Question: Explain why some scholars have called the Ancient Egyptians a "death obsessed" culture. Do you agree?
Thesis: Ancient Egyptians were a civilization based on the morals of what happened to someone after they died, this is why this statement that the Ancient Egyptians were a "death obsessed" culture.
Primary Source #1: "Ra Harmakhis, the Great God in his boat. Temu. Shu. Tefnut. Keb. Nut, the Lady of Heaven. Isis. Nephthys. Horus, the Great God. Hathor, Lady of Amentet. Hu. Sa."
The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Papyrus of Ani, c 1240 BC
Primary Source #2: The ceremony was believed to have taken place before Osiris, the chief god of the dead and Afterlife, and a tribunal of 43 dieties. Standing before the tribunal the deceased was asked to name each of the divine judges and swear that he or she had not committed any offences, ranging from raising the voice to stealing. This was the "negative confession". If found innocent, the deceased was declared "true of voice" and allowed to proceed into the Afterlife.
Weighing of the Heart: The weighing of the heart ceremony
Primary Source #3: Ho! king Neferkere (Pepi II)! How beautiful is this! How beautiful is this, which thy father Osiris has done for thee ! He has given thee his throne, thou rulest those of the hidden places (the dead), thou leadest their august ones, all the glorious ones follow thee (Pyr. 2022-3).
Mircea Eliade: "From Primitives to Zen", The Dead Pharaoh Becomes Osiris
Explanation of Argument:
In the first primary source there is listed are all the gods that they would worship. All of these gods and other were present when someone was judged on whether they got to go into the afterlife or not. In the second primary source is a beginning explanation about what went on in this ceremony and how they weighed the heart against a feather. In the third primary source it shows what they thought could happen to someone if they lived a good life. One of the Pharaohs was even said to have become Osiris, which was a god, when he was resurrected.
Question: Considering all of the conflict of the first century BCE, was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?
Thesis: Rome was better off a republic because they won a lot of battles and became a more respected civilization when they became a republic.
Primary Source #1: Many times Mithridates had over 400 ships of his own, 50,000 cavalry, and 250,000 infantry, with engines and arms in proportion. For allies he had the king of Armenia and the princes of the Scythian tribes around the Euxine and the Sea of Azov and beyond, as far as the Thracian Bosphorus. He held communication with the leaders of the Roman civil wars, which were then fiercely raging, and with those who were inciting insurrections in Spain. He established friendly relations with the Gauls for the purpose of invading Italy.
Ancient History Sourcebook:
Mithridates & The Roman Conquests in the East, 90-61 BCE
Primary Source #2: At the end of the winter [63-62 B.C.] Pompey distributed rewards to the army, 1500 Attic drachmas [Arkenberg: about $3857 in 1998 dollars] to each soldier, and in like proportion to the officers, the whole, it was said, amounting to 16,000 talents [Arkenberg: about $229 million in 1998 dollars]. Then he marched to Ephesus, embarked for Italy, and hastened to Rome, having dismissed his soldiers at Brundisium to their homes, by which act his popularity was greatly increased among the Romans.
Ancient History Sourcebook:
Mithridates & The Roman Conquests in the East, 90-61 BCE
Primary Source #3: "Executive: Limits on power: one year term, each could veto. Legislative: Limits on power: could not control army, needed majority as soldiers. Judicial: Limits on power: Could not suggest laws, often paid as clients by the elite"
Ancient History Sourcebook: The Roman Republic: Checks and Balances
Explanation of Argument: Having a republic instead of an empire was a step in the right direction for the Romans. In the first primary source it shows how much supplies that the Romans had ready for their army now. In the second primary source it shows how much money the Romans had to fund their army and give their troops not such a bad sum either. In the third primary source it shows that the Romans thought of a checks and balances system. This is good for Rome because now each branch of the government has a limited amount of power over the other.
Question: Who is a better model for modern historians: Herodotus or Thucydides? Why?
Thesis: Herodotus was a better historian because he wrote more books and had better content about the histories of places like Greece in them.
Primary Source #1:
"Greek historian, called the Father of History, was born at Halicarnassus in Asia Minor, then dependent upon the Persians, in or about the year 484 B.C. Herodotus was thus born a Persian subject, and such he con~ tinued until he was thirty or fiveandthirty years of age."
Ancient History Sourcebook: 11th Brittanica: Herodotus
Primary Source #2: "These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes, in the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory; and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feuds. According to the Persians best informed in history, the Phoenicians began to quarrel."
The History of Herodotus: By Herodotus, Written 440 B.C.E
Primary Source #3: "On the death of Cyrus, Cambyses his son by Cassandane daughter of Pharnaspes took the kingdom. Cassandane had died in the lifetime of Cyrus, who had made a great mourning for her at her death, and had commanded all the subjects of his empire to observe the like. Cambyses, the son of this lady and of Cyrus, regarding the Ionian and Aeolian Greeks as vassals of his father, took them with him in his expedition against Egypt among the other nations which owned his sway."
The History of Herodotus: By Herodotus, Written 440 B.C.E
Explanation of Argument: Herodotus wrote a lot of work including nine books about what was going on where he was living, when he was living. The first source talks about him and what he did and his title. The second and third source both give a little bit of an overview of the stuff he liked the write about.
Question: Were the Vikings "barbarians"?
Thesis: The Vikings were barbarians in every sense of that word for what they did to people when they didn't go along with their plan.
Primary Source #1: "The Scandinavians who, in the ninth and tenth centuries, first ravaged the coasts of Western Europe and its islands and then turned from raiding into settlers."
(1911). Northmen (Vikings)
Primary Source #2: "Pirates of the Northmen's race came to Nantes, killed the bishop and many of the clergy and laymen, both men and women, and pillaged the city. Thence they set out to plunder the lands of lower Aquitaine. At length they arrived at a certain island [the isle of Rhé, near La Rochelle, north of the mouth of the Garonne], and carried materials thither from the mainland to build themselves houses; and they settled there for the winter, as if that were to be their permanent dwelling-place."
Medieval Sourcebook: Three Sources on the Ravages of the Northmen in Frankland, c. 843 - 912
Primary Source #3: "In a passage that has become famous, the Ynglingasaga sets the comrades of Odin before us: 'They went without shields, and were mad as dogs or wolves, and bit on their shields, and were as strong as bears or bulls; men they slew, and neither fire nor steel would deal with them; and this is what is called the fury of the berserker.' This mythological picture has been rightly identified as a description of real men's societies-the famous Mannerbunde of the ancient Germanic civilization. The berserkers were, literally, the 'warriors in shirts (serkr) of bear.' This is as much as to say that they were magically identified with the bear. In addition they could sometimes change themselves into wolves and bears. A man became a berserker as the result of an initiation that included specifically martial ordeals. So, for example, Tacitus tells us that among the Chatti the candidate cut neither his hair nor his beard until he had killed an enemy. Among the Taifali, the youth had to bring down a boar or a wolf, among the Heruli, he had to fight unarmed. Through these ordeals, the candidate took to himself a wild-animal mode of being; he became a dreaded warrior in the measure in which he behaved like a beast of prey. He metamorphosed himself into a superman because he succeeded in assimilating the magico-religious force proper to the carnivore."
Mircea Eliade "From Primitives to Zen": INITIATION OF A WARRIOR
Explanation of Argument: Vikings were truly barbarians to say the least. The Vikings looted everybody and just went and slaughtered anyone who got in there way. The first source talks about them ravaging and starting their conquest. The second source talks about some of the things the vikings did. The third source talks about the Viking's initiation into becoming a warrior.
Question: What was the significance of the Black Death and the 100 Years' War to the development of Europe as we know it today?
Thesis: The significance of these terrible events is that Europe became more careful and stronger because of the war and the disease that went through their region.
Primary Source #1: "At the beginning of October, in the year of the incarnation of the Son of God 1347, twelve Genoese galleys . . . entered the harbor of Messina. In their bones they bore so virulent a disease that anyone who only spoke to them was seized by a mortal illness and in no manner could evade death."
The Black Death: A Description of the Plague
Primary Source #2: "Moreover, the virulence of the pest was the greater by reason the intercourse was apt to convey it from the sick to the whole, just as fire devours things dry or greasy when they are brought close to it, the evil went yet further, for not merely by speech or association with the sick was the malady communicated to the healthy with consequent peril of common death; but any that touched the clothes the sick or aught else that had been touched, or used by these seemed thereby to contract the disease."
Medieval Sourcebook: Boccaccio: The Decameron - Introduction
Primary Source #3: "
On the 28th of August, some companions, both mounted and afoot, issued out of the Moreau Gate and went coursing; they captured two merchant women and fifteen horses and led them peacefully back into Tournai...."
Explanation of Argument: These events were both hardships on Europe along with other region. There were dead people everywhere in both of these events. The first primary source is talking about how the Black Death was inescapable. The second source it is talking about how the disease is spread and what happens when people got the disease. The third source is a the first day of the Two Days Siege of Tournai. These were both terrible events that brought misery and death to Europe but made the region stronger.
Question: "Structures, both social and physical are continually improving." Agree or disagree -- using examples from this semester's study. (from @thecorcoran)
Thesis: Structures, both social and physical are definitely continuing to improve today especially with all the technology advances.
Primary Source #1: "The following account of the discovery of North America by Leif Ericsson is contained in the "Saga of Eric the Red"; and the present translation is that made by A. M. Reeves from the version of the Saga in the Flateyar-bok, compiled by Jon Thordharson about 1387. The part of the coast where Leif landed is much in dispute, the most recent investigations tending to the southern part of the coast of Labrador, though many scholars believe Vinland to have been on the New England shore."
Modern History Sourcebook:
The Discovery of North America by Leif Ericsson, c. 1000
from The Saga of Eric the Red, 1387
Primary Source #2: "And we prohibit any one to sell a man out of the country. But if he, who wishes to make his serf free, hand him over to the sheriff by his right hand in full assembly, he must proclaim him quit of the yoke of his servitude by manumission, and show him free ways and gates and give him arms, viz., lance and sword; finally the man is made free."
Medieval Sourcebook: William the Conqueror: Sale of Slaves in England, c. 1080
Primary Source #3: "The greatest gifts are often seen, in the course of nature, rained by celestial influences on human creatures; and sometimes, in supernatural fashion, beauty, grace, and talent are united beyond measure in one single person, in a manner that to whatever such an one turns his attention, his every action is so divine, that, surpassing all other men, it makes itself clearly known as a thing bestowed by God (as it is), and not acquired by human art. This was seen by all mankind in Leonardo da Vinci, in whom, besides a beauty of body never sufficiently extolled, there was an infinite grace in all his actions; and so great was his genius, and such its growth, that to whatever difficulties he turned his mind, he solved them with ease. In him was great bodily strength, joined to dexterity, with a spirit and courage ever royal and magnanimous; and the fame of his name so increased, that not only in his lifetime was he held in esteem, but his reputation became even greater among posterity after his death."
Medieval Sourcebook: Giorgio Vasari: Life of Leonardo da Vinci 1550
Explanation of Argument: During the Medieval and Ancient periods there have been many advances in technology and thinking. In the Renaissance there are tremendous advancements in art and philosophy. That continues to be the case in today's world. In the first source it talks Leif Ericson finding North America which was a huge step in exploration. In the second source it talks about how people as a whole have come a long way since the sell and punishment of slaves. In the third source it talks about how art was the main focus in the Renaissance and it is also that case today.
