Completely, no. What were the dark ages if not a time when Europe contracted into hundreds of pocket kingdoms, greatly restricting flows of people, ideas and material? Pretty much all the things you cite are highly portable status objects of great value (jewelry, spices, etc.)
-
-
Replying to @Infoseepage @SarahTaber_bww
Well, the Dark Ages didn't really exist, and the term is now widely avoided ;) Tbh, the arch evidence is, imho, pretty impressive and goes well beyond a handful portable objects, plus is backed up by the textual evidence for continued (or even intensified) links >
9 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen @Infoseepage
(2/) That said. From an agricultural trade POV, drawing a line btwn pre- & post-Roman trade patterns is still very useful. Prior, there was routine, massive long-distance bulk trade of food. Afterwards, trade was much more restricted to elite prestige goods.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @SarahTaber_bww @caitlinrgreen
This, exactly. Consider that maybe half a billion (with a b) pounds of grain were imported to Rome every year from North Africa, Sicily, Egypt, etc. 3000 pounds of pepper in Gaul is just so minuscule next to that! The smallest Roman merchant vessels carried 70+ tons!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Infoseepage @SarahTaber_bww
But we were talking, I thought, about cross-continent trading and whether that collapsed; what you're talking about was all within the Roman Empire, which is a separate discussion... On the 2nd point, 3000 lbs of one spice, to one region of Europe, may not seem much, perhaps, >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
> but I still think it very significant (note, the largest classical era find is 75kg) in showing continued operation of significant trading networks linking Europe to Indo-Pacific region, and that these didn't collapse, which was the claim I was voicing scepticism towards :) >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
> In my view, evidence we have is, despite its admitted patchiness etc, enough to show that long-distance trade networks did indeed continue and that new ones formed; in fact, more arch & documentary records for 6th-8thC links to China, for example, than earlier, I'd suggest…!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
> Moreover, the evidence for Central Asian trade links to northern and eastern Europe really can't be ignored: one estimate is that perhaps as many as 100 million or more silver dirhams were imported into these regions in return for slaves, furs etc, which is astonishing >pic.twitter.com/PLL0Rymo63
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Some back of an envelope calculations in https://www.academia.edu/1764468/Dirhams_for_slaves._Investigating_the_Slavic_slave_trade_in_the_tenth_century … for the scale of 10thC slave trade to, primarily, Samanid Empire in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan etc; if even remotely right then they imply trade from N/E Europe involving potentially hundreds of thousands of slaves...pic.twitter.com/ghXr1fdi0y
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
> And if we look to later medieval period, with its better surviving documentation, then we find plenty of evidence for significant scales of cross-continent/Indo-Pacific trade e.g. 15thC wedding feast of Hedwig Jagiellon to son of the Duke of Bavaria involved over 1,000 lbs >
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
> of spices, incl 40kg of nutmeg and nearly 50kg of cloves... So, in sum, I would absolutely maintain my position that we just need to be careful about assuming complete collapses in cross-continental trade and links after the 5thC :)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.