Urban-based early river civilizations became more and more common about 2000 B.C.E. These civilizations built up their cities and did commerce in a city center. In contrast, pastoral and nomadic societies tended to wander from place to place, settling briefly. Even in their longer stays, specifically in pastoral societies, whole cities never got constructed. Both of these common early society types had some similarities and many diversities when it came to gender relations, economic developments, and political organization.
To start off, gender relations varied between urban-based civilizations and pastoral or nomadic societies. Urban-based civilizations, with the development of social classes, also contracted gender inequities. Men often
…show more content…
In urban-based civilizations, trade tended to usually be local. Although many accounts exist that demonstrate far distances traveled for civilizational trade, the majority stayed closer to home. The production of multiple types of goods and crops made it a little bit easier to stay closer to home. In nomadic societies, trade took them around the world and back. Their lives consisted of travel day in and day out. Trade with foreign civilizations became a must, and with their ever changing locations and climates for their own crops and herds led them to a greater need for less local trade. In terms of general economic growth, the urban civilizations most likely grew more in their funds base. With an already established ‘home’ and city centers, habits arose. This led to a net increase in the financial department. Nomadic societies didn’t have a fixed income or habitual economic patterns. This idea, however, changes from group to group, so nothing stands for certain since every nomadic/pastoral society ran a little …show more content…
Politics and governmental processes distributed and organized themselves in urban civilizations. A ruling hierarchy existed along with social classes. People managed funds, took charge of large projects, passed laws, ordered courts, and kept records. The government kept everybody in check and political organization stood firm. Nomadic pastoral societies had somewhat of a lack in this political structuralism. This partly falls on having no urban settlement with governmental buildings or villages with personal property. Leaders and other ‘government’ officials had jobs and took charge, but no official organization prevailed. This fluid form of political structure might have a part in the reasons for less social inequities. A huge variance between urban-based civilization and nomadic societies shows much about the two lifestyles.
In culmination, the nomadic and pastoral societies demonstrate definite contrasts with the urban-based civilizations. Looking at gender relations, economic growth, and political organization alone paints a vivid image of the striking differences between these two ancient society types, as well as the commonalities they share. Understanding these concepts remains crucial to our understanding of the ancient way of life and how it can affect us
What was life like prior to civilization? Why did nomadic people not need laws but Mesopotamians did? Was the first code of laws and leaderships the most justifiable way to move a civilization towards a permeant settlement? Before erecting and forever placing society into what it is today, there was no known leaders or true since of morality. Why was the “creation” of a leader needed for a society? Hammurabi, The Pharaohs, and God were the essential leaders that were needed to create, maintain, and enforce their beliefs on their civilizations. By implementing their beliefs society was livable, but was there unprecedented repercussions with their ideology of leadership and civilization? Or was there reward in terms of advancement for a civilizations’ cultural enhancements?
Stephen Shennan's concern with how non-state agrarian societies have been characterized by archaeological studies in the past is well founded. Characterizing (and categorizing) non-state societies as stepping-stones evolving into future states is an outdated approach to these studies. The approach he proposed would focus on our understanding the archaeological record as the remains of social practices, rather than generalized social institutions. He refers to Bourdieu's theory of practice, and stresses the need to ground social archaeology in the micro-scale of day-to-day activities in our analyses. The study of long-term change, patterns of inequality, domination and resistance can be investigated through statistical analysis of the distributions of outcomes.
Thesis Statement: Men and women were in different social classes, women were expected to be in charge of running the household, the hardships of motherhood.
The biggest component which marked the shift in Ju/‘hoansi life would be the change from a hunter gatherer society to an agricultural society. The transition was not an easy one, as the unreliable rainfall and drastic seasonal changes made settling in one area a challenge. However, the Jus managed to raise livestock such as cattle and goats and grow ten different crops including tobacco, sorghum and maize.(Lee, 2003) Although these changes were beneficial as it increases the stability of the food supply in a community, it also restricted the mobility of the people. Farm life resulted in children having to start working at a young age and the subordination of women became more prevalent as they became housebound while their spouses left to seek job opportunities. Men started to leave home grounds to work at the mines to buy food and other goods. It was observed that these men incorporated the hxaro exchange system to the goods they bought, preserving traditional pra...
The Nile and Indus River Valley civilizations were both unique civilizations in their own way in comparison. Yet despite being separated by thousands of miles there are similarities in these two ancient civilizations. It is seen that amongst ancient civilizations, rivers are fundamental for them to prosper and provide for a relatively stable society for which a people can grow and develop. There are general similarities with pinpoint differences as well as general differences with pinpoint similarities. Both civilizations have left their influence on human civilization and history, with their unique characteristics of their religion, way of life, social classes, cultures, technological advancements, government systems, rulers and notable
The First Civilizations of the world were the stepping-stone into modern society, and the original basis as to what our modern society has become. Reading through the assigned text in Ways of the World: A Brief Global History by Robert W. Strayer, in the chapter titled “First Civilizations: Cities, States, and Unequal Societies”, the reader is introduced into what evolved into the world in which we currently live in. (Please note that the writer will be referring to text from Strayer’s 2011 edition of the text, in comparison to the modern version.) The entire chapter discusses the way that the civilizations emerged, as well as how equality was eventually diminished from the society, Mesoamerica, and the six civilizations themselves: Olmec, Norte Chico, Nile Valley, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, and China. The chapter begins with asking, the general questions: “Who? What? When? Where? Why?” Giving a brief history, the first civilizations began to rise in the time period of 3500 B.C.E. and 3000 B.C.E. in the three most geographically historic regions in the world: The Middle East, Sumer, and Egypt. These places consisted of cities, political systems, and were responsible for economic input and output.
Kishlansky, Mark, Patrick Geary and Patricia O'Brien. Civilization in the West, Combind Volume, Seventh Edition. New York: Longman, 2008.
Prior to the use of agriculture, life was extremely different for women. The information that historians have obtained is limited, but there are certain aspects of Paleolithic society that have been discovered and point towards a more liberal lifestyle for women. Generally, a woman’s job was to gather food and tend to her children while her male counterpart hunted. These simple divisions allowed both men and women to play significant roles in hunter-gatherer society, which further allowed women to be held in equal if not greater esteem then men. According to Elisabeth Gaynor Ellis and Anthony Elser, authors of World History: Connections to Today, women also held...
Early civilizations have strikingly similar political and social structures. Also, one cannot help notice the similarity in their geographical locations as well as their religious beliefs. However, there are key differences between various early civilizations in terms of religion and their socio-political setups. Below is a description of some of the similarities and differences between the early Indus (Indian) civilization and the early Egyptian civilization based on their key geographical features and religious beliefs.
Gates, Charles. Ancient Cities: The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece, and Rome. London: Routledge, 2003. Print.
Gender roles have been a predominant factor in our world since the early emergence of human societies whether they are positive or negative. They are based on expectations that societies have over the people in them. The Epic of Sunjata, shows us how men and women are treated almost equally in different forms. Women are praised for their ability to birth leaders, which is similar to the early Greek Society. In most societies, women are treated less equal than men. This was prevalent in the early Indian society. No matter the gender role, it has been shown that any society cannot survive without both men and women.
Early in Sumerian civilization, eighty to ninety percent of those who farmed did on land they considered theirs rather than communal property. The Sumerians indicated a trend that was common among others....
Question: Describe how ancient civilizations emerged in various parts of the world, developed into powerful and influential states, and then declined over time.
McKay, J/P/, Hill, B.D., Buckler, J., Ebrey, P.B., Beck, R.B., Crowston, C.H., & Wiesner-Hanks, M.E. (2008). A History of World Societies, Volume A: From Antiquity to 1500. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin's
HUNTING AND GATHERING SOCIETIES are the simplest types of societies in which people rely on readily available vegetation and hunted game for subsistence. Only a few people can be supported in any given area in such subsistence societies. Hence they usually have no more than 40 members or so, must be nomadic, and have little or no division of labor. All societies began as hunting and gathering societies. These societies were still common until a few hundred years ago. Today only a few remain, including pygmies in central Africa and aborigines in Australia. Most of the rest have had their territory overrun by other forms of society. Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have non-hierarchical social structures. There is rarely surplus food, and since they are nomadic little ability to store any surplus. Thus full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by hunter-gathering societies. Hunting and gathering society consumes a great deal of time, energy, and thought, collecting and hunting for food. Most of these societies today generally live in marginal areas where resources are scarce, so life for the hunter and gatherer seems more oriented toward mere survival. Life expectancy is also very low compared to the post industrial society. Technology is minimal in the hunting and gathering society, which again relates back to the need for expending time and energy finding food. Technology in medicine is also primitive for hunters and gatherers. Equality is great and social stratification is low, opposed to the post-industrial society.