Attitudes Towards Animals In Neolithic And Assyrian Times Essays

Attitudes Towards Animals in Neolithic and Assyrian Times Attitudes Towards Animals in Neolithic and Assyrian Times Animals have been viewed differently by different cultures. This is evident when comparing the wall painting of a deer hunt from the Neolithic period (Gardner, 38) and the reliefs of Ashurbanipal hunting lions and the dying lions from the Assyrian dominated period of the ancient near east (Gardner, 56). The deer hunt scene, painted at Catal Huyuk c. 5750 BC, depicts several humans hunting two large deer and one small deer. The reliefs, sculpted at Nineveh c. 650 BC, consist of King Ashurbanipal sitting in a chariot and shooting several lions with his bow and arrow, and a close-up view of a dying lioness that has been shot three times by arrows but is still trying to move. The deer hunt scene shows that prehistoric people had more respect for animals than the Assyrian people did partly because the Neolithic people felt that magic was needed to help with their hunting. The two works also show that there was a large difference in the technology of these two cultures. In addition the Assyrians would sometimes hunt for sport, while the Neolithic people would hunt only out of necessity for food. The deer hunt scene shows the animals as being stronger than humans, while the lion hunt scene shows the animals as being weak as compared to King Ashurbanipal. The two adult deer are much larger than any of the humans in the first scene. Humans are usually slightly taller than most deer, but here the deer are drawn about twice as tall as the humans. It also takes several humans with weapons to hunt the deer. In the lion scene, all of the lions have been killed or injured by arrows. The only person in the scene with a bow and arrows is King Ashurbanipal. It is apparent that he has shot all of the lions himself, showing his superior strength over the lions. In prehistoric times, cave paintings of hunting scenes served magical purposes: "By confining them (animals) to the surface of their cave walls, the prehistoric hunters may have believed that they were bringing the animals under their control" (Gardner, 28). Also, the humans on the left of the wall painting don't seem to be directly involved in the hunt, as the deer are on the right side. It appears that they are doing some sort of dance, possibly a magical dance to help the hunters. Prehistoric people respected and feared animals so much that they felt that they needed magic to help defeat them. In contrast, the Assyrians have no magical references in their hunting scenes. Simple brute force is used to kill the lions, displaying the power of King Ashurbanipal. The lions have little or no chance of survival in this scene. The humans in their high perch are in no real danger. The depiction of the dying lioness trying to move despite being shot several times appears to show respect for the animal, but it was probably used to show how strong the king was for killing such proud animals (Gardner, 56-57). The scenes also tell us about the technology available for each culture. The Assyrians had the technology to conquer animals. The use of horses and carriages is a distinct advantage in the hunt. With this advanced technology, animals possess no real threat to the hunters. Without this technology, the prehistoric people had a more difficult time with hunting. Without horses and carriages to sit upon, the humans had no protection against the animals. This technology difference plays a large role in the difference in respect for the animals. The reason for hunting was also different for each culture. Prehistoric people hunted for food purposes only. The number of people used in the hunt shows this. It is a community effort to provide themselves with food. The use of magic and religion suggests the importance of the hunt whereas the lion hunt scene depicts hunting for sport only. This is evident because it appears that the lions have been pierced with "far more arrows than are needed to kill them" (Gardner, 56). Had this been a hunt for food, the lions probably would only have been shot enough times just to kill them. The lions were trapped and then put into a gaming pen where the king could hunt them (Gardener, 55). This also shows the culture's dominance over animals. As humans gained technology, their attitudes towards animals changed. Prehistoric people, with their primitive technology, had reason to be fearful of animals. It took much effort on their part

Definition and Examples of Pejorative Language

Definition and Examples of Pejorative Language The term pejorative language refers to words and phrases that hurt, insult, or disparage someone or something. Also called a  derogatory term or a term of abuse. The label pejorative (or derogatory) is sometimes used in dictionaries and glossaries to identify expressions that offend or belittle a subject. Nonetheless, a word thats regarded as pejorative in one context may have a non-pejorative function or effect in a different context. Examples and Observations of Pejorative Language It is often ... the case that pejorative terms are stronger when applied to women: bitch is seldom a compliment, whereas bastard (especially old bastard) can under some circumstances be intended as a term of respect or affection. Of similar positive status when masculine is dog (as in you old dog!, admiring a rouà ©); when feminine in reference in AmE it means an ugly woman. Witch is almost always pejorative, whereas wizard is often a compliment.(Tom McArthur, Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford University Press, 2005)[T]here is a tendency to select our pejorative epithets with a view not to their accuracy but to their power of hurting...The best protection against this is to remind ourselves again and again what the proper function of pejorative words is. The ultimate, simplest and most abstract, is bad itself. The only good purpose for ever departing from that monosyllable when we condemn anything is to be more specific, to answer the question Bad in what way? Pejorative words are rightly used only when they do this. Swine, as a term of abuse, is now a bad pejorative word, because it brings no one accusation rather than another against the person it vilifies; coward and liar are good ones because they charge a man with a particular faultof which he might be proved guilty or innocent.  (C. S. Lewis, Studies in Words. Cambridge University Press, 1960) Pejorative Language As a  Persuasive  Strategy One important feature of a narratio  is that of characterization of the major players. The use of pejorative language was in order to dispose the audience in a particular direction toward ones own viewpoint and against that of others. Hence we hear [in the epistles of St. Paul] about false brothers secretly brought in who spy things out, or about those reputed to be pillars, or about Peters and Barnabas hypocrisy. This use of pejorative and emotional language is not accidental. It is meant to raise animus against the opposing viewpoint and sympathy for the speakers case.  (Ben Witherington, III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the Galatians. TT Clark Ltd., 1998) Euphemisms and Lexical Change There are cases of euphemisms leading to lexical change in the past. For instance, imbecile originally meant weak and idiot meant non-expert, layperson. When these words had their meanings extended to soften the blow of saying that someone had very limited intellectual powers, the original meanings were obscured and eventually got lost. Unfortunately, when we use euphemisms, the unpleasant associations eventually catch up with the new word. Then it is time to find another one. (Surely, a more effective solution to the problem of reducing the hurt caused by using pejorative language is to change the attitudes of people who consciously or unconsciously use such language. Not an easy task.)(Francis Katamba, English Words: Structure, History, Usage, 2nd ed. Routledge, 2005) Rhetoric As a Pejorative Term The art of rhetoric was held in high regard from ancient Greece until late in the 19th century, occupying a prominent position in the paideia, which signified both education and culture. . . .Towards the end of the 19th century, rhetoric fell into disrepute and was no longer taught in the various educational institutions. The word rhetoric received a pejorative meaning, suggesting the use of underhanded tricks, fraud, and deceit, or the stringing together of hollow words, hackneyed expressions and mere platitudes. To be rhetorical was to be bombastic.(Samuel Ijsseling, Rhetoric and Philosophy in Conflict: An Historical Survey, 1975. Trans. from the Dutch by Paul Dunphy. Martinus Nijhoff, 1976)Rhetoric is not a term to embrace lightly; it is too pockmarked by a century in which it has been deemed to be associated merely with sophistication (in the less positive sense of that word), cant and emptiness. It has seemed to suggest a state in which language floats free of its context and th us becomes deracinated, superfluousperhaps inflatedand ultimately meaningless. This palsied view of rhetoric is not new, however. The earliest recorded pejorative reference to rhetoric in English, according to the OED, dates from the mid-sixteenth century. Plato was fiercely critical of it. It seems that the epithetic phrase sweet rhetoric has been particularly far from peoples mouths in the last hundred years or so.(Richard Andrews, Introduction. Rebirth of Rhetoric: Essays in Language, Culture and Education. Routledge, 1992)