WHAP MIDTERM DBQ: important parts

CONTEXTUALIZATION
Click the card to flip 👆
1 / 12
Terms in this set (12)
CONTEXTUALIZATION
Both Han and Roman societies existed between 600 BCE and 600 CE, and they each created legacies, specifically technological advancements, that left influences long after both empires faded. Both of these societies were very deeply involved in trade, especially along the Silk Roads, so new technological developments were utilized to expedite production to improve trade as well as other technology.
THESIS
Roman and Han societies both had varying attitudes and views towards technology. For those in the Han dynasty, technology was viewed as necessary and important by government officials, as benefitting the common people immensely in a government history, as improving production by upper class philosophers, and finally, more negatively viewed as by another Han official as producing tools with decreased quality. Roman attitudes follow a similar pattern. Technology is viewed as efficient and useful, helping all classes, by a Roman governor and general, and again as useful and beautiful for all classes by a Roman high official, and finally, as degrading labor for upper class citizens, and only something adequate for the lower class by another Roman political leader.
HAN TOPIC
The Han dynasty developed varying attitudes relating to new advances in technology. Many government officials and philosophers had a positive view towards technology because of its increased efficiency, benefits for the common people, and necessity in society. However, other officials viewed it as creating lower quality goods and having a negative effect on peasants.
DOC 2 HIPP
The author's purpose for this document is to form an opinion on technology's affect on the quality of mass manufactured goods compared to family made goods. As a government official he has influence poor peasants don't, and he chooses to stand up for them.
DOC 3 HIPP
The point of view for this document is from an upper class philosopher's perspective. This is apparent in the document because the author uses specific statistics in the document and speaks of the technology and its effects very factually, like a philosopher. In addition, there is no mention of the poor and the effects on them because the author is upper class.
DOC 4 HIPP
The author's purpose in this document is to put the Han government officials in the best light possible. Because the document is sponsored by the government, it is only going to say positive things about what the government has accomplished.
OUTSIDE INFORMATION
A piece of outside information adding to the claim that the Han dynasty produced and developed lots of technology that was both necessary and efficient for all citizens, creating positive attitudes is the invention of an improved yoke. This yoke didn't put pressure on the animal's windpipe, and it made for much more productive farming for peasants, which helped with prices for the rich.
ROMAN TOPIC
The Roman dynasty also produced varying attitudes toward new technology. Many involved in the Roman government were proud of the technology they had made because of its usefulness as well as its beauty and ability to help the rich and the poor.
DOC 5 HIPP
The point of view of the author, Cicero, in this document is a very classist view. Because Cicero was rich, educated, and part of the upper class, he doesn't see nay necessity or thought in the technology; it is beneath him.
DOC 8 HIPP
The point of view of the author, Frontius, in this document was that he was a Roman general, governor of Britain, and water commissioner for Rome. This meant he had a lot of involvement with the aqueducts, which may possibly explain his extremely high praise. He views his work as superior to other civilizations' most likely due to his pride for his own.
ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTAn additional argument to corroborate the claim in Plutarch's work describing Gaius Gracious that new Roman technology was extremely successful in that it was beautiful as well as functional for all classes is Frontius's similar claim. While Plutarch describes the Roman road system with praise on its functionality for the rich and the poor, Frontius describes the aqueducts in the same way. Frontius even goes on to put the functionality of the aqueducts at a level entirely above that of Greek or Egyptian structures. In addition to this, both describe the reach of these technologies to the common people as well as the wealthy.SYNTHESISSimilar to the Romans, the Maurya dynasty located in modern-day India was very proud of their technology. Ashoka the Great, a Mauryan ruler, also created a successful road system like the Romans. Both of these systems connected cities and encouraged trade, providing functional technology. Because of the benefits of road systems, these civilizations formed positive attitudes towards trade.