Mongols Using a Bomb
Ming Dynasty Flintlock Weapons
I thought todays video was interesting. It provided some very interesting insight into the Hajj. I must say, I found the American female convert to Islam to be extremely obnoxious. I found it to be very interesting that such a mass migration (the largest in the world?) occurs over such a small period of time every year. The number of people moved is mind-boggling. I also found the other rituals of the Hajj interesting. I was aware of the Kaaba visit, but not the ritual stoning and the other practices. It was a good learning experience. I think we should do more in-class videos.
"Large conversions only took place when powerful political, social, or economic incentives encouraged it and even then it led universally to syncretism rather than outright adoption of foreign cultural tradition"I think that this thesis is valid in almost all circumstances. People don't convert to a new religion on a whim. Religion is a major part of the lives of people who practice it, and they will not convert unless they are offered a good reason to. This reason could be political, such as the adoption of a religion by a leader. It could be social, such as the equality which Buddhism offered to Chinese women. It also could be economic. The part which I am not sure about is the word "universally" in the second half of the statement. While I am sure that it ALMOST always led to syncretism, the are exceptions to ALL generalizations about history. There have almost certainly been times in history in which there has been outright adoptions of foreign beliefs. During the rapid spread of Islamic faiths there were times when peoples completely adopted the Islamic customs. In most cases however we find syncretism. Certainly with the conversions of Europeans to Christianity we see the adoption by the faith of Pagan holidays and traditions. With Buddhism's spread into China many Confucian ideals were adopted, as well as with the "greater vehicle" (Mahayana) the transformation into a more acceptable religion. Judiasm was a faith that had very little conversion. As a result, the religion changed very little over time. This thesis provides a strong basis for understanding the spread of religions.
While the figures of Jesus and Siddhārtha Gautama may seem vastly separated, the ideas they preached shared much in common, as shown by the activity in class today. It is not so surprising when one analyzes things. They were of course separated by half of a Millennium, and several thousand miles, but there situations were similar. Both searched for a reformed alternative path from the established religion, while embracing some of its earlier principles. For Buddha, this was Hinduism; For Jesus, it was Judaism. Both appealed to the lower levels of society by preaching a sort of spiritual equality. While these religions developed vastly separated, the circumstance surrounding them were similar.
Slavery was more important to Rome than China. This arises from the fact that Romans were constantly and rapidly conquering new territories, and slaves continued to flood in. This surplus of slaves lead them to be very cheap, cheaper than peasant labor, and therefore slaves were adopted as the major workers of the Roman economy. In China however, they were isolated, and there was little new territorial acquisitions from which slaves could be acquired. This lead to a lower number of slaves, making them more expensive and therefore less of a part of the economy. Slaves were treated harsher in Rome because they were so cheap and abundant that they were viewed as disposable. In China, where they were rarer and more expensive, they were viewed as more valuable and hence treated with greater caution.
For more links see my Classical Links section on the right panel of my blog.
Thesis Statement: “What is undeniable, however, is that several exchange points did exist during the heyday of the Middle East and Egypt, and that Greeks borrowed extensively but also combined influences with local features in novel ways-and all this well in advance of the rise of more characteristic Greek styles and institutions from about 800 BCE onward”
The early societies of Greece, Egypt, and The Middle East had many interactions. These came in several forms. One major form of interaction was invasion. As one civilization invaded another, it brought with it cultural aspects that then diffused into local society. Another major form of interaction was trade. As merchants traveled with their goods they brought with them cultural aspects which would then diffuse. These factors of trade and invasion constitute the main interactions of these early civilizations.
These societies were greatly impacted by the interactions outlined in #2. As societies interact, cultural diffusion occurs. The areas in which the societies were impacted are, as Stearn's stated, “writing, artistic styles, technology (including weaponry), and some religious elements.” Egyptian and Middle Eastern societies, through interactions and diffusion, helped to shape Greek culture. However, the process was syncretic, and many native elements remained influential. It was more borrowing and blending than wholesale adoption.
The societies involved benefited greatly from these interactions. The direct benefits from trade are obviously the exchange of useful materials. The benefits of being invaded are less apparent. The main benefits come in the form of the cultural diffusion described in the previous response. The exchange of ideas is even more beneficial in the long run than the exchange of materials. The best aspects of both cultures can be picked out (through syncretic cultural diffusion) to make a more advanced culture overall.
