Egypt and Mesoamerican civilizations.
What is distinctive and what is shared by the ancient complex societies of Egypt and Mesoamerica? How would you explain the similarities you see? What could account for the differences you note?
To answer these questions effectively you will need to consider geography and environment, economic developments, social structures, political arrangements, and cultural ideas and interactions, among other things.
Your answer should be around 2000 words double-spaced with one-inch margins).
You can cite Epic of Gilgamesh any peer reviewed articles and Traditions and Encounters textbook by Jerry H. Bentley (ISBN10 0077504909. ) as well.
Sample Solution
The ancient complex societies of Egypt and Mesoamerica share many similarities, though there are also significant differences. Geographically, Egypt is located in the northern-eastern corner of Africa while Mesoamerica is situated in Central America (Kolb & Sorenson 2016). Both regions had access to rich natural resources such as fertile lands for agriculture and seasonal water sources. Economically, both civilizations developed hierarchical social structures with powerful monarchs controlling vast wealth (Hamblin 2017). They both used a barter based economic system that was supplemented by centralized taxes collected from citizens (Kolb & Sorenson 2016). Socially, they both developed their own distinctive religious rituals and practices which served as an important source of social cohesion (Hamblin 2017). Politically, they each employed a stratified royal caste system where kings or pharaohs held ultimate authority over the masses (Kolb & Sorenson 2016). Culturally, they shared many common elements such as art forms like sculpture and painting, although some regional variations were present depending on local traditions (Hamblin 2017). In terms of interactions between civilizations, both societies engaged in trade with distant empires, exchanging goods for prestige materials like gold or jadeite. Additionally, there were cultural exchanges between them where ideas about religion and government could be adopted or adapted for use within their respective communities(Mitchell et al., 2020).
regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it's anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are 'recoded' and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller's unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pieces of data that can be put away in prompt (present moment) memory, how much data inside every one of those lumps can be very high, without unfavorably influencing the review of similar number