Karen Fernandez
AP World History
Period 2
September 15, 2014
Han and Roman Attitudes Toward Technology
During the classical period in history, the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire both had
advancements in technological innovations. The Romans are widely known for their
architectural developments such as roads and aqueducts while the Hans developed water
systems and advanced tools. Influenced by their stricter policies of social organization, the
Romans marveled at the beauty of their advancements but did not acknowledge those who
produced the technology that was used. On the other hand, the Hans deeply appreciated and
emphasized the importance of technology in their society to prevent disasters.
After analyzing the documents one, two, and four, these documents show that Han
government officials viewed technology as widely beneficial for society. For example, in the
report on water conservation (Document 1) by a government official, the significance of Han
water systems is stated as the official orders local officials to meet the requirements of
establishing workers who inspection the waterways to prevent floods. This document reveals
how the government had hydraulic engineers and used technology to build canals and pools.
Since this document is written by a government official, this reveals that they believed
technology was very important and necessary to provide safety for the people. In addition,
Document 2 expresses the belief of the author, Huan Guan who believes that functional tools
are necessary to carry out every day jobs. Huan Guan is a Han official who reflects upon the
sub-standard tools being provided from the government to workers since the state
monopolized salt and iron trades. Since Han officials had Confucian values, Huan Guan
explains his ideals that a good government has to provide functional tools and that brittle,
dysfunctional tools reflect badly upon the government. In the government sponsored
historical account of Tu Shih (Document 4) Tu Shih’s helpful technological advancements that
created less labor for people are presented. This document reveals Tu Shih’s love for common
people led him to develop a water-powered-blowing-engine to aid in their labor and how as
governor he created peaceful policies. Although this document is biased because it is
government sponsored, it reveals people’s thoughts that rulers were superior and provided
better tools to save people from much labor.
Documents five, six, and eight show that high-ranking Roman officials do not
acknowledge workers and the tools used but merely believe that any advancement should be
both marvelous and beautiful. For example, Document 5 presents a Roman political leader,
Cicero, and his belief that those who work with their hands are “vulgar” and becoming a
craftsman is not a fit occupation for gentlemen. This document reveals Cicero’s thoughts on
the little importance of lower classes, which although work to create tools, are not as
important in society as the thinkers such as him. This document shows that high-ranking
officials looked down upon craftsmen while thinking that only common people work with
their hands and believed that earning a living from crafts degrades a man’s status.
Furthermore, in Plutarch’s description of Gaius Gracchus, a Roman political leader,
(Document 6) he presents Gaius as a magnificent leader who carried out road building
throughout the empire. Plutarch explains Gaius’s wonderful job in creating beautiful roads
that were paved with stone and had many amenities. Plutarch, a high official, gave a glowing
report about the beauty of the roads built under Gaius’s supervision but does not talk about
the workers who constructed the roads or the tools used by them which exemplifies Romans’
belief that advancements such be beautiful while not acknowledging the workers labor or
their tools. Document 8 is very similar to document 6 because they were both written around
the same time in the first century C.E. by high-ranking officials. Frontinus, the author, had
many high-ranking positions within the Roman Empire that influenced him to marvel at the
Roman’s development of aqueducts. In his report, he provides detailed information about
aqueducts and how they provided abundant water distributed to distant and various regions.
Since this document was written by an official with a high position within the empire, he also
gives a glowing report of the Roman’s beneficial advancement of aqueducts showing Rome’s
superior technology over Greek and Egyptian works without glorifying those who work with
tools.
Han and Roman philosophers had very different views and attitudes toward technology
as evidenced by documents three and seven. In Document 3 by Huan Tan, a philosopher, he
explains Fuxi, a wise, mythological emperor, who invented the pestle and mortar which was
very beneficial to society. Huan Tan’s report reveals his strong admiration for the wise
emperor by expressing how helpful Fuxi’s invention was. This document shows that
philosophers believed that technology was a gift from enlightened emperors who could
create and improve upon technology to increase its efficiency. Besides document 3,
Document 7 was also written by a philosopher, Seneca, who advised the Roman emperor
during the first century C.E. In his report, Seneca expresses his indifference towards tools for
the crafts and the inventors of such tools. Since this was written by a Roman philosopher, it
depicts the class-divided society of the Roman Empire by differentiating people who make
technology and the thinkers, those who are enlightened.
To further analyze the attitudes of the Hans and Romans toward technology, an
additional document reflecting the views of laborers working with new technology would be
beneficial in understanding their attitudes because all of these documents reflect only the
views of government officials. The opinion of a common worker would be very useful because
it would provide a balance of opinions and it allows readers to understand how common
laborers felt towards or regarded new technology. In addition, a document stating the
emperor or ruler would also aid in comprehending the attitudes of Hans and Romans toward
technology. The document could provide the reader information of how the ruler viewed
technological advancements. Whether creating new tools, roads, or aqueducts was helpful or
beneficial in the development of a healthy and prosperous society.
After deeply analyzing the eight documents, it is clear that Roman officials glorified their
technological advancements while refusing to acknowledge those who work with tools while
Han official saw technology as very important and beneficial for the development of a
prosperous society. Documents one, two, and four presented the Han officials’ views of
technology being necessary and required in society. In documents five, six, and eight, highranking Roman officials expressed negative attitudes toward those who work with tools by
stating that becoming craftsmen degrades a man’s status. Roman and Han philosophers had
very different outlooks on technology as evidenced by documents three and seven in which a
Han philosopher sees technology as innovative and constructive for society while a Roman
philosopher strongly differentiates those who create tools and thinkers by showing a
pessimistic attitude. To further comprehend Han and Roman attitudes toward technology,
documents reflecting the views of common workers and rulers would be very useful.
Technological advancements were developed during the Han and Roman rule but attitudes
toward technology strongly differed in these two empires.