Using the documents, analyze Han and Roman attitudes toward technology. Identify one additional type of document and explain briefly how it would help your analysis.

For each document, you need to ask yourself what attitude toward technology is being conveyed.

SUBJECT Han official is ordering local officials on how to organize their labor force with use of technology in order to prevent disaster from floods

OCCASION China, early 2nd century B.C.E.

AUDIENCE Local Han officials

PURPOSE To make sure the government is maintaining public works and controlling floods

To convey idea that technology is essential part of empire and requires government intervention

SPEAKER Han government official

TONE Shows concern for people and property; gives the impression that technology is there to aid the Chinese (urgent, straightforward/organized)

SUBJECT Huan Guan is writing about the problems that lack of technology and poor government policy is having on the people

OCCASION China, first century B.C.E.

AUDIENCE Government officials

PURPOSE To advise the government that their policies (using convict labor to make tools and monopoly on salt and iron) has had devastating effects on the people

Also, to let the Han government know that it is their job to rectify the situation and improve the available technologies

SPEAKER Huan Guan, Han government official

TONE Critical of recent government policies

SUBJECT Huan Tan is listing the progress of technology after the emperor’s first invention.

OCCASION China, about 20 C.E.

AUDIENCE Educated, mostly upper class Chinese; government

PURPOSE To show the benefits that technology has provided to the Chinese people

SPEAKER Huan Tan, upper-class Han philosopher

TONE Shows appreciation for the benefits of technology. Attitude that technology is a “gift” from enlightened emperors.

The mortar is a bowl, typically made of hard wood, ceramic or stone. The pestle is a heavy club-shaped object, the end of which is used for crushing and grinding.

SUBJECT Stating how Tu Shih, a Han governor, cared for the Chinese people and used technology to benefit them

OCCASION China, about 200 C.E.

AUDIENCE People who might be losing faith in the Han Dynasty

PURPOSE To glorify the actions of the early Han dynasty and show how effective their inventions were in minimizing human labor

SPEAKER Someone hired by the government (“government sponsored”)

TONE Shows appreciation for the accomplishments of the Han dynasty; glorifies them

SUBJECT Cicero is stating that the jobs of craftsmen and hired workers that work with hands are “vulgar” and unbecoming; says that gentlemen do not work with their hands

OCCASION Italy, 1st century B.C.E.

AUDIENCE Other upper class men

PURPOSE To distinguish between quality professions and vulgar professions

SPEAKER Cicero, upper class Roman political leader

TONE Lacks respect for inventions and inventors (craftsmen); technology is necessary, but not for enlightened minds

SUBJECT Plutarch is explaining Gaius Gracchus’ road building enterprises with special attention to their usefulness and aesthetics

OCCASION Roman Empire, 1st century C.E.

AUDIENCE Other upper class men

PURPOSE To show that the Roman upper class did appreciate technology that benefitted the upper class (no mention of how commoners benefitted; designed roads to specifically help those with horses)

SPEAKER Plutarch, Greek born Roman citizen

TONE Shows appreciation for the usefulness and aesthetics of Roman roads

Shows admiration for Gracchus’ hard work in road building

SUBJECT Seneca is stating that it takes someone nimble and sharp to make inventions, but these craftsmen are not the greatest minds of his day

OCCASION Roman Empire, 1st century C.E.

AUDIENCE Other upper class men

PURPOSE To differentiate between those who work with hands and those that work with minds

SPEAKER Seneca, upper-class Roman philosopher and advisor to emperor Nero

TONE Lacks respect for craftsmen (degrades their achievements and abilities)

Not concerned about hammers and tongs because as an upperclassmen, he would never use them

SUBJECT Frontinus praises Roman aqueducts and their uses in the city of Rome. He describes its intelligent design and how it benefits the public

OCCASION Roman Empire, 1st century C.E.

AUDIENCE Other Roman officials (so they can see that he is doing a good job as water commissioner)

PURPOSE To glorify Roman aqueducts and their numerous benefits; to show Roman superiority over Egyptians and Greeks

SPEAKER Frontinus, Roman general, governor of Britain, and water commissioner

TONE Shows pride for Roman aqueducts and appreciates their practical and aesthetic nature

(keep in mind, he is the water commissioner for Rome – his job and income depends on the aqueducts)

Designed to test your ability to work with and understand historical documents. You must write an essay that: Has a relevant thesis and supports that thesis

with evidence from the documents Uses all of the documents Analyzes the documents by grouping them in

as many appropriate ways as possible. Does not simply summarize the documents individually

Takes into account the sources of the documents and analyzes the author’s point of view

Identifies and explains the need for at least one additional type of document

Using the documents, analyze Han and Roman attitudes toward technology. Identify one additional type of document and explain briefly how it would help your analysis.

For each document, you need to ask yourself what attitude toward technology is being conveyed.

Formulate a thesis statement Make your groupings

Normally 3 groupings, but for this essay can do 2

Groupings decide organization of body paragraphs

Decide on a missing voice - who would provide better insight on Han and Roman attitudes about technology

For 1 point, you need an acceptable thesis

Although the Han and Roman attitudes toward technology are different is some way, they are also alike. Unacceptable thesis – merely restates

the question and is too vague

In the Han and Roman empires, technology had the potential to elevate the standard of life, improve availability of water, make life easier with new tools, and make the cities more pleasing to live in. Unacceptable thesis – summarizes the

potential usefulness of technology, but does not address Han and Roman attitudes toward technology

As the creation of technology expanded, both the Han and Roman governments expressed their attitudes based on their encounters with technology. Unacceptable thesis – does not explain

what the attitudes were.

Government officials, common people, and philosophers all contributed to Han and Roman attitudes toward technology. Each empire held different views. Unacceptable thesis – does not explain

what the attitudes were.

The Han and Romans both felt technology was important. It created water systems which provided fresh water at a time when water was scarce and minimized human labor which increased efficiency. However they had different attitudes toward technology. The Hans respected technology and those who created it and they paid attention to the needs of the commoners. The Romans felt working with your hands was vulgar and minimized the importance of technology and those who used it.

Throughout China, there was a majority appreciation of technological advancement with a few against it, while in the Roman empire, the view was split between support and pessimism. Acceptable thesis – Not especially

strong, but meets criteria

The Han dynasty was proud of the efficiency and quality of their tools, as well as their ability to use technology to prevent natural disasters. On the other hand, the Romans marveled at their civilizations technological advancements, yet scorned those who made a living working with tools and crafts. Acceptable thesis – excellent thesis with

qualitative analysis

The Han dynasty emphasized efficiency in their tools, as well as using technology to prevent natural disasters. The Romans, however, marveled at their civilization’s advancements, yet refused to glorify those who work with tools and crafts. Acceptable thesis – This better characterizes

each empire’s attitude toward technology, along with comparing the two empires’ attitudes (which is not required)

Han China’s attitude toward manufacturing and labor was more open and positive than the Romans who had a more systematic and class divided society, therefore causing general attitudes toward labor and technology to be low. Acceptable Thesis – This thesis summarizes,

compare the differences in attitude, and even analyzes reasons behind those differences. (Eligible for expanded core)

For 1 point, analyzes documents by grouping them in at least two ways

Note that a single document cannot be a “group” but a single document can belong to more than one group

Social class of authorPhilosophers vs. officialsPro-technology vs. con-technologyRole of government in relation to

technology

The Hans respected technology and those who created it and they paid attention to the needs of the commoners. The Romans felt working with your hands was vulgar and minimized the importance of technology and those who used it.

The Han Dynasty demonstrated an appreciation for technology and utilized it to make society run more efficiently. In addition, they felt it was the government’s role to ensure that adequate technology was provided for the common people.

SUBJECT Han official is ordering local officials on how to organize their labor force with use of technology in order to prevent disaster from floods

OCCASION China, early 2nd century B.C.E.

AUDIENCE Local Han officials

PURPOSE To make sure the government is maintaining public works and controlling floods

To convey idea that technology is essential part of empire and requires government intervention

SPEAKER Han government official

TONE Shows concern for people and property; gives the impression that technology is there to aid the Chinese (urgent, straightforward/organized)

During the early 2nd century B.C.E., a Han government official organized his labor force to use technology to prevent floods. (Doc. 1)

During the early 2nd century B.C.E., a Han government official organized his labor force to use technology to prevent floods. (Doc. 1) He shows concern for the common people and conveys the idea that technology is an essential part of the empire and requires government intervention.

The Han dynasty was proud of the efficiency and quality of their tools, as well as their ability to use technology to prevent natural disasters. On the other hand, the Romans marveled at their civilizations technological advancements, yet scorned those who made a living working with tools and crafts. Acceptable thesis – excellent thesis with

qualitative analysis

For 1 point, you need to address all the documents and demonstrates understanding of all or all but one

Listing the documents separately or listing the documents as part of a group does not sufficiently demonstrate an understanding of basic meaning

Rather than trying to state a document’s meaning, you should use your understanding of the document to make an argument or conclusion.

One’s correct understanding of a document’s meaning will be clear when using that document to make an argument.

For 2 points, you need to support thesis with appropriate evidence from all or all but one document (7 or 8 documents) For 1 of these 2 points, you need to

support thesis with appropriate evidence from 6 documents

Don’t start sentences or paragraphs with “Document #___ says”

Doing this is setting yourself up for a summary or paraphrasing of a document

Huan Guan, a Han government official during the first century B.C.E., was concerned about the problems that lack of technology and poor government policy was having on the people. (Doc. 2)

Huan Guan embodies the Confucian Han view that technology is good, as long as the government uses technology to benefit the people. Crude or brittle tools are of no help, and reflect poorly on the government.

This is interesting because although you would expect a Han government official to praise the current government and its decisions, Huan Guan is instead opposed to the current government and shows concern for the peasants.

Think about the author Background – class, gender,

ethnicity, occupation Why would this person have the POV

expressed? Think about the place and time period?

What is going on in that place during that time that would influence the author’s POV?

For 1 point, analyzes point of view in at least 4 documents

To analyze POV: Explains why a particular person has

particular opinion You can do this by considering or

explaining tone, background of author, intended audience, etc.

For 1 point, identifies and explains the need for one type of additional document

Must explain how this missing document would help contribute to an analysis of Han and/or Roman attitudes toward technology

Once your body paragraphs with analysis of groupings are complete, add paragraph for the missing voice (what additional document would have been beneficial to include?) A point of view that is not represented

that would aid in the discussion of Han and Roman attitudes toward technology would be from that of…

Background/contextDuring the Classical era, the Han Empire of China and the Roman Empire of the Mediterranean World were technologically advanced civilizations.

Thesis

Topic sentence (what characteristics do these documents share and how does that support the thesis?)

Evidence Doc #1 (how does document support topic/thesis?) POV/Analysis

Evidence Doc #2 (how does document support topic/thesis?) POV/Analysis

Evidence Doc #3 (how does document support topic/thesis?) POV/Analysis

You must paraphrase the document and then cite it (Doc. #____)

Use the Author and the Name of the Work to refer to a document John Smith in his book The History of the World

said… Never write “In Document One…”

Reword your thesis and give a summation of your argument

Do analyzeDo not cite documents