

Using the documents, analyze Han and
Roman attitudes toward technology.
Identify one additional type of document and
explain briefly how it would help your
analysis.
For each document, you need to ask yourself
what attitude toward technology is being
conveyed.
SUBJECT
Han official is ordering local officials on how to organize their
labor force with use of technology in order to prevent disaster
from floods
OCCASION
China, early 2nd century B.C.E.
AUDIENCE
Local Han officials
PURPOSE
To make sure the government is maintaining public works
and controlling floods
To convey idea that technology is essential part of empire
and requires government intervention
SPEAKER
TONE
Han government official
Shows concern for people and property; gives the impression
that technology is there to aid the Chinese (urgent,
straightforward/organized)
SUBJECT
Huan Guan is writing about the problems that lack of
technology and poor government policy is having on the people
OCCASION
China, first century B.C.E.
AUDIENCE
Government officials
PURPOSE
To advise the government that their policies (using convict
labor to make tools and monopoly on salt and iron) has had
devastating effects on the people
Also, to let the Han government know that it is their job to
rectify the situation and improve the available technologies
SPEAKER
Huan Guan, Han government official
TONE
Critical of recent government policies
SUBJECT
Huan Tan is listing the progress of technology after the
emperor’s first invention.
OCCASION
China, about 20 C.E.
AUDIENCE
Educated, mostly upper class Chinese; government
PURPOSE
To show the benefits that technology has provided to the
Chinese people
SPEAKER
Huan Tan, upper-class Han philosopher
TONE
Shows appreciation for the benefits of technology. Attitude
that technology is a “gift” from enlightened emperors.
The mortar is a bowl,
typically made of hard
wood, ceramic or stone.
The pestle is a heavy
club-shaped object, the
end of which is used for
crushing and grinding.
SUBJECT
Stating how Tu Shih, a Han governor, cared for the Chinese
people and used technology to benefit them
OCCASION
China, about 200 C.E.
AUDIENCE
People who might be losing faith in the Han Dynasty
PURPOSE
To glorify the actions of the early Han dynasty and show how
effective their inventions were in minimizing human labor
SPEAKER
Someone hired by the government (“government
sponsored”)
TONE
Shows appreciation for the accomplishments of the Han
dynasty; glorifies them
SUBJECT
Cicero is stating that the jobs of craftsmen and hired workers
that work with hands are “vulgar” and unbecoming; says
that gentlemen do not work with their hands
OCCASION
Italy, 1st century B.C.E.
AUDIENCE
Other upper class men
PURPOSE
To distinguish between quality professions and vulgar
professions
SPEAKER
Cicero, upper class Roman political leader
TONE
Lacks respect for inventions and inventors (craftsmen);
technology is necessary, but not for enlightened minds
SUBJECT
Plutarch is explaining Gaius Gracchus’ road building enterprises
with special attention to their usefulness and aesthetics
OCCASION
Roman Empire, 1st century C.E.
AUDIENCE
Other upper class men
PURPOSE
To show that the Roman upper class did appreciate technology
that benefitted the upper class (no mention of how commoners
benefitted; designed roads to specifically help those with
horses)
SPEAKER
Plutarch, Greek born Roman citizen
TONE
Shows appreciation for the usefulness and aesthetics of Roman
roads
Shows admiration for Gracchus’ hard work in road building
SUBJECT
Seneca is stating that it takes someone nimble and sharp to
make inventions, but these craftsmen are not the greatest
minds of his day
OCCASION
Roman Empire, 1st century C.E.
AUDIENCE
Other upper class men
PURPOSE
To differentiate between those who work with hands and those
that work with minds
SPEAKER
Seneca, upper-class Roman philosopher and advisor to emperor
Nero
TONE
Lacks respect for craftsmen (degrades their achievements and
abilities)
Not concerned about hammers and tongs because as an
upperclassmen, he would never use them
SUBJECT
Frontinus praises Roman aqueducts and their uses in the city of
Rome. He describes its intelligent design and how it benefits
the public
OCCASION
Roman Empire, 1st century C.E.
AUDIENCE
Other Roman officials (so they can see that he is doing a good
job as water commissioner)
PURPOSE
To glorify Roman aqueducts and their numerous benefits; to
show Roman superiority over Egyptians and Greeks
SPEAKER
Frontinus, Roman general, governor of Britain, and water
commissioner
TONE
Shows pride for Roman aqueducts and appreciates their
practical and aesthetic nature
(keep in mind, he is the water commissioner for Rome – his job
and income depends on the aqueducts)

Designed to test your ability to work with and
understand historical documents. You must write an
essay that:
 Has a relevant thesis and supports that thesis with




evidence from the documents
Uses all of the documents
Analyzes the documents by grouping them in as many
appropriate ways as possible. Does not simply summarize
the documents individually
Takes into account the sources of the documents and
analyzes the author’s point of view
Identifies and explains the need for at least one additional
type of document


Using the documents, analyze Han and
Roman attitudes toward technology.
Identify one additional type of document and
explain briefly how it would help your
analysis.
For each document, you need to ask yourself
what attitude toward technology is being
conveyed.


Formulate a thesis statement
Make your groupings
 Normally 3 groupings, but for this essay can do 2
 Groupings decide organization of body
paragraphs

Decide on a missing voice - who would
provide better insight on Han and Roman
attitudes about technology

For 1 point, you need an acceptable thesis

Although the Han and Roman attitudes
toward technology are different is some way,
they are also alike.
 Unacceptable thesis – merely restates the
question and is too vague

In the Han and Roman empires, technology
had the potential to elevate the standard of
life, improve availability of water, make life
easier with new tools, and make the cities
more pleasing to live in.
 Unacceptable thesis – summarizes the potential
usefulness of technology, but does not address
Han and Roman attitudes toward technology

As the creation of technology expanded, both
the Han and Roman governments expressed
their attitudes based on their encounters with
technology.
 Unacceptable thesis – does not explain what the
attitudes were.

Government officials, common people, and
philosophers all contributed to Han and
Roman attitudes toward technology. Each
empire held different views.
 Unacceptable thesis – does not explain what the
attitudes were.

The Han and Romans both felt technology was
important. It created water systems which
provided fresh water at a time when water was
scarce and minimized human labor which
increased efficiency. However they had different
attitudes toward technology. The Hans
respected technology and those who created it
and they paid attention to the needs of the
commoners. The Romans felt working with your
hands was vulgar and minimized the importance
of technology and those who used it.

Throughout China, there was a majority
appreciation of technological advancement
with a few against it, while in the Roman
empire, the view was split between support
and pessimism.
 Acceptable thesis – Not especially strong, but
meets criteria

The Han dynasty was proud of the efficiency
and quality of their tools, as well as their
ability to use technology to prevent natural
disasters. On the other hand, the Romans
marveled at their civilizations technological
advancements, yet scorned those who made
a living working with tools and crafts.
 Acceptable thesis – excellent thesis with
qualitative analysis

The Han dynasty emphasized efficiency in
their tools, as well as using technology to
prevent natural disasters. The Romans,
however, marveled at their civilization’s
advancements, yet refused to glorify those
who work with tools and crafts.
 Acceptable thesis – This better characterizes each
empire’s attitude toward technology, along with
comparing the two empires’ attitudes (which is
not required)

Han China’s attitude toward manufacturing
and labor was more open and positive than
the Romans who had a more systematic and
class divided society, therefore causing
general attitudes toward labor and
technology to be low.
 Acceptable Thesis – This thesis summarizes,
compare the differences in attitude, and even
analyzes reasons behind those differences.
(Eligible for expanded core)


For 1 point, analyzes documents by grouping
them in at least two ways
Note that a single document cannot be a
“group” but a single document can belong to
more than one group




Social class of author
Philosophers vs. officials
Pro-technology vs. con-technology
Role of government in relation to technology

The Hans respected technology and those who
created it and they paid attention to the needs of
the commoners. The Romans felt working with
your hands was vulgar and minimized the
importance of technology and those who used it.

The Han Dynasty demonstrated an
appreciation for technology and utilized it to
make society run more efficiently. In
addition, they felt it was the government’s
role to ensure that adequate technology was
provided for the common people.
SUBJECT
Han official is ordering local officials on how to organize their
labor force with use of technology in order to prevent disaster
from floods
OCCASION
China, early 2nd century B.C.E.
AUDIENCE
Local Han officials
PURPOSE
To make sure the government is maintaining public works
and controlling floods
To convey idea that technology is essential part of empire
and requires government intervention
SPEAKER
TONE
Han government official
Shows concern for people and property; gives the impression
that technology is there to aid the Chinese (urgent,
straightforward/organized)

During the early 2nd century B.C.E., a Han
government official organized his labor force
to use technology to prevent floods. (Doc. 1)

During the early 2nd century B.C.E., a Han
government official organized his labor force
to use technology to prevent floods. (Doc. 1)
He shows concern for the common people
and conveys the idea that technology is an
essential part of the empire and requires
government intervention.

The Han dynasty was proud of the efficiency
and quality of their tools, as well as their
ability to use technology to prevent natural
disasters. On the other hand, the Romans
marveled at their civilizations technological
advancements, yet scorned those who made
a living working with tools and crafts.
 Acceptable thesis – excellent thesis with
qualitative analysis


For 1 point, you need to address all the
documents and demonstrates understanding
of all or all but one
Listing the documents separately or listing
the documents as part of a group does not
sufficiently demonstrate an understanding of
basic meaning


Rather than trying to state a document’s
meaning, you should use your understanding
of the document to make an argument or
conclusion.
One’s correct understanding of a document’s
meaning will be clear when using that
document to make an argument.

For 2 points, you need to support thesis with
appropriate evidence from all or all but one
document (7 or 8 documents)
 For 1 of these 2 points, you need to support
thesis with appropriate evidence from 6
documents


Don’t start sentences or paragraphs with
“Document #___ says”
Doing this is setting yourself up for a
summary or paraphrasing of a document

Huan Guan, a Han government official during
the first century B.C.E., was concerned about
the problems that lack of technology and
poor government policy was having on the
people. (Doc. 2)

Huan Guan embodies the Confucian Han view
that technology is good, as long as the
government uses technology to benefit the
people. Crude or brittle tools are of no help,
and reflect poorly on the government.

This is interesting because although you
would expect a Han government official to
praise the current government and its
decisions, Huan Guan is instead opposed to
the current government and shows concern
for the peasants.


Think about the author
 Background – class, gender, ethnicity,
occupation
 Why would this person have the POV
expressed?
Think about the place and time period?
 What is going on in that place during that
time that would influence the author’s
POV?


For 1 point, analyzes point of view in at least
4 documents
To analyze POV:
 Explains why a particular person has particular
opinion
 You can do this by considering or explaining tone,
background of author, intended audience, etc.


For 1 point, identifies and explains the need
for one type of additional document
Must explain how this missing document
would help contribute to an analysis of Han
and/or Roman attitudes toward technology

Once your body paragraphs with analysis of
groupings are complete, add paragraph for
the missing voice (what additional document
would have been beneficial to include?)
 A point of view that is not represented that would
aid in the discussion of Han and Roman attitudes
toward technology would be from that of…
 Background/context
 During the Classical era, the Han
Empire of China and the Roman
Empire of the Mediterranean World
were technologically advanced
civilizations.
 Thesis
Topic sentence (what characteristics do these
documents share and how does that support the
thesis?)
 Evidence Doc #1 (how does document support
topic/thesis?)
 POV/Analysis
 Evidence Doc #2 (how does document support
topic/thesis?)
 POV/Analysis
 Evidence Doc #3 (how does document support
topic/thesis?)
 POV/Analysis


You must paraphrase the document and then cite it
 (Doc. #____)

Use the Author and the Name of the Work to refer
to a document
 John Smith in his book The History of the World said…

Never write “In Document One…”



Reword your thesis and give a summation of
your argument
Do analyze
Do not cite documents