AP World Exam 9/28/18

Analyze Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt as historical systems.

Besides Mesopotamia, a second civilization grew up in northeastern Africa, along the Nile River. Egyptian civilization, formed by 3000 B.C., benefited from trade and technological influence from Mesopotamia, but it produced a quite different society and culture. Because its values and its tightly knit political organization encouraged monumental building, we know more about Egypt than about Mesopotamia, even though the latter was in most respects more important and richer in subsequent heritage. Basic Patterns Of Egyptian Society Unlike Mesopotamia and the Middle East, where an original river-valley basis to civilization ultimately gave way to the spread of civilization throughout an entire region, Egyptian civilization from its origins to its decline was focused on the Nile River and the deserts around it. The Nile focus also gave a more optimistic cast to Egyptian culture, for it could be seen as a source of never- failing bounty to be thankfully received, rather than a menacing cause of floods. Egyptian civilization may at the outset have received some inspiration from Sumer, but a distinctive pattern soon developed in both religion and politics. Farming had been developed along the Nile by about 5000 B.C., but some time before 3200 B.C. economic development accelerated, in part because of growing trade wi,h other regions including Mesopotamia. This economic acceleration provided the basis for the formation of regional kingdoms. Unlike Sumer, Egypt moved fairly directly from precivilization to large government units, without passing through a city-state phase, though the first pharaoh, Narmer, had to conquer a number of petty local kings around 3100 B.C. Indeed Egypt always had fewer problems with political unity than Mesopotamia did, in part because of the unifying influence of the course of the Nile River. By the same token, however, Egyptian politics tended to be more authoritarian as well as centralized, for city-states in the Mesopotamian style, though often ruled by kings, also provided the opportunity for councils and other participatory institutions. By 3100 B.C. Narmer, king of southern Egypt, conquered the northern regional kingdom and created a unified state 600 miles long. This state was to last 3000 years. Despite some important disruptions, this was an amazing record of stability even though the greatest vitality of the civilization was exhausted by about 1000 B.C. During the 2000-year span in which Egypt displayed its greatest vigor, the society went through three major periods of monarchy (the Old, the Intermediate, and the New Kingdoms), each divided from its successor by a century or two of confusion. In all its phases, Egyptian civilization was characterized by the strength of the pharaoh. The pharaoh was held to be descended from gods, with the power to assure prosperity and control the rituals that assured the flow of the Nile and the fertility derived from irrigation. Soon, the pharaoh was regarded as a god. Much Egyptian art was devoted to demonstrating the power and sanctity of the king. From the king's authority also flowed an extensive bureaucracy, recruited from the landed nobles but specially trained in writing and law. Governors were appointed for key regions and were responsible for supervising irrigation and arranging for the great public works that became a hallmark of Egyptian culture. Most Egyptians were peasant farmers, closely regulated and heavily taxed. Labor requisition by the states allowed construction of the great pyramids and other huge public buildings. These monuments were triumphs of human coordination, for the Egyptians were not particularly advanced technologically. They even lacked pulleys or other devices to hoist the huge slabs of stone that formed the pyramids. Given the importance of royal rule and the belief that pharaohs were gods, it is not surprising that each of the main periods of Egyptian history was marked by some striking kings. Early in each dynastic period leading pharaohs conquered new territories, sometimes pressing up the Nile River into present-day Sudan, once even moving up the Mediterranean coast of the Middle East. One pharaoh, Akhenaton, late in Egyptian history, tried to use his power to install a new, one-god religion, replacing the Egyptian pantheon. Many pharaohs commemorated their greatness by building huge pyramids to house themselves and their retinues after death, commanding work crews of up to 100,000 men to haul and lift the stone. The first great pyramid was built around 2600 B.C.; the largest pyramid followed about a century later, taking 20 years to complete and containing 2 million blocks of stone, each weighing 5 1/2 tons. Some scholars have seen even larger links between Egypt's stable, centralized politics and its fascination with an orderly death, including massive funeral monuments and preservation through mummification. Death rituals suggested a concern with extending organization to the afterlife, based on a belief that, through politics, death as well as life could be carefully controlled. A similar connection between strong political structures and careful funeral arrangements developed in Chinese civilization, though with quite different specific religious beliefs. Ideas And Art Despite some initial inspiration, Egyptian culture separated itself from Mesopotamia in a number of ways beyond politics and monument building. The Egyptians did not take to the Sumerian cuneiform alphabet and developed a hieroglyphic alphabet instead. Hieroglyphics, though more pictorial than Sumerian cuneiform, were based on simplified pictures of objects abstracted to represent concepts or sounds. As in Mesopotamia the writing system was complex, and its use was, for the most part, monopolized by the powerful priestly caste. Egyptians ultimately developed a new material to write on, papyrus, which was cheaper to manufacture and use than clay tablets or animal skins and allowed the proliferation of elaborate record keeping. On the other hand, Egypt did not generate an epic literary tradition. Egyptian science focused on mathematics and astronomy, but its achievements were far less advanced than those of Mesopotamia. The Egyptians were, however, the first people to establish the length of the solar year, which they divided into 12 months each with three weeks of ten days. The week was the only division of time not based on any natural cycles. The achievement of this calendar suggests Egyptian concern about predicting the flooding of the Nile and their abilities in astronomical observation. The Egyptians also made important advances in medicine, including knowledge of the workings of a variety of medicinal drugs and some contraceptive devices. Elements of Egyptian medical knowledge were gained by the Greeks, and so passed into later Middle Eastern and European civilizations. The pillar of Egyptian culture was not science, however, but religion, which was firmly established as the basis of a whole world view. The religion promoted the worship of many gods. It mixed magical ceremonies and beliefs with worship, in a fashion common to early religions almost everywhere. A more distinctive focus involved the concern with death and preparation for life in another world, where in contrast to the Mesopotamians the Egyptians held that a happy, changeless well-being could be achieved. The care shown in preparing tombs and mummifying bodies, along with elaborate funeral rituals particularly for the rulers and bureaucrats, was designed to assure a satisfactory afterlife, though Egyptians also believed that favorable judgment by a key god, Osiris, was essential as well. Other Egyptian deities included a creation goddess, similar to other Middle Eastern religious figures later adapted into Christian worship of the Virgin Mary; and a host of gods represented by partial animal figures. Egyptian art focused heavily on the gods, though earthly, human scenes were portrayed as well in a characteristic, stylized form that lasted without great change for many centuries. Stability was a hallmark of Egyptian culture. Given the duration of Egyptian civilization, there were surprisingly few basic changes in styles and beliefs. Egyptian emphasis on stability was reflected in their view of a changeless afterlife, suggesting a conscious attempt to argue that persistence was a virtue. Change did, however, occur in some key areas. Egypt was long fairly isolated, which helped preserve continuity. The invasions of Egypt by Palestine toward the end of the Old Kingdom period (about 2200 B.C.) were distinct exceptions to Egypt's usual self-containment. They were followed by attacks from the Middle East by tribes of Asian origin, which brought a period of division and chaos, including rival royal dynasties. But the unified monarchy was reestablished during the Middle Kingdom period, during which Egyptian settlements spread southward into what is now the Sudan, setting origins for the later African kingdom of Kush. Then followed another period of social unrest and invasion, ending in the final great kingdom period, the New Kingdom, around 1570 B.C. During this period trade and other contacts with the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean, including the island of Crete, gained ground. These contacts spread certain Egyptian influences, notably in monumental architecture, to other areas. It was during the New Kingdom that Egyptians first installed formal slavery, subjecting people such as the Jews. It was also in this period that the pharaoh Akhenaton tried to impose a new monotheistic religion, reflecting some foreign influence, but his effort was renounced by his successor Tutankhamen, who restored the old capital city and built a lavish tomb to celebrate the return to the traditional gods. After about 1150 B.C., new waves of invasion and internal conspiracies and disorganization, including strikes and social protest, brought fairly steady decline. It was around this period that one people, the Hebrews, followed their leader Moses out of Egypt and into the deserts of Palestine. Egypt And Mesopotamia Compared The development of two great early civilizations in the Middle East and North Africa encourages a first effort at comparative analysis. Because of different geography, different degrees of exposure to outside invasion and influence, and different prior beliefs, Egypt and Mesopotamia were in contrast to one another in many ways. Egypt emphasized strong central authority, while Mesopotamian politics shifted more frequently over a substructure of regional city-states. Mesopotamian art focused on less monumental structures, while embracing a pronounced literary element that Egyptian art lacked. These cultural differences can be explained partly by geography: Mesopotamians lacked access to the great stones that Egyptians could import for their monuments. The differences also owed something to different politics, for Egyptian ability to organize masses of laborers followed from its centralized government structures and strong bureaucracy. The differences owed something, finally, to different beliefs, for the Mesopotamians lacked the Egyptian concern for preparations for the afterlife, which so motivated the great tombs and pyramids that have made Egypt and some of the pharaohs live on in human memory. Both societies traded extensively, but there was a difference in economic tone. Mesopotamia was more productive of technological improvements, because their environment was more difficult to manage than the Nile valley. Trade contacts were more extensive, and the Mesopotamians gave attention to a merchant class and commercial law. Social differences were less obvious because it is difficult to obtain information on daily life for early civilizations. It is probable, though, that the status of women was greater in Egypt than in Mesopotamia (where women's position seems to have deteriorated after Sumer). Egyptians paid great respect to women at least in the upper classes, in part because marriage alliances were vital to the preservation and stability of the monarchy. Also, Egyptian religion included more pronounced deference to goddesses as sources of creativity. Comparisons in politics, culture, economics, and society suggest civilizations that varied substantially because of largely separate origins and environments. The distinction in overall tone was striking, with Egypt being more stable and cheerful than Mesopotamia not only in beliefs about gods and the afterlife but in the colorful and lively pictures the Egyptians emphasized in their decorative art. Also striking was the distinction in internal history, with Egyptian civilization far less marked by disruption than its Mesopotamian counterpart. Comparison must also note important similarities, some of them characteristic of early civilizations. Both Egypt and Mesopotamia emphasized social stratification, with a noble, landowning class on top and masses of peasants and slaves at the bottom. A powerful priestly group also figured in the elite. While specific achievements in science differed, there was a common emphasis on astronomy and related mathematics, which produced durable findings about units of time and measurement. Both Mesopotamia and Egypt changed only slowly by the standards of more modern societies. Details of change have not been preserved, but it is true that having developed successful political and economic systems there was a strong tendency toward conservation. Change, when it came, was usually brought by outside forces - natural disasters or invasions. Both civilizations demonstrated extraordinary durability in the basics. Egyptian civilization and a fundamental Mesopotamian culture lasted far longer than the civilizations that came later, in part because of relative isolation within each respective region and because of the deliberate effort to maintain what had been achieved, rather than experiment widely. Both civilizations, finally, left an important heritage in their region and adjacent territories. A number of smaller civilization centers were launched under the impetus of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and some would produce important innovations of their own by about 1000 B.C.

Analyze and explain the biological changes, technological changes and expanding range experienced from earliest hominids to homo sapien sapiens from 3.5 million years ago to ten-thousand years ago.

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years. One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years. Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship with another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called "pygmy chimpanzees") and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa. Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them - left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species. Early humans first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. They entered Europe somewhat later, between 1.5 million and 1 million years. Species of modern humans populated many parts of the world much later. For instance, people first came to Australia probably within the past 60,000 years and to the Americas within the past 30,000 years or so. The beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first civilizations occurred within the past 12,000 years.

Analyze and explain the collapse of the Indus River Valley civilization.

Indus Valley Civilization The Indus Valley Civilization was an ancient civilization located in what is Pakistan and northwest India today, on the fertile flood plain of the Indus River and its vicinity. Evidence of religious practices in this area dates back approximately to 5500 BCE. Farming settlements began around 4000 BCE and around 3000 BCE there appeared the first signs of urbanization. By 2600 BCE, dozens of towns and cities had been established, and between 2500 and 2000 BCE the Indus Valley Civilization was at its peak. The Life of the Indus Valley Civilization Two cities have been excavated at the sites of Mohenjo-Daro on the lower Indus, and at Harappa, further upstream. The evidence suggests they had a highly developed city life; many houses had wells and bathrooms as well as an elaborate underground drainage system. The social conditions of the citizens were comparable to those in Sumeria and superior to the contemporary Babylonians and Egyptians. These cities display a well-planned urbanization system. The evidence suggests they had a highly developed city life; many houses had wells and bathrooms as well as an elaborate underground drainage system. There is evidence of some level of contact between the Indus Valley Civilization and the Near East. Commercial, religious, and artistic connections have been recorded in Sumerian documents, where the Indus valley people are referred to as Meluhhaites and the Indus valley is called Meluhha. The following account has been dated to about 2000 BCE: "The Meluhhaites, the men of the black land, bring to Naram-Sin of Agade all kind of exotic wares." (Haywood, p. 76, The Curse of Agade) The Indus Civilization had a writing system which today remains a mystery: all attempts to decipher it have failed. This is one of the reasons why the Indus Valley Civilization is one of the least known of the important early civilizations of antiquity. Examples of this writing system have been found in pottery, amulets, carved stamp seals, and even in weights and copper tablets. Another point of debate is the nature of the relationship between these cities. Whether they were independent city-states or part of a larger kingdom is not entirely clear. Because the writing of the Indus people remains undeciphered and neither sculptures of rulers nor depictions of battles and military campaigns have been found, evidence pointing in either direction is not conclusive. The decline of the Indus Valley Civilization By 1800 BCE, the Indus Valley Civilization saw the beginning of their decline: Writing started to disappear, standardized weights and measures used for trade and taxation purposes fell out of use, the connection with the Near East was interrupted, and some cities were gradually abandoned. The reasons for this decline are not entirely clear, but it is believed that the drying up of the Saraswati River, a process which had begun around 1900 BCE, was the main cause. Other experts speak of a great flood in the area. Either event would have had catastrophic effects on agricultural activity, making the economy no longer sustainable and breaking the civic order of the cities. Around 1500 BCE, a large group of nomadic cattle-herders, the Aryans, migrated into the region from central Asia. The Aryans crossed the Hindu Kush mountains and came in contact with the Indus Valley Civilization. This was a large migration and used to be an invasion, which was thought to be the reason for the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization, but this hypothesis is not unanimously accepted today. Thus, the Indus Valley Civilization came to an end. Over the course of several centuries, the Aryans gradually settled down and took up agriculture. The language brought by the Aryans gained supremacy over the local languages: the origin of the most widely spoken languages today in South Asia goes back to the Aryans, who introduced the Indo-European languages into the Indian subcontinent. Other features of modern Indian society, such as religious practices and caste division, can also be traced back to the times of the Aryan migrations. Many pre-Aryan customs still survive in India today. Evidence supporting this claim includes the continuity of pre-Aryan traditions; practices by many sectors of Indian society; and also the possibility that some major gods of the Hindu pantheon actually originated during the time of the Indus Valley Civilization and were kept "alive" by the original inhabitants through the centuries.

Compare and contrast the social and cultural orders that developed in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt.

The ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures differed in several important ways. To the modern observer, the ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations likely seem very similar. Both had cities, writing, codes of laws, a relatively high standard of living, art, music, religion, literature, meticulous record-keeping and a fairly similar climate. However, they differed in important ways, especially in terms of religion, politics, culture, art, and architecture. Differences in Religion The Mesopotamians considered their temples, or ziggurats, links between heaven and earth. Both ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia were polytheistic, and in both religions, priests played a crucial role, but the two differed in key ways. The approximately 700 gods of ancient Egypt were often personifications of natural forces, such as the sun and the Nile. One important characteristic of ancient Egyptian religion was the Egyptians' veneration of the pharaohs as reincarnated gods. The Egyptians are also famous for their elaborate view of the afterlife. One major difference between the Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions was the "local" or regional quality of the latter; early on in Mesopotamia, specific deities came to be identified with specific locations. Another distinction was the hierarchical division of Mesopotamian deities, with four gods--those of heaven, earth, water, and air-- being the highest creative powers from which all lesser gods derived. Political Differences Ancient Egyptian pharaohs had more power than Mesopotamian kings. Ancient Egypt had a highly centralized government. Its efficient bureaucracy and the pharaohs' exalted position meant that rulers wielded great power over the entire country. The governments of ancient Mesopotamia, in contrast, were more regional in character, with each city having its own government, and they included elements of what we would call democracy. Kings (of city-states) arose as the civilization developed, but elected assemblies had important powers, too, even over the kings. The Mesopotamians also held the law, and "covenants" or contracts, in high regard, as we know from the famous Code of Hammurabi, among other sources. Cultural Differences The ancient Mesopotamian societies were more inventive but less stable and prosperous than Egypt. The cultures of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia were both quite similar and very different; both were predominantly agricultural societies dependent upon rivers--the Nile in Egypt and the Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia. And in both, the vast majority of people were engaged in agriculture, but both also contained sophisticated urbanites, bureaucracies and educated and art classes and traded with other civilizations. The distinctive characteristics of Egyptian culture were a love of stability and order and a certain optimism or confidence, which many scholars attribute to the reliability of the Nile's annual cycle. The centrality of religion in the Egyptian worldview and the development of elaborate hieroglyphic writing were also hallmarks of this civilization. Life in the Mesopotamian city-states was generally more difficult and more uncertain, since, for most of these city-states, the climate, the fluctuating relations with neighboring tribes and cities and the behavior of the rivers were less stable and predictable than in Egypt. Perhaps because of this, the ancient Mesopotamians surpassed the Egyptians in science, especially in technology and innovation. The ancient Mesopotamians' cuneiform alphabet was another important achievement of this civilization. Differences in Art and Architecture The ziggurat, or temple, is the most important artistic achievement of ancient Mesopotamia. The famous architectural achievements of ancient Egypt reflect the highly centralized power, stability and bureaucratic efficiency of a country that could mobilize cheap labor in almost unlimited quantities. They were also made possible by the availability of stone in the region. In addition to their magnificent stone architecture, the ancient Egyptians are known for their invention and use of paper, which they made from the papyrus reeds growing along the Nile. They also created a beautiful array of pottery and painting. The comparatively scattered and diverse character of ancient Mesopotamia and the relative paucity of natural resources meant that Mesopotamia did not rival Egypt in terms of artistic and architectural achievements. Mesopotamian communities did produce sculpture, painting, and pottery, but generally, the art that has survived is smaller and less advanced than that produced in Egypt. Mesopotamia is known, instead, for its cuneiform tablets, its official seals and, above all, its temples. The distinctive beauty of the Mesopotamian ziggurat represents the highest artistic and architectural achievement of this civilization.

Compare and contrast the impact of geography on the development of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.

The ancient river civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt were a significant aspect of our world's development from an uninhabited planet to the cultured society known today. The geographical features of their regions heavily affected how their people lived and their relationship towards other countries. Both ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt used their rivers as important sources of trade and resources. However, the ancient Mesopotamian religion and society were adapted to harsh, warring conditions whereas the ancient Egyptians believed in order and self-sufficiency. Trade was an important responsibility for the Mesopotamian and Egyptian rivers. Both regions were unable to depend on land travel for trade because transport by land was very difficult. Animals such as the camel, donkey, and horse that could carry heavy burdens for long distances weren't introduced until the later period of both civilizations' histories. The ancient people had to rely on their boats and barges in order to communicate and trade with other regions. The Mesopotamians had widespread trade connections throughout the Middle East. Goods such as wood, vegetable oil, and barley were exchanged for cedar, silver, gold, and copper as well as other materials. Because the Tigris and Euphrates rivers traversed a wide variety of different regions, merchants were able to barter and sell their products at different canals and ports the rivers passed through. The ancient Egyptians were known for their infatuation with Nubian gold. They were able to easily access Nubia through the Nile River, which flowed from Nubia and emptied out into the Egyptian delta. Both civilizations depended on their rivers in for transport to different areas in order to trade and exchange goods. The civilizations' geography also impacted what resources they were able to access and what foods they could cultivate. Due to the limited rainfall in both areas, irrigation was a significant advancement that allowed farmers to grow certain crops and produce valuable goods. Remains of the ancient canals and other river constructions built by the early peoples are still around today as proof of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian manipulation of the river's flow. Both civilizations used methods to cultivate the land for important resources that they could later use amongst their people and exchange the surplus for other important goods. Farmers planted crops that could withstand the soil and environment they lived in. Barley was the main cereal grain that ancient Mesopotamia produced because it could withstand the harsher climate and could feed many people. Egypt also farmed many crops well adapted to their soil, especially after the Nile flooded its riverbanks each year. Both civilizations were heavily dependent on their main rivers for important resources such as clay and reeds, which later influenced their system of writing. Ancient Egyptian papyrus reeds were used by their scribes in order to write hieroglyphics, whereas the Mesopotamian pressed sharpened reeds into moist clay in order to write cuneiform. Clay bricks were frequently used to build walls to cities and homes due to their simple structure and wide availability. The land and rivers heavily influenced what resources the ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian resources. The Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations had significantly different religions influenced by the weather conditions and behavior of the rivers in their region. Mesopotamian people were frequently plagued by natural disasters caused by the dangerous and unpredictable rivers. They believed that their harsh and severe gods were responsible for these disasters and sought to placate them.

Compare and contrast the political and economic orders that developed in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt.

What Is a Political Difference Between Mesopotamia & Egypt? Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia were two great civilizations and among the earliest to emerge, starting after 3000 B.C. in the Middle East and North Africa. Both made significant contributions in areas such as mathematics, medicine, agriculture, astronomy, technology, architecture, art, and writing. They had differences as well, including their political structures, most notably that the Egyptians operated under a centralized government and the Mesopotamians had separate, self-controlled city-state governments. Ancient Egyptian Politics Ancient Egyptians were ruled by a pharaoh for most of their history. A pharaoh was a king who was viewed as god-like and possessing magical powers. Many believed the pharaoh could make the waters of the Nile River rise when the land was threatened by drought conditions. Those governed under this centralized rule knelt before the pharaoh when he passed by and were banned from touching him or making eye contact. He owned most of the land, supervised armies, passed laws and oversaw trade. He ruled through a large bureaucracy and his highest ranking assistant was a vizier, who functioned in the manner of prime minister. When a pharaoh was pleased with someone enough to reward him, he did so with gifts of land, treasures and the title of a nobleman. At his death, a pharaoh's son stepped into his position and this is how great dynasties were born. Egyptian history records 30 dynasties. Mesopotamian Politics Mesopotamia was comprised of self-governing city-states, with each one operating as separate political and economic units. Aristocracies emerged, most likely because of disputes over resources, and were made up of kings, their families, and nobility. They owned the majority of land and controlled the highest ranking positions in both government and the military. Though the kings were not considered divine, they did overtake some of the power and authority of religious leaders. Priests, however, cooperated with their governments and owned some of the land and craft shops. Scribes came from noble families and were considered supreme among civil servants. This privileged order was the minority in Mesopotamia. Most of the citizens were considered free, but with the rights of slaves, who had none. Peasants were among the free but could only rent land that belonged to the king or the temple, who required them to relinquish part of their harvests in order to use the property. Role of Women The women of ancient Egypt enjoyed more status, respect and opportunity than those of Mesopotamia did. This was demonstrated politically in that Egypt's bureaucratic system allowed female pharaohs to rule. Respect shown to Egyptian women, at least to those belonging to the upper class, was influenced some by the desire to maintain and continue stable monarchies. Women in Mesopotamia were not granted the same respect and gender equality and were viewed and treated as property. Contributions There was less national unity under Mesopotamia's government structure because city-states struggled with each other for power and control. By contrast, a single pharaoh of ancient Egypt could amass large numbers of citizens to work on projects, such as building the pyramids with architecture and engineering talents that continue to amaze modern day experts. Yet, despite conflicts amongst themselves and their governments, Mesopotamian citizens gave the world an abundance of advanced techniques, such as those used for working with gold, bronze, silver, and lead. Mesopotamia is also credited with giving the world its first writing system.

Use Coatsworth's essay and our class discussions to evaluate the experience of welfare over time.

n England, the term 'welfare state' dates from the 1940s. It has stronger associations of paternalism in American English. How is 'welfare state' translated into German? Conflict exists between the terms and Sozialstaat. The definition as per Briggs is influenced by the events of the 1940s. The history of the 'Origins of the Welfare State' is illustrated by two versions, the British and the German, that indicate differences in periodization and focus, and suggest the influence of political considerations. A brief reference to the Swedish version illustrates the same point. A general history of 'the welfare state,' as distinct from the history of individual welfare states follows. Is it located in the wider context of the history of the state? Points considered are unification of the law, establishment of bureaucracies, elimination or control of intermediate forms of authority, and its characterization by new systems of domination peculiar to it. The role of representative democracy is also considered. The connection with the development of industrial capitalism is analyzed in terms of the problem of 'externalities' as well as the role of combinations and transfer payments, of public provision of goods and services, and of regulation. The history of welfare states since 1945 with a few generalizations is followed by a look at the effect of major changes in the international economy. The article concludes with an examination of recent influences on the historiography of welfare states such as a gender-conscious historiography, welfare state history 'from below,' studying the 'mixed economy of welfare,' and comparative studies. Keywords Mixed economyPublic welfareTransfer paymentWelfare state This article is reproduced from the previous edition, volume 24, pp. 16439-16445, © 2001, Elsevier Ltd., with revisions made by the Editor. The Origin and Use of the Term Welfare State The term was coined in England in the 1940s. It is to be found in Citizen and Churchman (1941) by William Temple, Archbishop of York, where it is contrasted with the Power State or Warfare State. After the publication of the Beveridge Report in 1942, the term soon came to be applied to the hopes for postwar reconstruction and by 1948 was used regularly for the postwar reforms. The meaning of 'welfare' had not suffered the deterioration that had afflicted the word 'charity.' Although Beveridge himself disliked the term for what he called its 'Santa Claus' connotations and preferred the older term 'social service state,' 'welfare state' normally carried a favorable meaning. Welfare had a different set of connotations in American English. 'Public welfare,' as understood in the United States then and since, excluded the elements of social insurance, with its claims to benefit as of right, which was so prominent in the British construction of the term (Lindeman, 1937). 'Welfare state,' once imported from Britain, thus carried a stronger association of paternalism (Skocpol and Ikenberry, 1983). In that respect, Germany was closer to the United States. In the early years of the Federal Republic, when many English terms were naturalized into German, it seemed natural to render 'welfare state' with the similar word Wohlfahrtsstaat. Such similarities can be misleading. Wohlfahrt was associated with charitable gifts, and Wohlfahrtsstaat had acquired a pejorative connotation during the crisis of the Weimar Republic, as when in 1932 Chancellor von Papen accused politicians of the early years of the Weimar Republic of attempting to turn the state into a Wohlfahrtsstaat, and thereby weakening the moral strength of the nation. The Federal Republic wished to return to the Weimar tradition in social policy without falling foul of the associations of the term Wohlfahrtsstaat. One possible course was to use the term in its positive English sense and to resort to Versorgungsstaat to convey the pejorative meaning. The alternative was to revive a nineteenth-century term, Sozialstaat (Ritter, 1989). The issue has never been settled decisively, although Sozialstaat is the more usual. If the term dates from the 1940s, its definition also owes much to the changes of that period. According to Asa Briggs, "A welfare state is a state in which organized power is deliberately used (through politics and administration) in an effort to modify the play of market forces in at least three directions - first by guaranteeing individuals and families a minimum of income irrespective of the market value of their work or their property; second, by narrowing the extent of insecurity by enabling individuals and families to meet certain "contingencies"...; and third, by ensuring that all citizens without distinction of status or class are offered ... a certain agreed range of social services" (Briggs, 1961). These are usually taken to relate at least to medical treatment, housing provision, and education. Briggs added a reference to the best standards available, but it has since been generally accepted that such an aspiration is unrealistic. The 'Origins of the Welfare State' Such an emphasis on the 1940s leaves the historian with the task of relating these innovations to what had gone before, i.e., to consider the 'origins of the welfare state.' Three national examples briefly indicate how differently the origins of the welfare state have been constructed. British Historiography Since 1961, this has operated in terms of the transformation of old institutions by new principles, forged at moments of political crisis (Fraser, 1973). The first of these institutions was the Poor Law, which established the responsibility of each local parish for the relief of the poor (1603) and was reformed in 1834 on more explicitly deterrent lines in response to population growth and agricultural change. The subsequent history has been presented in terms of new social problems caused by industrialization, the Victorian origins of collectivism in public health and factory regulation, the crisis of the Poor Law at the end of the nineteenth century, and the consequent Edwardian legislation (1905-14). This put an end to the possibility of a gradual extension of Poor Law services on a nondeterrent basis and provided for needy and deserving groups in other ways. It introduced free school meals, a school medical service, tax-financed old-age pensions for the poor, and national health and unemployment insurance, supported by a national network of labor exchanges. Alongside these measures, 'New Liberalism' articulated a theoretical justification for state intervention in society and the economy. The scope of this legislation was limited in respect of population covered and of benefits provided, but it has been regarded as having laid 'the foundations of the British welfare state.' The interwar years saw housing provision added to the prewar measures, but social policy responded slowly and piecemeal to economic and social problems. It adapted rapidly once World War II had created new problems and a new spirit of citizenship. The postwar legislation, roughly but far from exactly based on the proposals of the Beveridge Report (1942), universalized national insurance, extended its benefits to cover a greater range of contingencies ('from the cradle to the grave'), and established a mainly tax-financed national health service. This was accompanied by tax-financed child allowances, the extension of housing provision, and free secondary education. Fundamental was a government commitment to a policy of full employment, based to some extent on a belief in the efficacy of Keynesian demand management that was, however, far from unequivocal. The transformation of old social services by new principles of universalism had been presented in the Beveridge report as a characteristic British revolution. Historians followed a similar line, which fitted into the then dominant 'Whiggish' historiography with its emphasis on the continuity of British history and the adaptability of its political leaders. In the influential view of the sociologist T.H. Marshall, the welfare state had achieved the extension of citizen rights from civil rights via political rights in the past to a new body of social rights (Marshall, 1950). The blueprint of the welfare state as established in the 1940s was for a long time presented as a major British contribution to postwar social reconstruction in the wider world. German Historiography This has located the origins not merely of its own welfare state but of the welfare state as such in the establishment of compulsory insurance for workers by the German Empire under Bismarck in the 1880s. It has both emphasized the pioneering role of Germany and the continuity of its insurance institutions despite the drastic political change. This emphasis on the role of Bismarck, notorious for his hostility to the claims of the working-class movement, as the originator of the welfare state has presented historians with the problem of reconciling these two aspects of his policy. Until recently, it was suggested that wooing the workers with the benefits of social policy was an intrinsic aspect of Bismarck's attempt to suppress social democracy. This view had the merit of presenting the welfare state as the achievement of the democratic forces while recognizing that the policies usually were not what these had been demanding. The publication of documents on Bismarck's social policy has cast doubt on this view of his aims and there is a need for reinterpretation (Tennstedt and Winter, 1993; 1995). The transition from the establishment of institutions with limited scope to the conscious acceptance of the people's welfare as an essential object of the state is located by German historiography in the Weimar Republic. It found expression not only in the text of the constitution but also across a range of its institutions, several of which had developed from war-time innovations. Collective bargaining backed by compulsory arbitration, subsidized housing, the preservation of prewar social insurance for both blue- and white-collar workers, and unemployment insurance as part of labor market policy, all suggest that the Weimar Republic was a welfare state in deed as in word. In German history, the breakthrough to the welfare state was therefore achieved not after World War II but after World War I. However, the Weimar welfare state was unable to live up to its expectations (Abelshauser, 1987). The political acceptance of its new role was insufficiently broadly based. As the earlier quotation from von Papen suggests, repudiation of the Weimar Republic in the years of the economic crisis was connected closely with its social policy. Although marginalized and only just saved from drastic changes in 1942, the social insurance system survived the Nazis. In the immediate postwar years of economic ruin, forced migration, and impoverishment, it faced perhaps its greatest test. All accumulated funds had been lost. In the Russian zone of occupation, it was reconstructed radically along lines originally proposed by the left-wing critics of Weimar policy. It was no more sacrosanct in the West. The French quickly followed the Russian example. Drastic British proposals followed, based partly on Social Democratic ideas from the Weimar years, partly on Beveridgean lines. They involved retrenchment and thereby aroused opposition well beyond the threatened vested interests. Opposition rallied around the defense of the Bismarckian inheritance in social insurance, which was presented as one of Germany's proud contributions at a time when the nation badly needed a boost to national self-esteem. With the onset of the Cold War, the proposals were dropped as the Western occupation powers gave priority to working with German public opinion. It was left to the Federal Republic to deal with the problems of funding social security; under CDU leadership the traditional structures were almost completely reinstated. Significant reform was delayed until 1957. In that year, the introduction of the 'dynamic' pension, linked to average wage levels, represented an imaginative response to the problems of the Federal Republic, not just the problem of inflation but also that of the low pension levels, which contrasted sharply with the rising standard of living enjoyed by the working population. At a time when the legitimacy of the Federal Republic was fragile, this pension reform contributed significantly to the acceptance of the regime. In 1958-61, proposals to remodel the sickness insurance system and contain its spiraling costs were defeated. The Bismarckian prototype had acquired a secure political profile. Thus, in the German Federal Republic, the 1940s was a period of defense and restoration. The emphasis on the significance of the Bismarckian reforms for the long-term development of the German welfare state and the tendency to identify it narrowly with contributory social insurance were forged in the political conflicts of those years. This emphasis was reinforced in the early 1980s by the centenary celebrations of the Bismarckian reforms. Much of the German historiography of the welfare state was created in the 1980s (Ritter, 1983, 1986, 1989). These examples indicate that the history of the welfare state has been perceived differently in different countries, in terms of periodization and of emphasis. This reflects not only its actual development in different states but certainly also the political purposes that historiography has served. The Swedish Model These points must be made more briefly for the influential Swedish model of the welfare state. There, it was developments in the 1930s that had the significant long-term effects that they singularly failed to have in Britain or Germany. The expansion of the earlier limited social security provisions took a significantly different form. Unlike Germany, where insurance contributions and benefits differed according to levels of income, Swedish benefits were paid, as in Britain, at a flat rate for all. But they differed from both the German and the British provisions in that retirement pensions and sickness insurance were financed from general taxation. They were set at a level that provided pensioners with an adequate income, something that the British pensions, tied to contributions that even the lowest paid could afford, entirely failed to do. Significant differences between the policies of these three welfare states also extended to industrial relations and taxation. The Swedish welfare state has been presented as the achievement of class mobilization and labor solidarity. Standard accounts have stressed the long period of Socialist-dominated government and cooperation between government and labor organizations in the shaping of labor market policies (Baldwin, 1990). A General History of 'The Welfare State' If it exists at all, the history of the welfare state, as distinct from the history of individual welfare states, must be sought on a higher level of generalization. A welfare state is a state of a certain kind, distinguished from earlier kinds by the addition of a new set of objectives and institutions. Its history must be sought within the wider context of the history of the state. It presupposes the unification of law across the state territory, the establishment of bureaucracies, and the elimination or control of intermediate forms of authority. It is, however, also characterized by new systems of domination, consisting of distributing elites, service bureaucracies, and social clienteles. The process by which these objectives were both established and extended to include the whole nation has been driven by the advent of representative democracy, and it also drew on older concerns to maximize the human resources of the state. In addition, these new state objectives have been connected intimately with the development of modern industrial capitalism. The state became a welfare state because it dealt increasingly with the social consequences of the particular way in which modern industrial capitalism was established. These consequences, often described as externalities, resulted from the narrow definition of the legal obligations of capitalist entrepreneurs, which contrasted greatly with the obligations imposed on entrepreneurs in the older corporatist economy. This emancipation of the entrepreneur was a deliberate act of state policy, undertaken in the interest of increasing 'the wealth of nations' and thus the power of states over against other states. It undoubtedly had that effect. Enterprise took new and unforeseen forms once it was freed from old regulations. To limit obligations toward workers to the short-term purchase of their labor power, toward the community to the payment of local taxes, and to resort to competition without responsibility for those driven out of the market, all this encouraged innovation and facilitated capital accumulation. But it created problems that resulted from economic decisions while being external to the economic process. Combinations and/or Transfer Payments These problems could be dealt with in at least two ways. (1) By combination, intended to limit free competition over wages, or to pool the economic resources of individuals, or both (trade unions and mutual aid societies). To what extent that was possible depended on the attitude of the state and on the capacity of individuals for the organization. (2) By state action in whatever territorial units - national, provincial, or local - it exercised its power. That meant taxation and a limited redistribution of the resources originally distributed by the market. The administrative capacity that made it possible to introduce graduated taxes and differential tax allowances as instruments of redistribution is an important aspect of this history. The legalization of combinations to increase wages, in turn, made it increasingly possible for individuals to satisfy their needs through the market, thereby creating opportunities for new kinds of enterprise. The legalization of mutual aid associations created structures of redistribution, which could operate as alternatives to the bureaucratic structures of the state. In countries in which the development of bureaucracy had not advanced far, or where it was viewed with mistrust, subsidies from taxes became a way of making mutual associations more effective. Such subsidies were not unconditional but subjected the association to a greater or lesser degree of control. An extreme example of such control was the compulsory establishment of combinations on the order of the state, such as the German sickness funds and trade associations to administer accident insurance. The higher the level in the administrative hierarchy on which the state operated to redistribute resources, the greater the degree of uniformity it could impose. Goods and Services So far, the focus has been mainly on the redistributive role of the welfare state. The problem of externalities has also been addressed by the public provision of goods and services, which the market supplied only in ways deemed politically unacceptable. Such goods and services, considered necessary for the common good as politically defined, have included the infrastructure of public health, the provision of healthy and environmentally approved housing, of medical treatment, and of schools, but this list is far from exhaustive. Here, too, subsidies could take the place of full state provision, e.g., in respect of houses, food, or schools. Regulation Since externalities had been allowed to arise because the state had regulated the conditions of production in minimal ways, it also began to introduce new regulations. Under such regulations, the market was permitted to supply goods and services only on conditions acceptable to the state. Instead of providing housing, the state regulated the conditions of tenancies. Instead of running its own schools, it regulated and inspected those provided by other bodies. And, as in Thatcherite Britain, it regulated the sanitary infrastructure while relying on the market to provide it. Such regulation could be accompanied by subsidies. However, such regulation suffers from the same considerations that applied to the general conditions of production in the first place. By regulating the actions of the market, the state is liable to hinder innovation and to make the market an inefficient mechanism for economic growth. Finally, the state has been able to regulate the economy itself in such a way as to minimize externalities. Examples are the state regulation of wages and the regulation of the economy so as to reduce cyclical fluctuations. At all stages of this process, the question has to be faced whether the object is being achieved at the cost of economic innovation and efficiency. For that reason, there are limits to what regulation can achieve. A radical alternative has been for the state to take over the running of the total economy. That rules out a welfare state, defined as a state that modifies the play of market forces, and it creates a state so different that it is better not to describe it as a welfare state. That is not to deny, however, that 'communist' states provide social services and organize transfer payments in the interest of social security. This article does not deal with the history of states with a command economy, confining itself to the history of what is sometimes called the liberal welfare state. Even there the importance of the welfare elements of the state can vary according to the extent to which entrepreneurs did in practice externalize their costs. Where company welfare was built into the entrepreneurial ethic, as in Japan, state expenditure on social security has been restricted compared with other advanced industrial countries. The History of Welfare States since 1945 Despite this attempt and others (Flora and Heidenheimer, 1982) to construct explanatory models of the welfare state as a general phenomenon of European and subsequently extra-European history, the established tradition of nation-state history has led historians to study developments both before and after 1945 in terms of individual states. They have given prominence to the political circumstances under which social policy was constructed and emphasized the importance of national traditions. Some few generalizations across countries are feasible. Thus, the experience of the 1930s had demonstrated that institutions of social security were seriously vulnerable to periods of mass unemployment. Such periods greatly increased the demands for transfer payments, while also reducing the income from which these were made. This was particularly true of contributory insurance, and it also applied to finance from general taxation. This lesson had been learned, and in the 1940s, the macroeconomic policy became a policy component of every state, whether it had passed through the experience of a war economy or, like Sweden, had not. In some countries, this period saw major reforms and extensions in social security, as in Britain, France, and Sweden. In others, major reforms had to wait until the 1960s and early 1970s after the restructuring of the economy had yielded its rewards, as in The Netherlands and Italy. Even where significant legislative innovation occurred in the immediate postwar years, subsequent expansion of the economy provided the setting for a period of further change in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, the most convincing historical generalizations that can be made about the welfare states since 1945 refer to the effect of major changes in the international economy. A long period of economic recovery in Europe led by the 1960s to a remarkable growth in national income. This in turn both raised expectations and facilitated the introduction of more generous provisions. Levels of benefits were raised, flat-rate pensions complemented by graduated ones that mirrored differences in original earnings and appealed to the better off, while those disadvantaged by or excluded from earnings-based insurance systems received compensatory entitlements. By contrast, the setback to economic expansion in the mid-1970s, triggered by the oil price crisis, caused a fall in employment, except where special measures for job creation had been implemented (as in Sweden). This, in turn, led to rises in social security payments and falls in the revenue available for the purpose. Steady increases in the gross national product, which had spurred ambitious changes in entitlements in the previous decade and a half, could no longer be assumed. Nor had recent rapid growth in social expenditure been due only to deliberate changes in entitlement. It had also been caused by such demographic, cultural, and technological changes as an increase in the proportion of the elderly, a rise in single-parent families, and the growing cost of medical treatment. To the fiscal crisis that occurred in every country sooner or later, even in Sweden, was added a crisis of belief in the assumptions on which welfare states had been based. Yet these assumptions had been deeply implanted in the citizens, and many vested interests created. Measured by the radical debate that broke out, the actual changes in welfare states were not great, even in Great Britain, where the call for the rolling back of the state had been loudest. Historiography of Welfare States There are several ways in which the original traditions of welfare state history have been modified. A Gender-Conscious Historiography Just as the feminist movement has since the 1960s exerted a political influence on the agenda of policy making itself, so it has also changed historical perceptions. Feminist historians have highlighted the way in which social policies were shaped by assumptions about the gender divisions of labor, power, and social responsibility. They have shown how little the basic assumption that each adult woman was dependent on a male earner was borne out in reality. Contributory insurance, with entitlements dependent on the performance of waged labor over most of the adult life span, had been at the center of welfare state history. It looked very different through the eyes of feminist historians, but these have not merely confined themselves to criticism. By drawing attention to policies in support of motherhood, they have reconstructed the outlines of welfare state history (Pedersen, 1993; Koven and Michel, 1993). By making historians more aware of the implications of gender, this emphasis has yet unrealized potentials. Male roles, once so taken for granted as to be largely invisible to historians, have in turn become objects of historical study. Welfare State History 'from Below' The history of social policy traditionally has been written through the eyes of 'policy makers' and administrators, and occasionally of political philosophers, trade union officials, and radical politicians, authority figures all. Welfare state history has been particularly resistant to the search for history as experienced by those without power and influence. Yet the construction of social policy and its administration is that of a relationship, in which the recipients of 'benefits' are at least half the story. Like all forms of history from below, attempts to recreate their experience has been hindered by their inarticulacy, at least in forms that have survived as records. But once historians search, they are able to find evidence, not merely for recent times but also at least in England going back well into the past (Lees, 1998; Vincent, 1991). Studying the 'Mixed Economy of Welfare' One result of paying more attention to the lives of the poor has been to downgrade the importance of state provisions and to draw attention to the mixture of resources that made up the economy of the poor. Since public authorities frequently did not intend to provide those in need with a full subsistence - and, when they did, were not good at judging the amount required - this should be unsurprising. It has made this history less state-centered (Katz and Sachsse, 1996; Thane, 2000). This trend has been reinforced by a change of social policy in several countries in the 1980s, Britain and the United States in particular. The replacement of direct state provision of services by contractual relationships with charities and profit-making providers has given prominence to the concept of the 'mixed economy of welfare.' Third, at a time when the clients of the welfare state are drawn from all citizens, contemporary studies of social policies have come to pay attention to the mixture of resources at the disposal of citizens, particularly of the elderly, whether these were from public, occupational, or commercial sources. Since that mixture differs in different countries, comparative studies have moved from an exclusive preoccupation with state provision toward a concept of welfare regimes more broadly defined (Esping-Andersen, 1990). The influence of comparative studies by social scientists on historiography is the final issue to be considered. Comparative Studies The historical study of welfare states was for a long time overparticularized. Attempts to identify categories suited for generalizations were left to social scientists specializing in the quantitative analysis of policy outcomes. This has been a dynamic field of study since the 1970s, but it developed in a particularly ahistorical form. One reason was its dependence on information provided by such international agencies as the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Little of this went further back than the 1960s so that the historical perspective was limited. Second, the questions asked and the explanatory power of the answers provided was constrained by the availability of such quantitative evidence, which was at first largely limited to figures of expenditure. The narrowness of these comparative studies was only slowly overcome as new evidence became available, e.g., the Luxembourg Income Study in the 1980s, which provided internationally comparable income-distribution data at the microlevel, and as researchers began to approach national governments and other agencies directly to construct their own database. Third, the choice of appropriate categories for comparison across different national contexts is notoriously difficult and not always successful. Evidence of this kind was, in any case, unable to provide explanations that advanced beyond the discovery of correlations. Intentions were ignored, because unsuited to standardization, and important dimensions of history were thereby ruled out of court. The most important result of these correlations was to group welfare state regimes into three main types: liberal, corporatist, and social democratic. It is more obvious that these describe ideal types than that they describe clearly differentiated clusters of indicators. Australians have demurred at the inclusion of their country in the same category as the United States; Germans have felt unhappy at being grouped with Italy and France, and the case of Britain is recognized widely as a hybrid. It is certainly not possible to write anything like a common history of the several welfare states grouped into any one of these types, with the possible exception of the four social democratic ones, whom all happen to be Scandinavian. Yet, by their very limitations, comparative empirical studies have helped to identify so-called anomalies and to encourage the intensive historical investigations of individual cases (Castles, 1989, which includes Japan and Israel). The gulf between the social scientific and the historical study of welfare states has narrowed, as indicated by sharply focused comparative histories of pensions and of public health or by a five-volume history of individual welfare states addressing similar questions and written on a common editorial plan (Baldwin 1990, 1999; Flora, 1986/2000).