The other day in class it was mentioned that many of the ancient historical writings were done by the wealthy and by those of hierarchy power. If the poor regular person had no say how can we actually believe what we are reading? Any story told by one side has a great bias towards the good they did or the power they had. Rarely will they say the bad they did or the pain and hurt they caused and if they do tell so, they will spin it as them having done some good. I am quite sure the Nazis would tell their side of the Holocaust in a much different manner than would those who suffered or anyone else for that matter who would give their take on the incident. Slave owners from the South would brag of how good a life their slaves had it and how good an owner they were. The owner would speak of how this is the way things are and that they are giving their slave a chance at life and blah blah blah. If one were to take the side of the slave it is a guarantee that a much darker and different story be told. So if the poor and regular people of ancient Mesopotamia could not read or write how could they ever share their story. 

          History tells the story of the past though with these ancient times, as with the Paleolithic people it seems a lot of holes need to be filled in with assumption. Assumptions that just aren't right when learning about what was. Obviously we can not go back and interview the deceased poor of these societies but it sure would be nice to have something. To just have some equal light shed on how these civilizations really grew and were managed. They say it takes two to tango and unfortunately this dance is incomplete. As we learn about these civilizations I can not wait to read about the lives of all those in a society. To understand and picture what all life was like way back then. I enjoy having complete understandings of things rather then just a partial story. To hear perspectives from all aspects of life will allow you to close your eyes, sit back and really get your mind into what the life and times of the ancient civilizations were like. 

         With so much mental development in these days, it wold be impossible for the poor or underprivileged to have learned to read or write. Typically those that learn are taught from someone else who is up the ladder and the is passing along this gift. Since the poor usually continued on in tat negative chain there is no way that they would ever be able to step out of this box. Unfortunately with that said it is highly unlikely that there ever be a discovery of any other point of view. The wealthy told the story their way and they shall forever be immortalized in the way in which they shared it.

        The Law Code of Hammurabi was on to something and had a good idea of what it wanted to get across to its people, but there seemed to be quite a few silly mistakes within it. Law #2 says that if any man accuse another and the accused then survives his forced jump into the river, that the accuser now must die and surrender his home to the man he accused. This is quite silly. If I accused a man of stealing from me and he then jumps into the river and survives, mainly because he is an excellent swimmer, though did in fact rob me, I must now give my home to him and then die. This seems rather insane and would seem to have more keep quite so as to not risk your own fate. Laws #22, #196 and #197 are all laws today that you can still find apparent in some foreign countries, such as in the Middle East or possibly in the criminal underworld of America. Robbing or hurting another does not legally lead to death these days in the US but in some foreign or seedy walks of life these laws have remained strong.

        Laws #122, which says that if anyone hands over gold, silver or anything else that a contract should be drawn up as proof, and law #271, which says that a certain payment be paid for the rental of an oxen, cart and driver, are both alive today. Having contracts protecting ones goods is like taking out insurance on expensive personal belongings and paying a daily fee to use goods is found all over. People rent cars, equipment, tools, etc constantly and they must pay a daily fee for the use of these items. The Laws of Hammurabi were not always so extreme. As I mentioned in my last blog, the developing mind of these ancient people is intriguing. Whether extreme or rational these laws had deep thought and consideration behind them. 

         Law #117 was the original mindset of slavery. The law states that anyone who can not afford a debt be sold of into slavery, along with wife and kids and then would have to work for set amount of years in order to work off their debt. Though this is not a good law nor did it reappear at a good time in history, it did still appear still some centuries later. Also the laws that acknowledge slaves, but do not count them as equals is very similar to the rules and laws of the days of slavery and even as recent as the years before the civil rights movement.

         The laws that  deal with the relationships of men and women are all quite interesting. Law #128 says that if a man marries a woman but she will not sleep with him then they are not married. Wow thats saying what relationships were based around at this time and who had the power in a relationship. Law #129 says if a man finds his wife cheating on him then both cheaters shall be thrown in the water. This is quite drastic. Good thing for Nisa and her people these rules did not apply for them. I do like law #148. This law says that if a mans wife be seized by disease that he can get another wife though he m,must house his first wife and take care of her till she dies. At least this law shows some love and compassion. I am surprised it did not say that the husband could dump the sick wife in the water though. Overall these laws are a bit ridiculous though they had the right ideas in many cases. 

Where did early man get his ideas

     
       It is quite interesting to think about how the minds of the first civilizations evolved. For centuries before Paleolithic and Neolithic people survived with little to no resources or ways of communication that we know of. Their cultures and societies were kept small due to their limited resources and capabilities. Then agriculture was invented and this allowed for the growth of societies. Now people could grow vegetables and breed animals. People could feed more people thus more people entered societies. What is it that sparked something in the minds of these simple people that gave them the thought of agriculture? With the limited to no modes of long distance communication, how is it that societies of different countries and continents come up with similar ideas? Had the brain evolved enough since mans origin? Had God decided to bless his people with this bit of knowledge? Obviously we will never actually know what the discoverers were thinking but it is interesting to wonder about.

     
         More intriguing to me is the development of the worlds first civilizations. As with the world changing thought of agriculture, who thought up such concepts as writing, numbers, grid plans for cities, engineering, builders and so on. The agriculture boom gave the ability for these societies to grow but what caused them to flourish in so many new and unique ways? It intrigues me to think that one day a man or woman one day said here are X amount of symbols and with these we will all be able to communicate what we are thinking or trying to say. We will now be able to tell stories and tales and keep track of our history. The discovery of brain power and intelligence is equally as important than that of agriculture. Agriculture allows people to survive and a society to grow but these newly found bits of intelligence allow them to flourish in their own unique ways. 

    
        With the invention of writing by the Mesopotamian peoples, how is it that the Egyptians then began to write? Had they somehow seen this writing and decided to imitate it and create their own form? Did a Mesopotamian person make the travel? Did an Egyptian man or woman also just one day come up with a form of communication and history tracking as did a random Mesopotamian? Obviously over time people evolve and as does the mind. With the development of agriculture came an awareness of what one was capable of that had never been there before. I am thinking that this new eye opening experiences led to thoughts of other things closely related. This thought snowballed into another and so on and so on. Nowadays we get discoveries and progression through countless trial and error, though tests and experiments, so is this what the ancient Mesopotamian' s did? Did they write out hundreds of symbols and see which were the best to communicate with? Again we will never know, though however they did it, it is know at least nice to read about what was actually starting to happen through history. The period of time before involved so much speculation and assumption that it is sometimes hard to get into.

                      Chapter one in the text book talks a great deal about the way things were during the Paleolithic times and then the invention of agriculture during the Neolithic times. I understand that historians have ways to date things that are written down or artifacts that were created or even possible cave drawings, but I am having a hard time understanding how they can assume what life was like dur ing mostly unrecorded time of the Paleolithic people. Obviously one can assume. There obviously were no cars or phones and there was for the most part no technology. To know what they ate and how their society was ran I do not get. Obviously there were certain plants, fruits and animals common to the countries in which these people date back to but what proof is there that they actually indulged in there foods? Who is to say that a small group that was set up in the lands around parts of Africa were not vegetarians? They obviously would not be called vegetarians but they may have followed the idea that they did not indulge in meat, if they even had the chance to ever come across any.
                   
                      Strayer mentions that "Paleolithic societies had rules and structures." How does he or any historian know this? Much of this so distant history is assumed and based off of the periods that follow. Periods in which they do have more recorded history and may offer clues into how things were before them. The future civilizations had to come from somewhere in order to evolve and become what they were. Another topic that interested me during my reading was the concept of how agriculture came about. I understand that it must have been a slow evolving process though. It's not like one day a nomadic hunter found some seeds and had the brilliant idea that he should put them in the ground and then water it in good soil as to grow enough corn for him and all his newly established community. There obviously was a long process of trial and error and figuring what is the best way to msake things work. This must be the case for the establishment of law, security, engineering, building, weapon making, building storage units and so on. Since nothing prior had been developed it is pretty crazy how humans minds all of a sudden started to think a different way.

                      It is interesting to think what qualified someone of this time to make decisions. During the Paleolithic times it is believed that there was no hierarchy, genders were equal, there was no wealth or status. Now with the ability to grow food and domesticate animals, things such as power, wealth, status and an overall hierarchy begin to flourish and most likely cause problems. When deciding who to put in certain positions, were the bigger, stronger people put in positions of power or were the smarter more intelligble one? Were women still as equal as men? Was sharing still as common? It is great there is so much recorded history out there but it is truely amazing to relly sit back and think about what things amy have actually been like back in these Paleo and Neo lithic days.

First post...done.