A Rocket to the Past

Hi, welcome to my blog for World Civilizations. I'm still working out the general ~aesthetics~ of this blog, so expect it to change during the length of this course.

[thetrojanheel]

The Final Pre-class Response :(

A statue of a guardian lion that used to guard the entrances of the temples, in particular “the pyramidal structure that represented Mount Meru, the residence of the gods at the center of the Hindu world.”

I thought this sculpture was very interesting because lion iconography has been commonly used in art to represent might and pride. I have no idea how the whole notion of lions making good guards came about, but I thought it was pretty cool that Cambodian and Khmer sculptors had that sort of idea about lions even though there were no lions that roamed around Cambodia. I assume that they probably got their idea of what lions were through trade interactions with other civilizations that existed during the period.

[thetrojanheel]

Pre-class response: Account of the Mongols

As to their marriages, you must know that no one among them has a wife unless he buys her; so it sometimes happens that girls are well past marriageable age before they marry, for their parents always keep them until they sell them.

As a modern day reader, my first reaction when reading this particular part of the passage was one of disgust. However, I know that it was probably a norm amongst their culture, so I shouldn’t be judging it through my lens from the future. It is interesting to note here that the women have no say in their marriages, for it is up to their parents to ‘sell’ them off into marriage. Although the text doesn’t specify how the girls are ‘sold’, I assume they mean something along the lines of a dowry, like the Islamic society that we discussed last week. Because the parents are the ones who are the ‘gatekeepers’ of marriage amongst the Mongols, it shows that there is a lot of emphasis on family and the parents in their society, since they have the final say in important rituals like marriage. 

[thetrojanheel]

Pre-class response: Sura 4

4.8 And when the near of kin (Literally: endowed with kinship, "nearness) and the orphans and the indigent are present at the division, then provide for them out of it, and say to them beneficent saying.

4.10 Surely the ones who eat the riches of the orphans unjustly, they surely only eat (up) Fire in their bellies and will roast in a Blaze.

I chose these particular verses because it says a lot about the Islamic society back then. In modern media, orphans are often portrayed as sad, lonely children who live in a building and wait for the day that they will be adopted (think Annie, or even the orphans in A Series of Unfortunate Events). Oftentimes these orphans are abused. On the other hand, these verses from Sura 4 say that orphans should be treated with kindness, and that their future should be protected. This kindness that the Sura 4 preaches implies that that the Islamic society back then valued the children. 

[thetrojanheel]

Pre-class response: Excerpts from Germania

Punishments vary according to the quality of the crime. Traitors and deserters they hang upon trees. Cowards, and sluggards, and unnatural prostitutes they smother in mud and bogs under an heap of hurdles. Such diversity in their executions has this view, that in punishing of glaring iniquities, it behoves likewise to display them to sight; but effeminacy and pollution must be buried and concealed. 

I chose this passage partly because I have always had a fascination with the types of punishments that were dealt in ancient civilizations, but also because I found it very interesting to see the kind of attitude that the ancient Germans had towards homosexuality. The line “in punishing of glaring iniquities, it behoves likewise to display them to sight; but effeminacy and pollution must be buried and concealed” stands out in particular because it shows that the ancient Germans found effeminate behavior as something shameful, on the same level as being a coward and being lazy. It is kind of in line with the the attitude that conservatives have towards homosexuality in present day, which leads me to ask the question: are we truly any more different than our ancient counterparts?

The difference in punishments for different types of crimes can tell a lot about a civilization’s values towards certain topics. Ancient Germans thought that traitors and deserters were such serious crimes that they needed to be displayed as a sign of warning; more shameful crimes needed to be hidden away (in that ‘out of sight out of mind’ mentality).

[thetrojanheel]

Pre-class response: The Histories (Livy)

He begged them to lay aside their feelings of resentment and give their affections to those whom fortune had made masters of their persons. An injury had often led to reconciliation and love; they would find their husbands all the more affectionate because each would do his utmost, so far as in him lay to make up for the loss of parents and [16] country. These arguments were reinforced by the endearments of their husbands who excused their conduct by pleading the irresistible force of their passion —a plea effective beyond all others in appealing to a woman's nature.

I selected this particular passage because I think it highlights a key attitude Romans had towards women. Romulus had the impression that passion is the key to a woman’s heart. I am assuming I may be wrong that by “passion” Romulus means sex, and that the Romans thought that all women could be appeased by having good sex. It reminds me of the commentary Lysistrata provided on gender roles in Ancient Greece, where Lysistrata and her friends all thought that they could resolve the Peloponnesian War by witholding sex from their husbands. Although the Ancient Greek civilization fell to the Romans, it is interesting that their values were not so different from each other.

[thetrojanheel]

Pre-class response: The Dhammapada

Carter/Palihawadana Translation:

8. Whoever dwells seeing the nonpleasurable, in senses well restrained, And moderate in food, faithful, resolute in enterprise, Over him, indeed, Mara prevails not, Like the wind over a rocky crag.

I selected this passage because it reminds me of Epicurus. This passage of the Dhammapada says that we should live without looking for pleasure, implying that chasing after pleasures will be our downfall. People can live without pleasure. In contrast, Epicurus views pleasure as something that is always present. There is no good or bad pleasure, and people will always choose to pursue some kind of pleasure in order to reap rewards. It is interesting that these two cultures view pleasure in such different ways: one in which pleasure is something bad and must be avoided, and the other in which pleasure is subjective and is ever present.

[thetrojanheel]

Pre-class response: Analects of Confucius

2.13 Zi Gong asked about the character of the noble man. Confucius said, “First he practices what he preaches and then he follows it.” 2.14 The Master said: “The noble man is all-embracing and not partial. The inferior man is partial and not all-embracing.”

I selected these two quotes from the text because I thought they were very profound and wise sayings. The whole notion of ‘the noble man’ and how they were supposed to act reminds me of Epicurus and his statements about ‘the wise man’. In a way they felt like a sort of call to action for humanity to better themselves. These values are very very applicable even in modern day, which makes it so interesting because this text dates back to BCE. Being “all-embracing and not partial” essentially encourages us to be more open-minded with each other, and to not pick and choose who we accept. In a world that’s becoming increasingly close minded, it’s time that we take these Confucian sayings to heart and apply it in our lives.

[thetrojanheel]

Pre-class response: On the customs of the Persians

The Magi are a very peculiar race, different entirely from the Egyptian priests, and indeed from all other men whatsoever. The Egyptian priests make it a point of religion not to kill any live animals except those which they offer in sacrifice. The Magi, on the contrary, kill animals of all kinds with their own hands, excepting dogs and men. They even seem to take a delight in the employment, and kill, as readily as they do other animals, ants and snakes, and such like flying or creeping things. However, since this has always been their custom, let them keep to it.

I chose this particular passage because it’s a good example of how Herodotus’ personal bias creeps into the text. By comparing the customs of the Magi to the Egyptians he paints them in a rather barbaric light, as noted when he says “they even seem to take a delight in the employment”, implying that the Magi enjoy killing and that it is a part of their personality. That final line, “However, since this has always been their custom, let them keep to it.” can be read in two different ways. Either Herodotus merely wants people to be tolerant of the Magi and their customs, or he’s implying that the enjoyment in killing live animals is part of Persian life, so the Greeks are better since it is not their way of living. Kind of like a ‘well, it’s their life so there’s nothing we can do about it but move on.’

[thetrojanheel]

This is a very fine summary of the importance of the quote: "Since Ancient Egyptians believed that the Pharaoh is a god, the knowledge that Hatshepsut herself is the daughter of the King of Gods makes her extra special and extra fit to be the ruler of all Egypt." Good work articulating a broad and significant theme in the text. For future posts you might consider referencing the chosen passage a bit more, but I think you're conceptually on the right track here. :)

Okay :) Thanks for the feedback!

[thetrojanheel]

Pre-class response - Excerpts from Genesis

Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son. But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” And Abraham looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.

I selected this passage because it shows a significant moment in Abraham’s relationship with his god Yahweh. At this point, it is shown that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only son as part of the covenant with God, but then an angel revealed to him that it was all a test to see if he was truly faithful. This displays the trust Abraham had in his god. At the same time, we can see that Yahweh never really intended for Abraham to sacrifice his son, since Yahweh delivered a ram to Abraham in the end. Either way, Isaac would have lived.

I’m used to reading a different version of the Bible, so some of the simplified language here threw me off a little bit while I was reading. It’s interesting to see that some versions of the Bible have kept the old timey wordings (like thee, thy, thou, thine) while this version has written things in a way that makes it easier for modern people to understand. 

[thetrojanheel]

The Epic of Gilgamesh: Crash Course World Mythology #26

This week, we're continuing our discussion of heroes by talking about Gilgamesh, star of one of the earliest written hero stories, The Epic of Gilgamesh. Gil...

Found an interesting video for some supplementary knowledge of The Epic of Gilgamesh :D 

[thetrojanheel]

Pre-class Response - The Birth of Hatshepsut

“Then Amun, the lord of the throne of the Two Lands spoke to her, "Hatshepsut is thus the name of this your daughter whom I have laid in your body, according to the speech of your mouth. She will exercise the splendid kingship in the whole land. My glory will belong to her, my authority will belong to her, and my crown will belong to her. She will rule the Two Lands (Egypt) . . . I will surround her every day with my protection in common with the god of the respective day."

I find this passage significant because it is pretty much stating that Hatshepsut was meant to become a Pharaoh through the divine will of Amun. Since Ancient Egyptians believed that the Pharaoh is a god, the knowledge that Hatshepsut herself is the daughter of the King of Gods makes her extra special and extra fit to be the ruler of all Egypt. To say otherwise would mean defying Amun-Ra, most powerful god of the Egyptian pantheon.