes collected. Paying for enough troops to fight was a severe problem. As well as facing diminishing resources, the West also had longer borders to defend. For these historians, western collapse was inevitable after 395, although the debate about when it could no longer be reversed is still important.

The status and role of women has changed throughout history from one society to another. What statuses and roles have women held in the civilizations coveted by this course? Is there a common thread? Support your arguments with specific examples from the history, literature and art of the societies you studied in this course.

Mesopotamia

Early Mesopotamian women could visit the market, make transactions and leases, attend to legal matters, and own property. There was a big gap between rights of high and low status women. High status women like priestesses and royalty could read and write and get administrative power. Treatment toward women varied between city-states and over time. Many mother goddesses were worshipped, and were the main deities in some city-states. Soon after puberty, a young girl was considered ready for marriage. Marriages were often arranged by the families and an engaged woman was considered part of her fiancees family. If a groom died before the wedding, she’d marry his brother or close relative. A woman left the house usually only to run household errands. She might sell and brew beer or even become a tavern keeper. Women lost most rights in the Assyrian Era, when the first laws requiring public veiling of elite women were made. Women were trained early on to be wives, mothers, and housekeepers.

Women were depicted as threatening and dramatic in literature. Mesopatamia’s creation story, Enuma Elish, has both gods and goddesses. One of the first deities, Tiamat, becomes bitter when her husband is killed; she becomes powerful and threatening, so she is slaughtered. Her corpse forms the world. The guilt of the deities is concentrated in Kingu, a male who is killed and from whose corpse comes humans. This fatalism overshadows an odd theme: while the female provides the backdrop, humanity comes from the male. This indicates that women were thought unable to create life, despite being able to incubate and nurture it. They are considered the backdrop for propagation of the species, much as a female body is merely the backstage (the world) for humanity. There is a clear negativity, though, as Tiamat is salt water while Apsu (her husband) is fresh water. Salt rendered most of Mesopotamia infertile.

Another story, that of Ishtar (the deeply worshipped mother goddess), is about her desire to rule the living and the dead. She performed a coup, but was sentenced to death and her sister resumed control. Her cunning uncle Ea, though, convinced Ishtar’s sister to let Ishtar live again in exchange for another soul. Ishtar returned to the living realm to find her substitute, and chose her lover when she found he had taken her position. She later missed him, though, and sent his half-sister to take his place 6 months a year.

Although women were greatly restricted, there was respect for family. There is even a poem written from a woman to a man about her deep love. Hammurabi united Mesopotamia under Babylon and wrote laws about marriage and family. He established there should be a contract and that cheating was illegal. He tried to honor women by punishing men who abandon their wives. However, he obligated women to nurture their hubsands and bear children.

Egypt

Egyptian women and men were mostly treated equal, although their roles were somewhat defined. When Greece won Egypt in 332 B.C.E., Egyptian women retained most of their rights, unlike the oppressed women of Greece. Egypt was not completely equal, though, and women were monogamous and men were polygamous. Girls were denied an education and weren’t sent to temple schools. Many believed that women could get all the knowledge they needed from home. Women took care of kids at home while men worked, and that salary meant men were usually richer than women. Women could own and dispose their property (such as land, slaves, livestock, and money), resolve legal issues, and were partners in marriage or divorce contracts. She could get property via gifts, inheritance, leases, and employment. Early Egyptian women were oftentimes priests, especiallor for Hathor, the goddess of fertility.

There were several female rulers of Egypt. Hatshepsut, the first female pharaoh, married her half-brother. When he died, his half-son assumed the throne but was a minor. Hatshepsut gradually assumed the titles, powers, clothing, and even beard of a male pharaoh. She claimed legitimacy through divine birth, calling herself a female horus. An excellent testament to Egyptian equality, Hatshepsut’s behavior is liberal even by modern standards.

There were many important Egyptian goddesses. Isis, Osiris’ wife/sibling and god of creativity and rejuvenation, shadowed all other deities. This is thought to have helped further Egyptian women’s rights. Since the pre-dynastic times, women were the sources of life and the guardians of Egyptian culture. Isis was responsible for Egypt’s fertile soil, and one of her tears formed the Nil River. Since goddesses began as major religious symbols, it was not foreign to treat women well.

Egyptian art reflected the salary difference between the sexes. A rich man would build large buildings, and that is why most Egyptian sculptures are male. Also, few women are in art because they were symbols of fertility. They were only depicted if they had signs of fertility: youth, beauty, and large breasts and hips. A fertile woman gained respect, approval and admiration with each pregnancy. ThThere are many samples of poetry, though, one of which is about a man admiring a woman’s beauty and complimenting her. This shows the value of women in Egypt.

Minoans (2000-1500 BC)

The Minoans had the mother goddess with the snakes in her hands and the scorpion on her head. This indicates a more matriarichal society. Agia and Triada sarcophagi show a woman sacrificing an animal and the guys are playing flute. This is impressive because the woman has power in this piece of artwork.

Mycenae

During the dark ages, not many things happened. However, the weaving which survives shows the stability of the women and the interest toward taking care of the family. Also, the greek mytholgoy gets stabilized and has male and female goddesses and there is the language. Existence of polis was led by guys not by women. Female citizens were chattel and slaves, only guys were voting. 1/3 women 1/3 slaves 1/4 men in polis. Another example of poetry is Sappho (lesbianism). Also, Plato was spoken about by Socrates and Socrates was against physicality. He thought materialism was destruction.

Sparta

Much like in Egypt, Spartan women and men were somewhat equal in their power. Their roles, however, were extremely different and very planned. Other Greeks believed Spartan women were too powerful for the good of the state. Plutarch wrote that “the men of Sparta always obeyed their wives.” Aristotle argued that female influence contributed to Spartan downfall. Women could not vote but still had tremendous influence, as by the end of the 4th century they greatly outpopulated the men. There is very little Spartan art, though, since it was mostly unimportant to Spartans.

Women could own property (about 2/5 of all property was female) and dispose of it as they wished. Marriage existed solely for procreation, not to answer emotional or social needs. Several men would share a wife and so the woman was the dominant family member. Since Spartan men were away from home, Spartan women dominated the household. Children were raised without men, so returning men had little authoirty. Although men still publicly were the boss, in private they were not. The power of the busband had been replaced by the control of the state, where women were living uterusus and the men defended the state from Helot revolt. Spartan women were indepedent and athletic. Aristophanes’ portrait of Lampito dramatizes this reputation in the Lysistrata. Girls were physically trained and were even educated in the arts. Since menial labor was performed by helots, the women had freedom from mindless labor.

Girls were given a good education in both the arts and athletics. Women were encouraged to develop their intellect. Women owned more than a third of the land. There was less difference in age between husbands and wives, and girls in Sparta married at a later age than their sisters in Athens. Husbands spent most of their time with other men in the military barracks; since the men were rarely home, the women were free to take charge of almost everything outside of the army. Mothers reared their sons until age 7 and then society took over. Fathers played little or no role in child care.

Athens

The ideal woman obediently lived under her father or husband, produced and educated children, managed the house, spun, wove, and oversaw food preparation. In Classical Greece’s Athens, only men could vote, inherit property, and take legal action. Women were confined to home where, helped by slaves, they managed the household and raised children. Girls were not taught outside the household, and it was considered important that women have “intercourse and pregnancies” to open up their bodies “to create the unobstructed space that is the mark of a fully-operational female,” so Athenians daughters were often married right after puberty, moving them from the protection of their fathers to that of their husbands. They married older men supposedly able to curb their wives’ supposedly wanton and uncontrollable sexual appetites. Aristotle was against girls masturbating, claiming that it incensed their libidos. Aristophanes’ Lysistrata states that to satisfy and control his wife, a husband must both avoid adultery and have children. Greek women needed a designated male (kourios), typically a husband, father, or brother, to represent her in legal contracts and proceedings.

Women were isolated from other men. Their quarters were apart from the formal dining area where the husband would entertain male companions and women were usually escorted in public and social affairs were sex segregated. Athenian men spent time away discussing politics and philosophy, but when they went home they expected obedience from their wives and no Athenian citizen would ever admit to taking advice from a woman.

Women were frequent subjects in art. They always represented purity and success. These overwhelming ideals are represented well in Nike Samothrace, a sculpture of Nike landing to honor a military victory. In addition, Aphrodite of Milo shows an idealized woman with a timid pose and a body showcasing its fertility. The statues of Karyatides at the Erechtheus temples support the roof. This is most likely because the women carried items on their head. In addition, there were many female goddesses. Some of these, such as Artemis, were powerful and woud kill any man who threatened her virginity. It is interesting how her strength was a utility to maintain her idealized virginity.

Romans

When paganism prevailed, women had leading roles in spiritual activities. Superstition was significant, and it was believed that present events foretold the future. Women were involved with divination practices at temples. Another sacred female role was Vestal Virgin, whose duties prevented evil. Christian bureaucracy, however, was male-dominated and ended this equality.

During the early history of Rome, the woman lived a busy life.As a rule,Roman women did not go to school and were taught anything they would need from their mother.The time for a woman’s learning was usually very short as she was married by the age of fifteen and started having children soon after. Roman women lacked political rights yet were treated wtih honor and respect.

They came to rule their house when the man was abset, and most Roman females did many male tasks due to wartime male absense. Also, Roman women educated the household’s girls and boys. Unlike the Athenian woman, a Roman matron was active in state and household affairs. Also, she had relatively great personal freedom. She could enter and leave her house, travel along streets, and attend public baths and games.

Commonality

Women, despite their degrees of freedom, are consistently domestic and idealized. Although Spartan civilization violates some of these commonalities, such as monogamy and unwavering female virtue, throughout the rest of these ancient Western civilizations this oppressive optimism is a common thread. Sometimes the tremendous respect and optimism men had for women became their very tools of entrapment. Overall, though, women continued as the backbone of every society by raising the very citizens who would later define history.

The ancient, arid and desert-locked Egyptian village of Deir el-Medina might seem worlds apart from Luxor, a bustling modern east bank city in the distance. Luxor’s palm-lined Nile bank overflows with water, while Deir el-Medina’s fossilized clamshells remind that it was underwater millions of years ago (Peacock 2009). Yet while Luxor boasts a rambunctious economy, Deir el-Medina can claim a prize far more priceless: its crystal-clear view of how an ancient population was transformed by education. Huge economic disparities at Deir el-Medina cannot all be explained by differences in rank-based government food rations. A hierarchy was established that favored literacy and education, allowing some to escape the confines of their government salary (Lesko 1994, p. 23). For hundreds of years, Deir el-Medina shone as an extremely educated village that was able to build a micro-economy motivated by perseverence and writing.

Isolated from the rest of the world in a small valley, Deir el-Medina was known to ancient Egypt as Place of Maat (after the goddess of justice) and to its inhabitants as just the town (Peacock 1998). The town was established in 16th century BCE, during the New Kingdom’s 18th Dynasty, for artisan miners to build the tombs of the Valley of the Kings and Valley of the Queens two hours away (Lesko 1994, p. 33). First it was small –- only 70 or so people -– but it ballooned during the 19th and 20th dynasties, reaching 200 to 300 inhabitants toward the end of Ramesses II’s reign (1279 to 1212 BCE) (Lesko 1994, p. 133). However, 450 years after being established, the miners left during the 11th century to live within the safe walls of a nearby temple as Egypt fell into the turmoil of the 20th Dynasty (McDowell 200, p. 218). By the 21st Dynasty, completely uninhabited, the town remained extensively popular for religious and mortuary purposes until as late as the 8th century AD. Even during Roman Egypt, a new temple and monastery were constructed.

The life of a miner living in Deir el-Medina revolved around construction of the royal tombs of the Valley of the Kings and Valley of the Queens (Peacock 2008). Work continued through the entire year, with a single week consisting of ten days: eight days of work, and one (although often two three) days of rest (Lesko 1994, p. 22). Additional days off were allowed for celebrating the principal gods’ festivals. Each workday consisted of two four-hour shifts that were separated by a lunch break. Villagers were paid according to their position, and the royal office set wages (Lesko 1994, p. 18). The town’s seventy homes were built all at once, constructed partially in the ground and with shared walls to regulate temperature. A single main street ran north and south. Deir el-Medina always had at least one or two scribes in Deir el-Medina to record events, maintain bureaucracy and ensure proper import/distribution of rations. Deir el-Medina lacks its own nearby water source, and water and food had to be imported daily (Peacock 2008).

There is abundant evidence that villagers in Deir el-Medina were exceptionally literate, with most able to read, and many able to write in at least a limited capacity (Lesko 1994, p. 135). Many researchers limit literacy in ancient Egypt to only of 0.4% of the population; however, this is inconsistent with findings in the small town of Deir el-Medina (Lesko 1994, p. 134). Scribes would pen the writing within the tombs and temples, and the miners obviously needed some degree of language knowledge to immortalize the inscriptions onto stall walls (Lesko 1994, pps. 19 & 135). Also, there are abundant warnings against trespassers near the temples, as well as notes that dictate certain short prayers of respect. These would be useless if only the one or two scribes were able to read. A villager named Ken-her-khepshef wrote his name on a seat at a nearby route, and at this workstation in the shade beside Merneptah’s tomb. Certainly this was not only for the pleasure of seeing his name. Also, jars have been found with labels that could be erased and rewritten; this extends literacy to at least household servants who needed to fetch provisions in sealed and labeled containers. Scribes even wrote notes to the wives of the villagers. These would have served no purpose unless some women could read. Many people included tidbits of their favorite stories in their tombs to enjoy in the afterlife. Even a carpenter could read and write (Lesko 1994, p. 133).

The most notable evidence of literacy, however, began as a fruitless effort to reach the water table but later became one of the richest sources of Egyptian writing (Peacock 2008). After miners had dug dozens of meters into ground and formed a massive hole many meters wide, a surveyor informed the town that the water table was still much deeper and thus inaccessible. The hole was then used a dump, filling with thousands literary and non-literary ostraca that first date to year 15 of Ramesses II at approximately 1167 BCE. This sheer quantity indicates that obviously not all of these ostraca were read, written and discarded by the scribe(s) on the premises.

Further evidence that literacy was widespread among persons in Deir el-Medina is the presence of student ostraca and papyri in the pit and scattered sparsely throughout the village (Lesko 1994, p. 131; McDowell 2000, p. 222). In addition, although no school has been found in Deir el-Medina, many ostraca have been confirmed to be intermediate curriculum – and many more might be early curriculum, although they are too fragmentary to be sure (McDowell 2000, p. 223). Most often, the teachers were literate individuals but not actually scribes; for example, McDowell’s 2000 publication lists six draughtsman, a chief workman, a deputy and one scribe. McDowell also describes the students as not just “future office-holders”, but also low-ranking persons such as a stone-cutter and also one woman. In one fell swoop, these findings show that there literacy and education was not confined to just the scribe(s) at Deir el-Medina.

There are signs of tremendous economic disparity in Deir el-Medina, which cannot be explained by inequalities in pay rations from the government (Lesko 1994, p. 20). Pay rations were standardized, with various quantities of fish, grain and vegetables being distributed somewhat unequally to tomb workers, foreman, scribes and other persons. The scribal salary was less than that of a tomb worker (Lesko 1994, p. 21). However, the scribe Kenherkhepshef, who held the office of scribe beginning at least in year 40 of Ramesses II and continuing down to year 1 of Siptah (around years 1239-1193 BC), was wealthy enough to have his hut floors paved with limestone slabs (Lesko 1994, p. 140). Also, the scribe Ramose owned several cattle and agricultural fields (Lesko 1994, p. 21). The stark contrast between his pay grade and standard of living can be attributed to his off-hours work for the villagers. For example, a scribe could charge fellow villagers vast sums for legal documents, coffin decoration and even copies of the Book of the Dead (Lesko 1994, pps. 21-22). This theory is supported by documents showing that the town physician charged high amounts for his services despite receiving a very low official salary.

This non-hereditary economic disparity extended even to foremen and carpenters, allowing them to amass slaves, land, donkeys and storehouses (Lesko 1994, p. 22). The government sustained the workers with food rations that were set by bureaucracy, and homes whose floor plans could not be changed. Indeed, Lesko (1994) writes on page 22 that “the hereditary nature of positions on the work force indicates that the jobs were prized and the works generally satisfied with their lot.” However, villagers made true gains on their own with work done during off-hours and earnings enjoyed outside the village wall. Furthermore, Lesko (2000) continues to state that “education, and personal skills” were significant for these independent profits and made “social mobility” open to even to slaves (Lesko 1994, pps. 23-24). On page 24, Lesko (1994) even describes “one lad who began his life as a young slave in the village ended as a free artisan on the crew.” Less dramatically, there are many documents describing foremen who began their lives as laborers.

Although some of the upward mobility in Deir el-Medina is attributed to winning confidence (Lesko 1994, p. 24), much of it is also due to the relatively high degree of education. The son of a laborer was usually destined to be a laborer, but this could change if he began school and was willing enough to remain long enough to carefully hone his ability to write and compose (Lesko 1994, p. 24). These well-educated youth could seek lucrative positions outside the hot and cramped environment of Deir el-Medina, rather than becoming children of the tomb, and could plausibly send money to their family from the outside world (Lesko 1994, p. 24). Despite being available to most any non-slave male child willing to learn, literacy was a powerful social tool that was heavily glorified (Lesko 1994, p. 140). Social status could be inherently used for income, as proximity to the tribunal could be lucrative via bribes (Lesko 1994, p. 22).

Also, scribal training, education and literacy was tied to learning arithmetic (McDowell 200, p. 219). This is particularly important, as it could aid carpenters and stone-cutters while moon-lighting. Without the careful plans of the tombs to work from, and instead relying on their own ingenuity, being proficient in arithmetic was useful for both construction as well as transactions. In such a small village, even a minor advantage over a competitor could seal a very lucrative purchase. A single bed was constructed from two massive poles tapering at both ends, with slits running lengthwise so that webbing could be stretched across (Petrie 1923, p. 145). This was an expensive and very lucrative profession, especially considering that the nearest tree in 1932 was 15 minutes away (Peacock 2008). According to sale records found at Deir el-Medina, a simple chair cost a minimum of 11 deben, a table was 15 deben and a bed was 25 deben (Lesko 1994, p. 21). The ability to arithmetically compute dimensions, use the written word to record a transaction and then provide an ostraca as receipt was undoubtedly a welcome edge over the competition.

There is clear evidence of literacy in Deir el-Medina, as well as the democratization of education and the ensuing economic inequality that arose. The lucrative power of literacy is most evident with scribes. Despite their extremely low salaries, they lived lavish lives and enjoyed excellent standards of living. They charged for legal documents, religious texts, coffin inscriptions and other lucrative services. This allowed one scribe to even pave his hut with limestone. Other individuals were able to incorporate literacy less directly into their profession, such as a carpenter who kept records of his prices and transactions.

Originally discovered in the ancient Mesopotamian city of Uruk, clay tokens and their accessory, the clay envelope, are the earliest known form of record keeping. This proto-writing was a calculation tool which is not considered true writing, but is still clearly the direct predecessor. The assigned excerpt from Robinson’s 1995 publication The Story of Writing describes the function and appearance of these tokens and envelopes.

Initially, these tokens represented units of common purchases. For example, a single token with a certain inscription represented a goat; five such tokens represented five goats. Useful for transactions, these tokens evolved such that a single token could represent five goats and a different token could represent ten goats. Tokens were distinguished by abstract etching, and evolved from a simple flat arrow into circular, punctured and even three-dimensional conical miniature sculptures.

The rising popularity of tokens – evidence by their preponderance in Urukian dumps — necessitated security. Retailers needed a safe way to perform transactions without risk of tampering. This led to a system of typically spherical clay envelopes, within which tokens were stored. On the outside of the envelope, the contents were described by an impression of each token within. For security, a unique seal was pressed onto the clay envelope. As these envelopes – also known as bullas – evolved, the contents became less significant and their exteriors grew increasingly sophisticated. Outer descriptions became more significant, and unique seals were pressed into the soft clay so that breakage and re-sealing would be apparent. However, the contents were still needed: if there were a dispute, the bulla could be broken and its inner tokens examined.

As a result of such disputes, archaeologists today now have an invaluable tool with which to study these first forms of writing. Vast numbers of tokens, bullas and bullas with their accompanying tokens have all been studied. This not only allows a direct understanding of Urukian culture (part of the Sumerian empire) but also allows researchers to discover how writing evolved through generations and provided the diffusive element necessary for Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Egyptian hieroglyphs appeared nearly instantly as a near-complete pictorial language with a unique linguistic approach. The two forms of hieroglyphs, separated by the situations in which they were used, likely developed from Sumerian writing concepts that may have diffused from ancient Mesopotamia. Egyptian hieroglyphs kept records and lubricated basic transactions as the Sumerian clay tokens (and, later, tablets) did. Unlike the Sumerian inscriptions, however, Egyptian hieroglyphs also told stories. This Egyptian ingenuity was necessary for another leap just a few hundred years later, when the Greeks began an ancient renaissance that produced timeless stories which timelessly captured for the first time the one thing which all cultures of all periods share: human emotion.

Bibliography

Robinson, Andrew. 1995. The Story of Writing. London: Thames and Hudson. pp. 58- 63, 66-67, 71, 93

House F was a Sumerian house in urban Nippur that operated during the 1740s BCE. (Robson 2001, 40) Encompassing approximately 400 square feet, and with writing even on the walls and furniture, House F has completely shadowed nearby sites by procuring over a thousand clay tablets of mostly literature and school lists. This genre of clay tablet is particularly remarkable, since other locations usually consisted of administrative and bureaucratic tedium. (Robson 2001, 40) Despite not even being completely unearthed, numerous clay tablet recycling bins (characteristic of Sumerian learning institutions) and many odd-positioned inscriptions discovered. It is literally as clear as the writing on the wall that House F had a role as an eduba – or “tablet house” – where writing was taught, and where the faculty likely also lived. (Robson 2001, 39-40)

A large percentage of the tablets found at House F were school lists. (Robson 2001, 45) Examination of these curricula revealed that training varied from school to school. (Robson 2001, 48) In the case of House F, neat texts written by professors or advanced students were a stark contrast to the sloppy inscriptions obviously made by newcomers. Acrographic tablets to familiarize students with clay tablet usage came first, followed by learning of professions, useful signs and then arithmetic. (Robson 2001, 48) Next, students were given compositions to memorize. (Robson 2001, 48) However, just as revealing as what the curriculum did contain is what was glaringly omitted. Whether as personal preference on behalf of an ancient professor, or archaeological oversight, tablets teaching reeds, vessels, leather and metal objects were noticeably absent. (Robson 2001, 48-49) However, as surrounding schoolhouses have an high number of such tablets, this student theorizes that possibly tablets were loaned from schoolhouse to schoolhouse and that those tablets were incidentally just not returned before the demise of House F (or perhaps they were stolen after House F fell). Further evidence supporting this theory is that there were vastly unequal numbers of tablets focusing on different topics. (Robson 2001, 51) This is indicative of the Uppur tablet houses staggering their coursework to allow flow of different genres of tablet between professors, as his students needed them. Of course, this theory assumes that groups of students began instruction at set times and in large groups.

Sumerian literature accounted for another large percentage of the tablets found. Literature in other languages was found very rarely, if at all. Sumerian compositions, likely memorized by students to teach them proper penmanship and literary form, were found in disproportionate quantities (similar to the school lists). (Robson 2001, 52-55) The teaching of Sumerian literature, even as Akkadian became the favored language of administration, business and law, reflects that House F and other schoolhouses were tradition and focused on keeping alive a proud Sumerian tradition. (Robson 2001, 60) This reverence for a growingly archaic language is further reflected by the praise poetry, which was dedicated to a ruler from many centuries past. (Robson 2001, 60)

The realities of Sumerian education described above are much more banal than the overwrought Sumerian tales describing ancient curriculum. (Robson 2001, 1 & 61) By using concrete evidence to extrapolate information – rather than relying on self-indulgent accounts – Robson has painted a unique picture of tablet houses. While the facts of academia are not as humorous and entertaining as the ancients themselves described, the value of the truth outweighs this loss. For example, the discovery that tablets were recycled resulted in a major breakthrough in understanding why clay tablets are not as common as expected based on population size. (Robinson 2001, 62) Also, learning the truth about how Sumerian was taught gives researchers deeper insight into the language itself. By learning the language the way it was meant to be learned – regardless of how variable this intangible may be – archaeologists and scholars of Sumerian culture can further their deepening knowledge of a society that was, a language that used to be and a legacy that remains.

Bibliography

Robson, Eleanor. 2001. The Tablet House: A Scribal School in Old Babylonian Nippur. RA 95: 39-66.

The Sumero-Akkadian educational system had profound influence on Near East regions surrounding Mesopotamia, including Syria, Hurri, Egypt and Phoenicia. Oftentimes, Akkadian was taught alongside the region’s native language. Tracking this influence shows an evolution of writing from its earliest stages as primitive receipts to its advanced stages as an immersive experience steeped in tradition (Robinson, 2007; Carr, 2005).

The Persian region of Elam – which was located in present-day Iran and flourished in Period II — preserves some of the earliest available education texts. Dating to Old Babylon, these texts were likely written by scribes trained in Ur or Sippar. These texts show a strong Mesopotamian influence. In addition, Bronze Age educational texts from another region in present-day Iran show a strong Mesopotamian influence (Carr, 2005).

The Syrian city of Ebla (existing c. 3500-3000 BC) used a modified version of Sumerian cuneiform, in another early example of Mesopotamian influence on education. Revealingly, explorations of Ebla procured sign and lexical lists similar to those described by Robson (2001) and Tinney (1998) in their discussions of Nippur and Ur scribal instruction. In addition, a number of educational texts critical to Mesopotamian instruction have also been discovered at Ebla. Also, the ruins of Mari — another Syrian city — have revealed texts and even a potential school with a Sumero-Akkadian influence and; however, these findings are unpublished and/or controversial (Carr, 2005).

The Hittite empire, which flourished c. 3000-2500 BC, built an elaborate scribal system with strong Sumero-Akkadian elements. Babylonian lists and standard texts — in both their original Akkadian and translated Hittite forms — as well as many Sumer-Akkadian hymns, incantations and divinatory texts, have been discovered in Hittite sites. At the same time, a unique Hittite educational system was being developed. This system was being developed to some extent directly from the Sumero-Akkadian tradition, with certain Mesopotamian elements being incorporated directly as the Hittites took over parts of Hurri. (Carr, 2005)

Like Ebla before it, the towns of Hurri — despite their residents speaking mostly Hurrian — contain Mesopotamian educational and other cuneiform texts. A dominant empire, Hurri encompassed northern Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia and made great use of the curriculum standardization that occurred in Mesopotamia. Two Hurrian towns — Nuzi and Alakh, which flourished in the 1400s BCE — are shining examples of this impact, with their numerous Mesopotamian educational lists. This tradition began as a side effect of proximity — consecutive cultures incorporated elements of their ancestors — but over many hundreds of years became an integral part of the social and mental transformation of a scribe into an educated human being. (Carr, 2005)
Hundreds of years later and further west, in the 13th and 12th centuries BCE, the Syrian city of Emar also a strong Sumero-Akkadian influence. Emar had a vast collection of Mesopotamian legal, instructional, literary texts — including the advanced tales of Gilgamesh and the Palm and the Tamarisk. Emar also contained many Hittite and Hurrian texts, indicated a mixing of various cultural influences to form a more developed system above the elementary Sumer-Akkadian curriculum (Carr, 2005).

Even further west, the ruins of Cappadocia have revealed that Egyptians used Akkadian to communicate with their foreign neighbors throughout the Syro-Palestinian area. Egyptians likely discovered the Sumero-Akkadian educational system via the Hittites, and adopted it alongside their highly developed and advanced Egyptian instruction. Although Akkadian communications were largely bureaucratic, Egyptians were nonetheless given brief instruction in Mesopotamian lore using abbreviated literary texts. Strikingly, these abbreviated texts contained red points to guide scribes-in-training in the spoken nuances of Akkadian (Carr, 2005).

Similar to the Egyptians, the Phoenician city of Ugarit taught Akkadian alongside its indigenous tongue. With their own copies of Sumero-Akkadian lexical lists, literary texts and hymns, Ugarites obviously had an extensive system of Akkadian instruction that was taught alongside their indigenous Phoenician language. This is particularly remarkable, not only as one of the latest examples of the Sumero-Akkadian education standards outside of Mesopotamia, but also because Ugarit’s complex instructional matrix helped end the linguistic dominance of Akkadian while simultaneously furthering its literature and cementing its influence (Carr, 2005).
The cities and regions mentioned so far belong to the Bronze Age; continuing into the Iron Age, writing media transitioned from durable clay tablets to fleeting materials such as leather or papyrus. Over time, documents have decomposed such that only brief glimpses remain of the Iron Age’s texts. As Aramaic rose in prominence, Akkadian became delegated to certain diplomatic texts (taught now only by masters to their apprentices) and grew increasingly archaic. Drawings of scribes show Akkadian being used on old-style clay tablets, with Aramaic being written on modern and easier-to-use parchment. Despite this decrease in the prominence of Akkadian, its use actually spread as Assyrian kings conquered new territories (Carr, 2005).

Evidence that Akkadian reached the Israelites does not lie in Sumero-Akkadian instructional texts like before, but rather obtuse parallels between Akkadian and Israelite texts and concepts. Descriptions of prophet-student interaction, not to mention certain words, have been found in Israelite texts with very strong Sumero-Akkadian parallels. However, this can be considered minor tributes to Sumer-Akkadian culture rather than infallible testaments to strong Akkadian influence on Israelite culture. For example, a character in the Gilgamesh epic becomes human via clothing; in the Bible, the two residents of paradise lost also put on clothes. This could be interpreted as clear respect to the permeating Gilgamesh epic, or it could be considered a coincidence because, simply put, citizens of most civilized cultures have worn clothes. Thus, it is not at all unrealistic that characters in different literary works just happen to put on clothes. However, Biblical shimmers of Sumero-Akkadian influence show that, despite becoming a dead language after the birth of Christ, Akkadian had spread so far and affected so many cultures that to this day it continues to have increasingly indirect impacts on reading, writing and society (Carr, 2005).

Bibliography

Carr, David. 2005. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 47-61 (Influence of Mesopotamia).

Robson, Eleanor. 2001. The Tablet House: A Scribal School in Old Babylonian Nippur. RA 95: 39-66.

Tinney, Steve. 1998. Texts, Tablets, and Teaching: Scribal Education in Nippur and Ur. Expedition 40(2): 40-50.

In the Old Kingdom, Egyptian scribal education consisted of sacred and practical forms (Williams 1972, p. 214). The sacred incarnation taught wisdom and was traditional, while the practical genre imparted useful knowledge of land measurement and arithmetic (William 1972, p. 214-215). Usually, scribal education was passed from an official to his successor(s) – this relationship was very close, and paralleled (if not actually) a relationship between a father and son (Williams 1972, p. 214). Education evolved, and elite private schools formed which catered exclusively to Egyptian royalty (Williams 1972, p. 215). These schools expanded outside of the royal circle, bringing to higher Egyptian echelons a classroom format where works were initially taught by group singsong (Williams 1972, p. 216). These classes were small, with curriculum consisting largely of Egyptian literature (Williams 1972, p. 216).

This shift from scribal training to a more broad education reveals a dispersal of literacy, reflecting an evolution of education from professional training to social achievement. This is reflected by the following passage excerpt, “a kink’s tongue is his might; words are more powerful than any fighting” (Williams 1972, p. 217). While originally scribal education was primarily indoctrination and skill acquisition, the aforementioned reverence for the written word is only possible if literacy exists outside of one small profession. That level of respect shows that the written word had grown from an efficient tool into a versatile instrument.

The Middle Kingdom brought a growth and standardization of curriculum (Williams 1972, p. 217). This is evidenced by set books, which contained idioms, formulae, prescribed literary works and other teachings that maintained the role of wisdom seen in Old Kingdom scribal education (Williams 1972, p. 217). However, despite this boom in scribal education, its value did not grow dilute – rather, instruction was embedded with self-reverence (Williams 1972, p. 217). For example, a passage in a literary work describes other professions as foul and self-destructive before describing a scribe as his own boss (Williams 1972, p. 218).

The New Kingdom built upon the achievements of the Middle Kingdom, as evidenced in Egyptian excerpts. One passage from a compilation is particularly illuminating: “be in your place early! Books are (already) in front of your companions” – this implies a strong sense of order and respect toward knowledge, with individual schoolbooks indicating a normalization of curriculum; “another fine occasion is when you penetrate the sense of a papyrus book” – this shows that not just reading was highly valued, but also understanding what was being read (Williams 1972, p. 218). Also, group recitation (as in the Old Kingdom) was used (Williams 1972, p. 219). After memorizing important works in such a manner, students were taught to write down entire sentences (Williams 1972, p. 219). By knowing the spoken and written forms of various works, students gradually acquired knowledge of individual words (Williams 1972, p. 219). Upon learning these basics of writing, students could begin writing on pricy papyrus as opposed to cheap shards of various origins (Williams 1972, p. 218).

In the New Kingdom, even mathematics showed an evolution from a mere tool (land measurement) to an innately valuable knowledge that could be broadly applied. This metamorphosis is evidenced by computations of volume and area of a myriad of shapes. Not just triangles and spheres were covered, but also truncated pyramids, cylinders and even trapezoids (Williams 1972, p. 219).

In addition to this boom in education, physical and personal development also became an Egyptian priority. Boys were educated in swimming, archery and even equestrian skill (Williams 1972, p. 220). Also, girls were trained in song, dance and instrumentation – however, despite language and mathematics training of high-ranking women, female scribes remained rare (Williams 1972, p. 220). This education procured wholly trained people who could benefit armies with their ability to write and computer, or put their skills to use in a more indirect manner and orchestrate complex infrastructure development (Williams 1972, p. 220-221). Also, education itself became a specialty – not for instructors, but for educators arguing the best ways to administrate knowledge (Williams 1972, p. 221).

Through the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms, Egyptian education underwent a growth that both drove and reflected social progress. Scribal education went from a close-knit event between two individuals, to a group phenomenon. From this point, education became standardized, developed and expanded. Once a field with little scope, scribery became a broad industry that touched Egyptian society from its infrastructure to its military to, most importantly, its rich legacy.

Bibliography

Williams, Ronald J. 1972. Scribal Training in Ancient Egypt. Journal of the American Oriental Society 92(2): 214-221.

Early Israelites lived in the desert of the ancient Near East as semi-nomadic shepherds and farmers who eventually settled into a pastoral lifestyle that grew increasingly agricultural (Schniedewin 2004, p. 48-49). As an oral culture without even a word for to read, early Israelites verbally transmitted songs, tales and proverbs to new generations (Schniedewin 2004, p. 48). Despite being passed on by countless individuals, these works (especially the songs) were resistant to change due to their strict meter (Schniedewin 2004, p. 55). Ancient Israel eventually developed a social infrastructure that brought literacy to its occupants and nurtured the germinating oral predecessors of the Bible into a tangible and written fruition (Schniedewin 2004, p. 48-50).

The very earliest Israelites were wanderers who settled in Canaan amidst economic, military and social turmoil (Schniedewin 2004, p. 50). The first mention of Israelite people in Canaan is in 1207 BCE, in a pharaoh’s mention of plundering the Israelites while conquering the Canaan region (Schniedewin 2004, p. 49). As early as the second millennium BCE, Canaanite royalty secured royal scribes; thus, writing was known of (but not necessary understood by or even ever seen) by even the earliest Israelites (Schniedewin 2004, p. 49).

Although writing has historically flourished only in urban centers, the easy Hebrew alphabet allowed the communities of 50 to 250 people in which the early Israelites lived to hold some degree of literacy (Schniedewin 2004, p. 50). Fragments of the Hebrew alphabet have been discovered in ancient Israelite settlements; however, further documents have been scarce (Schniedewin 2004, p. 52). Without heavy bureaucracy pushing forward textual advancements, the ancient Israelites of the Late Bronze Age were undeveloped compared to their fellow Canaanites who lived in opulent city-states equipped with scribal schools (Schniedewin 2004, p. 52).

Sacred and traditional texts were propulsive to early Israelite literacy. While originally there was no word for to read in ancient Hebrew, the meaning of the verb qara morphed from to proclaim out loud into to read as scribes began to publicly read sacred texts to the masses (Schniedewin 2004, p. 49). Songs such as those within Book of the Upright — which had once crawled through time via mouths and ears — were solidified onto tablets and scrolls (Schniedewin 2004, p. 53). Even the title of Book (sefer) of the Upright (Jashar, a personal name) is revealing: the Greeks translated it as Book of Songs, highlighting that jashar and yashar (meaning to sing) are remarkably alike words (Schniedewin 2004, p. 53-54). This parallel illuminates that early Israelites were conscious that they were making tangible the tales that had for centuries been intangible.

The urban spark that ignited Israelite literacy (forming an environment conducive to forming the Bible) may have come from urban Canaanite city-states. However, it is under debate just what and hwo much ancient Israelites benefitted from the disappearing Canaanite palace-temple city-states when settling into Canaan. Some researchers have argued that ancient Israelites rejected Canaan’s scribal developments due to Canaan’s looming bureaucracy (Schniedewin 2004, p. 56). However, continuity of other social features implies that the institutionalization of literacy may have also spread (Schniedewin 2004, p. 57). Furthermore, archaeological evidence has shown that as Israelite Kings rose, they drew heavily on Canaanite administrative infrastructure and in no way forced a complete cultural break with Canaan (Schniedewin 2004, p. 58). Accordingly, it is likely that ancient Israelites carried on a modified Canaanite scribal institution for at least several centuries to meet growing textual needs.

It is still critical to remember that while literacy can only explode in urban centers, it can simmer even in the smallest of villages. A growing Israelite government brought a huge boom in writing, albeit mostly for administrative purposes. Records from the court of King David contained multiple scribes and many other officials; this reveals that not only were there scribes, but that they actively wrote useful texts(Schniedewin 2004, p. 60-62). The reign of King Solomon expanded the royal officialdom, signaling not only a further expansion of scribery but also a growing government that would allow an even deeper permeation of literacy (Schniedewin 2004, p. 59-60).

Even with the overwhelming preponderance of texts regarding accounting, recording and simple history, it is a topic of hot scholarly debate whether kings of early Israel commissioned literary works. While the eighth century undoubtedly was the period where oral legacies were defined not by the tongue but by the written word, it is unclear whether other documents describing events under King David and King Solomon where written in their relevant time-frame or written retroactively (Schniedewin 2004, p. 63).

It is clear that Israelite literacy eventually grew complex enough such that the Bible could rise. However, the exact mode through which early Israelites formed early seeds of literacy is unclear. Furthermore, it is not known exactly how the written word fit outside of bureaucracy during the reigns of early Israelite kings.

Bibliography

Schniedewin, William M. 2004. How the Bible Became a Book. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

As exemplified by Greek Enlightenment during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, the literacy thesis posits that literacy gave rise to the skepticism that became an unstoppable motive force for development. The literacy thesis — originally pitched by Havelock’s’ 1963 Preface to Plato and Goody and Watt’s 1963 “The consequences of literacy” — proposes that literacy not only drives but is the essential spark for intellectual development (Halverson 1992, 301). Oral transmission allows stories to evolve, losing and gaining segments to remain relevant; conversely, written transmission cannot be transmuted, thus setting apart the past from the present. Separating the past from the present allows historical enquiry, allowing fruitful curiosity to arise about the non-fiction universe as a whole and not just legend and lore (Halverson 1992, 302). However, Halverson uses closer (albeit blind and nearly hallucinogenic) examination quickly unravels the literacy thesis.

Several notable figures and works detract from the plausibility of the literacy thesis (Halverson 1992, 303). For example, the earliest known historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, largely disregarded the Homeric poems (which were set down between 750 and 650 BC). The obvious skepticism and thirst for knowledge of such important scholars must have thus arisen in a manner not described by the literacy thesis. Even more disappointing for supporters of the literacy thesis, Thucydides gathered most of his historical knowledge by directly interviewing people. Also, skeptics responding to the few written works were likely surrounded by enough unwritten mysticism to fuel their doubt.

Additionally, it is not immediately clear that a written word has more immediacy and identity (thus making it vulnerable to dissection) than a spoken word (Halverson 1992, 304). In a conversation, events are immediate to the listener as the speaker chronologically unravels the event. Such situations are particularly prone to distrust, as it involves a single individual’s direct recount to another person of a single event. However, there is much less urgency or distrust of an elder recounting his personal beliefs to a juvenile. Thus, Halverson argues that neither the written nor the spoken word has inherent vulnerabilities: the openness of a tangible or auditory utterance is dependent on the context, tone, speaker and listener (as opposed to its mode of transmission).

Trying to pass it off as a careful and nuanced argument, Halverson continues his jumbled rant. Halverson mercifully — and undoubtedly with great internal struggle — manages to cease after only fourteen more pages. With lewd remarks like “why in the world” and confusing open-ended question-and-semi-answer conversations with himself, Halverson fails to disprove the literacy thesis in my mind (Halverson 1992, 304-305).

Halverson spends his initial paragraphs strengthening the literacy thesis by cobbling together decades of work by other researchers (however, true to his nature, Halverson manages to interject a jab at Havelock on page 301 that implies he does “qualify”) (Halverson 1992, 301). However, the excruciating pages that follow only cast the literacy thesis in a new light rather than destroy it. Furthermore, it is reflective of Halverson’s argument that only three paragraphs have cemented a thought in my mind more than the seventeen laborious pages that follow.
After mentioning that taxonomical and categorical classification (exemplary of literacy) is fundamental to scientific and logical thought, Halverson dismisses any lists found so far as too unordered (Halverson 1992, 308). Halverson continues describing various lists, such as the Code of Hammurabi, Laws of Eshnunna and even lexical lists. However, he argues that these lists do not represent any new thought and thus have no role in the development of skepticism and intellectual growth. This argument completely ignores the literacy thesis, which states that recording history and lore opens the door for great thinkers to question the factuality of assumptions – the literacy thesis does not mention lists at all.

Unlike Halverson, the literacy thesis does not burden itself with whether writing itself required any great mental prowess. Furthermore, only a few meandering pages prior Halverson had disparaged the literacy thesis by completely tearing apart any comparison between the genealogy of the illiterate African Tiv tribe and Homeric poems, thus disallowing researchers from trying to show that literacy is essential for development of rational thought (Halverson 1992, 302). Halverson then backtracks, using the simplicity of lexical lists (which are similar in purpose to genealogies) as evidence against the literacy thesis. According to Halverson, pagan genealogies cannot be compared and contrasted with Homeric poems because Homeric poems are too complex (completely disregarding comparatively similar rudimentary instructional lists). However, suddenly Halverson reverses his disregard: he forgets about complex Homeric poems, parading around the previously forgotten rudimentary lists as unordered, unsophisticated and evidence that applied intelligence was not prevalent.

Throughout the ensuing pages, Halverson performs a further dissection (or, more accurately, botched operation) on Goody, Havelock and Watt’s literacy thesis. Halverson remarks that — contrary to Goody — complex arguments are in fact capable of being orally constructed and are not allowed only by literacy (Halverson 1992, 310). Halverson incredulously then uses proverbs as supported evidence for his attack. This completely disregards the deep, pages-long arguments of Plato that would be impossible to fully solidify — let alone build on, one sentence, paragraph and chapter at a time — if transient vocalizations were the only tool available.
Later, Halverson mentions a study that compared literate groups with and without formal schooling (Halverson 1992, 312). Excited by the findings that formally schooled students performed drastically better on logic problems than their unschooled counterparts, Halverson sinks his canines into the literacy thesis by saying “the results were devastating for any ‘strong’ form of the literacy thesis.” Fortunately for Goody, Watt, Havelock and intelligent scholars, it is flaringly obvious that the study omits completely illiterate persons. After all, the literacy thesis concerns itself with illiterate versus literate societies, not with differences in exam performance between home-schooled and traditional students.

The following few pages of Halverson’s essay include a conclusion. Rather than extrapolating any riveting argument, they merely expand his personal jab against Havelock into a thorough professional assault against Goody. With that in mind, I will reduce myself to Halverson’s level and state only three words in response to the entire bolus that he regurgitated and tried to pass off as a reasoned argument: no, thank you.

Bibliogaphy

Halverson, John. 1992. Goody and the Implosion of the Literacy Thesis. Man 27(2): 301-317.

Thank You for Calling, Empuje Dos Para Aramaic

What if writing letters were an insurmountable struggle? This was the obstacle faced by Assyrians whilst their lingua franca was Assyrian, a Semitic language etched in a difficult cuneiform script onto clay. Writing was a critical tool for transactions, forcing Assyria’s pre-Aramaic marketplaces to subsist primarily on a small range of cuneiform symbols. The onset of Aramaic in the first century BC was a watershed event, introducing a new language that was alphabetic and could be written quickly with ink These two new features allowed Aramaic a quick learning curve (countless cuneiform symbols were notoriously difficult to learn, via tedious jabs on clay no less) that precipitated its quick displacement of Assyrian. The popularization of Aramaic was a huge linguistic development that pervasively impacted the business life of a free Assyrian male.

Language in Assyria began as a dialect of Akkadian, written in a difficult cuneiform script. Scribery was not a field for writers to express themselves, but rather was an industry that was largely just the stringing together of normalized phrases in order to convey a message (Contenau 1954, pg. 175). This standardization was necessary, as reading and writing was very difficult and many symbols had multiple meanings that could only be distinguished by their context (Contenau 1954, pg. 169) A scribe’s education consisted of memorizing vast numbers of lexical lists (symbol lists) relevant to a specific sector of either: temple, business, military, medicine or priesthood (Contenau 1954, pg. 175). The term for markings of cuneiform is represented by the same symbols as dapples of a panther’s hide (Contenau 1954, pg. 175). To an ordinary Assyrian, most of the dizzying sea of cuneiform symbols was surely as understandable as a fur spot.

Writing was relevant to a free Assyrian hoping to engage in commerce. Business was not just confined to the very wealthy. A free male, freed slave or even captive slave could open a business branch and nurture it into an expansive trade network that sometimes extended into overseas banking (Contenau 1954, pg. 80). The term for a seller meant he who gives, who delivers; the term for a buyer meant he who fixes the price (Contenau 1954, pg. 79). With the purchasing party responsible for setting the price, he needed an understanding of basic arithmetic in order to pay for transactions. While it is possible that an ignorant person could master basic conversion and arithmetic in their head amidst an environment of fixed prices and small units, this was impossible in Assyria’s wild and broad economy. After developing an awareness for oft-used units to measure fundamental materials and foodstuffs — he, shiklu, manu, biltu, sila, massikut, imeru, ubanu, ammatu, kanu, gar, ashlu, beru, musaru, iku and buru — the buyer needed to be aware of respective prices (Contenau 1954, pg. 88-89). Price records reveal tremendous volatility (Contenau 1954, pg. 93). The relative value of gold and silver was constantly shifting, with a single shekel of gold worth anywhere between 8 and 15 shekels of silver within the range of a single year (Contenau 1954, pg. 90). Commodities also fluctuated in valley hugely, based on harvest season, availability, quality and other factors (Contenau 1954, pg. 90-91). A hundred baked bricks were 1 shekel, and 600 minas of asphalt were also 1 shekel. These were not small units of that could be counted on one’s hand, or even multiples of ten that could be manipulated through intuition (Contenau 1954, pg. 91). There are even records of fractional prices (five talents of cedar wood cost ½ mina) that clearly evidence the use of arithmetic and the precision of transactions that necessitated basic knowledge of math and the writing that would have been required to record such vast transactions (Contenau 1954, pg. 91).

In addition to the role of writing in computation, seals and bullae are two examples of the necessity for persons on both ends of a deal to know how to write. Seals were a pervasive and indispensable feature of life, as they gave a document authenticity (Contenau 1954, pg. 68-69). Every free Assyrian male owned a seal (Contenau 1954, pg. 69). The seal was used at home as a means of security; by tying his door with two threads united by a sealed piece of clay, a man could make sure that his home had not been trespassed. In the market, the seal was used to impress various items to denote ownership. This was particularly important for containers, which were marked by a seal so that the manufacturer and possessor of an item could be readily identified (Contenau 1954, pg. 69). Impressing one’s name onto an item was not just a passive way to label it. Writing had a sacred permanence and a tangible representation of one’s name carried particular importance (Contenau 1954, pg. 162). In fact, sometimes Assyrians would use false names in anticipation of a reader trying to retaliate by placing a curse on the writer (Contenau 1954, pg. 164). Related to seals are bullae, which ensured against tampering (Robinson 1995, pg. 60). Retailers needed a safe way to perform transactions without risk of looting, and thus used clay envelopes (the bulla) within which tokens were stored. The outside of the bulla was impressed with a seal and given an inscription to describe the details of the transaction. The inside of the bulla was filled with additional details. In the event of a dispute, the bulla could be broken open and its inner contents could be inspected. The seals on the outside ensured that opening of the bulla (and thus potential tampering with the contents) would be clearly evident. From buying the materials to build a house, to purchasing food to eat within that house, a buyer needed to understand computations and the records upon which those computations were kept. This was a two-way transaction; both buyer and seller were known to sign documents with their seals. In Assyria, the seller did not control the entire transaction and the buyer did not just offer money; this was an environment where the two entities worked together to establish a fair exchange amidst a fluid market.

It is unsurprising that when Assyria finished conquering all the Aramean kingdoms at the end of the 8th century BC, the easier-to-learn alphabetic Aramaic language was adopted into Assyrian life (Millard & Bordreuil 1982, pg. 137). Aramaic penetrated as deep as the palace itself, with inscriptions prepared bilingually to represent both Assyrian and Aramaic (Millard 1972, pg. 131; Millard & Bordreuil, 139). A 729 BC Assyrian relief depicts an Aramean scribe with a clay tablet and stylus, indicating that records were kept in Assyrian and Aramaic (Stinespring 1958, pg. 300). Also, Ashurbanipal’s palace reliefs from Nineveh included epigraphs written in Aramaic (Millard 1972, pg. 131). The Aramaic scribes of Assyrian kings prepared many non-religious documents such as treaties in Aramaic (Olmstead 1923, pg. 392; Contenau 1954, pg. 171). As shown in 2 Kings 18:26, Aramaic was not just useful as a new mode of writing for Assyrian officials, but was also incorporated into spoken language:

Aramaic eventually overtook Assyrian, with mentions of the Assyrian language actually becoming synonymous with Assyrian-style Aramaic (Stinespring 1958, pg. 300). The dockets of even cuneiform documents (a docket was a brief inscriptions on the side of the tablet for easy shelf reference) began to be written in Aramaic (Stinespring 1958, pg. 300). This was no small transition between two similar Semitic languages: an Aramaic stele refers to Ashur-Nirari V of Assyria as King Brg’yh of Ktk (Contenau 1954, pg. 172). While syllabic cuneiform included vowels, the translation to Armaic (and its neglect of vowels) required creativity that often completely changed the pronounciation of the word in question. This huge lingual transition diluted Assyrian culture, something noted by Ashurbanipal while he fighting against Babylonia, his own brother in a cultural and literal sense (Olmstead 1923, pg. 399). Also, Assyrian hegemony over Egypt began to collapse as Thebes was reclaimed from Assyria (Loessoe 1963, pg. 1230. Ashurbanipal undoubtedly felt that he needed a vessel instead of a vassal in order to carry on Mesopotamian thought and thus formed an unprecedented corpus of Assyro-Babylonian literature. Ashurbanipal’s formation of a comprehensive Assyro-Babylonian library was an indication that he sensed Assyria’s looming collapse (Olmstead 1923, pg. 397; Loessoe 1963, pg. 123). All these factors attest to the importance of Aramean, not only in the immediate sense of its usage as a new language but in the indirect way that is heralded a shift from traditional Assyrian culture.

Aramaic had a very important role in the booming Neo-Assyrian economy. Aramaic could be written with ink onto impermanent materials or carved into wax, something that was impossible with cuneiform and which revolutionized the ease of writing (Contenau 1954, pg. 7). This was essential during transactions, as it avoid wasted time spent jabbing cuneiform onto a clay tablet. Even more permanent elements of a transaction incorporated Aramaic, however. The seal, equivalent to a signature in the modern world, incorporated Aramaic (Stinespring 1958, pg. 300). Not only was Aramaic easier to read and write, but also its alphabetic nature allowed seals to be distinguished by differences in their letters (thus heightening security) which had been impossible with cuneiform. Even bullae were not immune to Aramaic, a feat that indicates that Aramaic was not just a localized phenomenon (Millard 1972, pg. 132). Caravans carried bullae along with their cargo, and the bullae gave the recipient knowledge as to whether his goods had been looted during transport. The use of nature in inter-region trade illuminates the spreading role of Aramaic. In addition, even dishes and other objects were inscribed in Aramaic, something which had been much more difficult during the reign of cuneiform (Stinespring 1958, pg. 300). The permanent nature of writing (as opposed to the fleeting nature of audition) extended to religion, where writing the name of a person or god imparted that item with the life of the (Contenau 1954, pg. 1954, pg. 161 & pg. 133). Thus, being able to quickly inscribe everyday objects, and have a larger audience to read them, was another important manner in which Aramaic impacted the Assyrian economy. An object could be more easily inscribed with the name of a deity to give it the importance of that god, or it could be detailed with the name of an ancestor to give it relevance as a way of remembering an ancestor.

In Assyria, the tight relationship between literacy and a free man’s business was impacted by the rise of the Aramaic language. Assyrian had been the predominant language in Assyria for over a thousand years, but by the Neo-Assyrian period it was displaced by Aramaic, a language acquired from conquered regions. This was not merely a small shift in the words people used, but a gateway that from which Aramaic poured into every facet of life. Its learnability (something which had hindered the average Assyrian male’s ability to write in Assyrian) allowed Aramaic to be quickly adopted into business, administrative and royal spheres. Its impact in business, however, was particularly remarkable because writing is entrenched every step of the way: from the ability to calculate and write down units for establishing a price; to verifying that deliveries have not been looted en route to their destination. While the royal administration had long relied upon writing for its indulgent palace reliefs and for its enormous corpus of letters, it was only in business that an average free Assyrian male encountered and harnessed the power of writing. For that man in particular, an entirely new world was opened when he found himself suddenly able to learn more, read more and write more. From there, he had a stronger set of tools to set foot in the world and be a business.

References

Contenau, G. 1954. Everyday Life in Babylonia and Assyria. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.

Loessoe, J. 1963. People of Ancient Assyria. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Millard, A.R. 1972. Some Aramaic Epigraphs. London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq. Iraq, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Autumn, 1972), pp. 131-137

Millard, A.R. & Bordreuil, P. 1982. A Statue from Syria with Assyrian and Aramaic Inscription. Boston: The American Schools of Oriental Research. The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Summer, 1982), pp. 135-141

Olmstead, A. T. 1923. History of Assyria. New York & London: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Robinson, Andrew. 1995. The Story of Writing. London: Thames and Hudson

Stinespring, W.F. 1958. History and Present Status of Aramaic Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1958), pp. 298-303

Upon its dedication in 1896, the Haskell Oriental Museum was a Christian institute aiming to understand Biblical lands. Its Egyptological collection was premiere in America, but it was pale by global standards. However, the Museum took tremendous leaps forward between 1919 and 1931, led by the Egyptologist James Henry Breasted via the funded of John D. Rockefeller. The Museum’s pursuits secularized, collections swelled, facilities moved and even title changed. Thus was born the Oriental Institute, a world-class hub for studying Egyptology and the Near East overall. James Henry Breasted brought the momentum for the changes that dragged the Museum from the 19^th century and blasted the Institute through to the 20^th century. Breasted’s tenacious legacy keeps the Institute relevant into the 21^st century, as his brilliance shines in the Egyptian Collections and the Institute overall.

The faculty and values of the University of Chicago made it the perfect home for America’s first research center dedicated exclusively to the Holy Lands. Founded in 1891 with a donation by John D Rockefeller, the University of Chicago brought together America’s leading scholars on the Near East, a region valued more for its Biblical links than as the cradle of civilization [2] [4b]. Just four years later on the 1^st of July 1895, the Museum set the corner stone of the Haskell Oriental Museum, named for Mrs. Caroline Haskell’s generous $100,000 donation [1a, 1c, 4a]. Mrs. Haskell’s husband Mr. Frederick Haskell had passed away in 1890, leaving her with a $500,000 dower [6]. As a Christian woman in the twilight of her life, the Museum offered her the perfect way to advance Biblical archaeology and to preserve her husband’s childless name.

The Haskell Oriental Museum was to be the first institute to bring lux ex oriente (light from the east) from the old world to the new world [1e]. The Museum endeavored to further Near East studies in the context of Biblical understanding and enlightenment. To accomplish this, it had the immediate goal of housing the objects with which the University of Chicago had been blessed; and the long-term goal of proving itself as an intellectual and spiritual blessing. In connection with the University’s quinquennial celebration, the Haskell Oriental Museum was dedicated 2^nd of July 1896 [1f].

The notion of Near East studies being valid solely in a Christian context was clear every step of the Museum’s dedication. The invocation was delivered by the Dean of the Divinity School of the University; it was accompanied by a sung Hebrew Psalter service by the Sinai Congregation. The dedicatory address was delivered upon the subject “From the Rising to the Setting Sun” — a clever title that reflected revelations in Kemet’s religion. Yet despite this seemingly academic endeavor to understand ancient lands, the momentum was proudly Christian,

The Egyptian Collection at the Museum was just a few plaster-cast reproductions and a little collection of antiquities [1b]. The collection had been mostly collected by James Henry Breasted from his first trip in Egypt (doubling as his honeymoon) during the winter of 1894-5; Breasted would later revolutionize the Institute. Additional antiquities were donated by British Egyptology darlings Professor Petrie and Mr. Kennard. Petrie sent over some of his findings in Coptos from the winter of 1894-5, with an expectation that Petrie’s latest work in Thebes would be deposited in the museum in the coming year. The remaining items in the were replicas of items of other museums, and photos of Egypt. “A large series of casts, especially bas-reliefs from the old empire well represent the monumental materials in the foreign museums. Beside these, the Museum possesses a collection of photographs, nearly 1200 in number, illustrating Egypt and its remains still in situ as well as the chief antiquities of the museums of Gizeh, London, Paris, Florence and the Bibliothéque Nationale.” The collection expanded over the next decades by funding oft-amateur British archaeologists, especially via the Egypt Expedition Fund. These excavations were not always fruitful, including a costly failure in Hierakonpolis, but other times they were great successes — one such win was the discovery of Mentuhotep II’s tomb Deir el-Bahri under the auspices of Professor Petrie [12].

The Haskell Oriental Museum was transformed in scope, breadth, vision and even name by Egyptology pioneer James Henry Breasted and University founder John D Rockefeller. James Henry Breasted was born in 1865 in Illinois and lived an incredible life which revolved around Egypt and the Oriental Institute. After becoming the first American to receive a doctorate in Egyptology, Breasted went to Egypt for the first time in 1894 as his honeymoon with the newly wed Mrs. Breasted [8]. His equipment consisted of a donkey and a pocket camera. It was during this expedition that he collected much of the Haskell Oriental Museum’s Egyptological collection [1b]. Breasted spent the following decades overseeing the Museum’s development and traversing Egypt, including an expedition to Egypt in 1905-7 that produced over a thousand photographs of the land [11]. However it was only in 1919 with funding from Rockefeller that Breasted could begin to truly excavate throughout Egypt, Iran and Iraq. The ensuing expansion of the Museum segued into the creation of the Institute in 1931.

After the creation of the Oriental Institute, Breasted would unfortunately have not much longer to live his incredible life. After his wife died in 1934, he married her younger sister Imogen Richmond in 1935 and they embarked on a honeymoon in Egypt [9] [10]. Unfortunately, Breasted tragically caught a streptococcus infection after leaving Egypt to visit New York for the International Congress of Orientalists; it swiftly took his life, and thus a great lux ex occidens (light from the west) was extinguished. “He envisioned the establishment of a special institute devoted to tracing ancient man’s ‘progress’ toward civilization, long before the classical civilizations of Greece and Rome” [2]. This vision of the future would result in the Museum ceasing to justify its forays in the Holy Land as a means to Christian enlightenment — Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt were to be studied for their own secular scientific sake in order to gain knowledge. The collections of the Museum swelled rapidly via Breasted’s prolific excavations, causing a new facility to be built with a larger capacity — thus, the Oriental Institute was born.

It was only fitting that Dr. Breasted would be the one to transform the Museum into a world-class Institute. He was the foremost American Egyptologist, being the first American to receive a Ph.D. in Egyptology, and was appointed by President Harper to fill the first teaching position in Egyptian studies in the United States [2]. Breasted was among the earliest to expand beyond Biblical myopia to champion the Near East as a forerunner of Western civilization. This perspective may seem trite by 21^st century standards, but in his time the Near East had been valued as an extension of Biblical studies and not as the birthplace of the first civilizations, predecessors to the Western world.

After using his funds to form the University of Chicago, John D Rockefeller kept the University from fading into insignificance when in 1919 he began to actively encourage and sponsor Breasted’s forays in the Near East [4b] [2]. As an avid Egyptologist, Breasted uninhibitedly went to great lengths that would later ensure the Institute would glow for eternity. Breasted traveled daringly through Egypt and Mesopotamia as the British Mandate came into effect and the region reeled amidst warfare, unrest and crosshaired British and French troops [4a].

The Oriental Institute was thrusted to the forefront of Egyptology in America, and became among the best institutions worldwide [2]. The Institute conducted excavations at Medinet Habu from 1926 to 1933, unearthing over 8,000 artifacts of the total collection (equivalent to one quarter). The Oriental Institute leapt to the forefront of epigraphy, when in 1924 the Epigraphic Survey was established at Luxor, Egypt (where it remains today). The Epigraphic Survey of the Oriental Institute maintains a staff of Egyptologists and artists to record the rapidly eroding historical sources carved on the ancient monuments.

Rockefeller in 1931 funded the final step in shedding the limitations of the Haskell Oriental Museum — the creation of a larger space to be known as the Oriental Institute. These new permanent headquarters included laboratories, museum galleries, libraries and offices — it was America’s brilliant hub for studying the rise and development of ancient civilization. Though the newfound Oriental Institute spanned the entire Near East, Dr. Breasted’s passion for Egypt influenced even the architecture — the tympanum over the main entrance depicted an Egyptian scribe presented a wall relief fragment to a figure representing the West [2].

Stunning highlights of the Oriental Institute’s Egyptian collection span from the early Old Kingdom to the Ptolemaic Period. Amidst these is a colossal 17′ 4″ tall statue of Tutankhamun discovered at Medinut Habu, which was reused by subsequent kings [7]. Moving earlier in time to the Old Kingdom are smaller finds which, combined with the Institute’s epigraphic tradition, have proved very fruitful. The false door of the courtier Nyswredi (Dynasties IV/V, ~ 2500 B.C.) shows the spirit of the deceased stepping through the portal. This relatively small piece has some damage around the edges, but the inscription is very well intact. Also remarkable is the collection of finds from the Giza tomb of the cemetery official Nykauinpu (Dynasty V, ~ 2477). The finds include twenty-five statues, including depictions of professions and more personal persons such as his wife, his family and household staff. One craftsman statue is of a pottery, one of the earliest known such examples; being a potter was difficult and un-esteemed and the physical toll was made vividly clear [3]. A statue of a butcher shows him preparing an ox that has been tied up (trussed) with the butcher’s whetstone (a sharpening tool) tucked into his waistband.

The history of the Oriental Institute begins in the 19^th century, then climaxes in the early 20^th century when perspectives changed, expeditions began and artifacts were brought to America from the (at the time) laissez faire Holy Lands. While expeditions still continue, it is not possible to ever again recreate the Oriental Institute’s collection due to current laws in the Near East. Fortunately, fierce figures with wealth of mind and generosity of funds had the foresight to establish one of the glimmering beacons of Egyptology in America. After praising the newly discovered luxe ex orient at the laying of the Museum corner stone, Reverend John Barrows lamented on how “English universities have their towers and chapels and majestic libraries and sculptured gateways” [1e]. He then continued to utter words which would ring true for the University and for America as a whole,