Great DBQ(Han China and Roman Empire)

Technology is the building block of any society: it allows for new advancements to be made that improve daily life. Two such societies that made advancements in technology included the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire. As the expansion of the empire increased, the Romans built roads that linked these regions together. These roads were built in such a way that allowed for easier travel: roads were paved and allowed for water to run off. In addition, the empire also developed the transportation of water throughout the city through the construction of aqueducts, which were canals. Likewise, the Han Dynasty made advancements in the distribution of water: there were water ways, canals, and pools that were inspected by hydraulic engineers. Water was also used to power a blowing-engine. Because of the advancements that were made, the Han Dynasty is regarded by historians as the “Golden Age.” Similarly, the Romans created a large empire that stretched from Europe to the Middle East. Because of the vastness of both empires, water and technology were heavily relied upon, yet unlike the Han officials, the upper-class Romans had a negative attitude towards technology. Some officials in both the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire had a positive attitude towards technology (2, 3, 6). In document two, written by Haun Gaun (a government official); the author spoke highly of the tools constructed by workers: they were of “excellent quality.” However, he continues on to say that, “Today the iron tools that workers are required to use…are often crude and not very functional.” He critizes the government for providing workers with “hard and brittle” tools. Because salt and iron are sold at extremely high prices, many peasant farmers are unable to buy proper tools and cannot afford to buy salt. He challenges the government to improve the quality of the tools, which will in turn improve the quality of the peasants’ lives. His point of view was that of a government official finding flaws in the ways that it runs things. He seeks to change this by acknowledging the fact that the poor workers need to have more money with which to live off of. In document three, Haun Tan (a philosopher) has a positive outlook on the advancements that have been made in the way of technology. He describes the transformation that the mortar and pestle have undergone and how over time the “benefit was increased a hundredfold.” As it was developed, it became larger and allowed for “the whole weight of the body [to be] used.” In addition to the first two documents, the sixth document, written by Plutarch (a high official), proudly described the formation of roads: they were paved and had mile markers alongside. In addition, stones were placed beside the road to allow for travelers to mount their horses. However, his point of view is unreliable because he was not born in Rome; therefore his attitude differs from that of an actual citizen. From these documents, one can conclude that all three government officials believed technology to be an improvement to society. They each described the transformation that technology underwent and the effects that it had on people. In addition to the positive attitudes directed towards the technology in both empires, the officials in both Rome and the Han Dynasty also described the advancements made in the distribution of water in a positive manner (1,4,8). In document one, the writter, a Han government official, spoke of the need for water conservation officials to inspect “waterways, the walls of the cities and their suburbs, the dikes and rivers, canals and pools…” The purpose of these inspections, he says, is “to carry out the repair work in each district” so that the water systems will be functional. In document four, the source (a government-sponsored history) positively describes the governor Tu Shih as “a generous man” who “invented a water-powered blowing-engine.” This invention is important because it allowed for “people to enjoy great benefits for little labor.” In document eight, the author Frontinus (a Roman general and water commissioner) described in detail the construction of aqueducts. The water streams “flow into covered containers” and distribute water to different parts of the city, thus providing many different public uses, such as basins and fountains. However, he is biased and calls the Egyptian pyramids “idle” and the accomplishments of the Greeks “useless.” This illustrates the arrogant pride that he has in the aqueducts. Yet, these three documents all provide positive examples of advancements made in the way of water power and distribution. They described the ways in which water distribution was improved upon and the importance of it. Unlike the previous documents mentioned beforehand, the fifth and seventh documents are written negatively from the perspective of the upper-class Romans. In the fifth document, Cicero (an upper-class Roman political leader) conveys his belief that craftsmen have “vulgar” occupations. He believes that a workshop cannot “have anything enlightening about it.” Jobs that require using a trade are considered “degrading” in his opinion. Likewise, document seven, written by Seneca (an upper-class philosopher), is less cynical. However, he does not flatter the inventor of tools for craft; he calls the inventor’s mind “nimble and sharp.” These two speakers have very negative points of view in their opinions towards technology because of their high social positions. In their eyes, technology is “vulgar” because it is primarily used by people who are considered inferior by the high officials because of their low social position. In order to further analyze the affect that technology had on both of these empires, an additional document is needed. All of the other documents are written from the standpoint of people from the upper-class. Another document is needed from the perspective of a Chinese peasant/farmer or a worker in the Roman Empire. This would explain how those using technology feel about it and how it affects their daily life. Many of the upper-class, specifically the Roman elite, viewed technology as “degrading” and unnecessary. Yet, to the farmer, it’s greatly needed because it decreases the time used to plow. For the craftsmen, certain products, such as glassware, cannot be made without using tools. In addition, a few of the documents prove unreliable because they are written from a biased standpoint. For example, document four is a government-sponsored history of the Han Dynasty. The person who wrote it was paid by the government to describe the history in a positive way. Another document that was unreliable was document six. The author was a Greek-born Roman citizen; therefore his outlook on roads differs from that of other Romans. His attitude is different: he is fond of the roads and speaks highly of them. Yet, other Romans might not have viewed the roads as exceptional. From all eight documents, one can conclude that peoples’ attitude towards technology differed greatly and was oftentimes biased. Two Roman officials viewed technology as pointless because they themselves had never seen the need to use it due to their wealth. Whereas, the lower class needed to use technology in order to accomplish their crafts and make a living. Additionally, another document was written by the government, which will only describe the advancements it had made in the ways of technology and not go into detail about anything negative. Despite this, these documents are useful in understanding the thoughts and opinions ancient people had about new changes that were occurring in their society.