Document Based Question (DBQ) An evaluation of your ability to formulate and support an answer from documentary evidence.

Thesis – 1 point The thesis must include both Han and Roman attitudes toward technology with correct qualification of each empire. The thesis does NOT have to include a comparison of Han and Roman attitudes. “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. “Throughout China there was a majority appreciation of technology advancement with a few against it, while in the Roman empire, the view were split between support and pessimistic.” “One such division of attitudes is visible between the Roman and Han empires; where Han officials appreciated the utility, benefits and importance of almost all technology (including craft technology), Roman officials appreciated primarily civil technology while considering the work and technology of craftsmen to be vulgar.” “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 of labor and technology to be low.”

Grouping in 3 ways – 1 point Explicitly address the question (attitude) by grouping in three ways, ie. type(s) of technology, pro and con technology, role(s) of government with respect to technology, by class, philosophers vs. officials Noting the Han documents (Doc 1-4) and or the Roman documents (5-8) will NOT count as groupings, BUT noting Han or Roman officials and Han or Roman upper classes as groups as acceptable. Common Groupings: Docs 1 & 4 (water), Docs 3&4 (enlightened leaders), Docs 5 & 7 (negative Roman attitudes), Docs 6 & 8 (positive Roman attitudes)

Additional document – 1 point Identify an appropriate additional type of document or source and explain how the document or source will contribute to an analysis of Han and Roman attitudes toward technology. Missing POVs –Documents by women to explore whether there are similarities or differences in Han/Roman attitudes according to gender –Documents by workers to explore attitudes of those classes who might be most affected by various technologies or those classes who would do the physical implementation of a new technology –Documents regarding the economic effects of technologies to help explain the positive/negative attitudes “This is only the opinion of the upper-class (referring to Docs 5 & 7). An additional document explaining the view of a craftsman about new tools would provide a balance of opinions.” “Perhaps an additional document from an actual worker who has been working on the labor of agriculture their whole life would be helpful to determine their feelings of how important technology is to them and how they wish for a toll to relieve most of the work for them.”

Sample Paragraph Controlling water was important in both the Han dynasty and the Roman Empire (Docs 1 and 8). Han officials in the second century believed water conservation offices and hydraulic engineers should work together to prevent flooding (Doc 1). The writer requested the establishment of “water conservation offices in each district”, and “ inspections of waterways, walls”, etc along with necessary repairs (Doc 1). The Romans also used water engineering, aqueducts, to supply the cities with water (Doc 8). Frontinus bragged about the abundance of water for “public and private uses (Doc 8).” Both the Roman and the Han official want to use technology to control water for the benefit of the citizens. As a water commissioner, the writer of document 8 only talks about the positives of the water system, perhaps as a way of making himself look good in the eyes of his superiors. An additional document from a common citizen of Rome describing how aqueducts positively affect their life would support Frontinus, who only provides an official government point of view.