Very many interesting questions raised in this interesting discussion =
and very few answers:
Rather than making sweeping statements about N.Rosov's list which I =
better leave to the social scientists out there I would like to provide =
a `clarification of doubtful issues' to quote ayatolah Khomeini:
Mike Shupp:
1.)I don't know about China, but for Islam (including Mughal India) the =
statement that land reverted to the state or rather the sovereign =
(classic Islamic political theory does not have an abstract concept of =
`the state') is simply wrong. Apart from land which could be taken from =
the owner upon his death there was also land which was bestowed with a =
non alienable right of property, called iqta or malik, some of it being =
exempt from central taxation (vaqf or inam property). Although the =
relative percentages of alienable and non alienable land widely varied =
non-alienable land made up a substantial portion of the land in most =
Islamic state, in some cases (e.g in the Aq Qunlu period in Iran - 15 th =
century) most of it. The statement that Europeans were more interested =
in acquiring land doesn't make sense since, for example, most of the =
Ottoman conquest in the Balkan were granted as non-alienable property, =
which brings me to:
2.)Islam did n't expand in the sixteenth century ? Hmm .. most of =
eastern Europe was overrun by the Ottoman empire in that period, even =
Russia narrowly escaped annexation - Moscow was sacked by the Tartars in =
the mid seventies. Then again, the Ottoman empire nearly overran =
Ethiopia in the sixteenth century and - this is also mostly forgotten- =
the Saidian sharifate of Morocco sent out large expedition overland =
which came as far as Mali. Again, for a later period China annexed the =
whole of eastern Turkestan (Sinkiang) in the eighteenth century, coming =
as far as Nepal in the south, Chinese forces nearly reached Tashkent in =
the west in the early nineteenth century. Chinese expansion was thus not =
stemmed in the eighteenth century as Mike Shupp argues, although, =
obviously, Chinese power was difficult to maintain in the Tien Shan or =
the Himalaya 3000 miles from Beijing and the Chinese generals had =
therefore to enter into coalitions with the Gurkhas or the Khanate of =
Kokand.
Now, here too, is the obvious answer to N. Rosov's question whether =
there are non-European examples of empires parcelling out the globe and =
entering upon a systematic policy of exploration and conquest: the =
answer is of course the Ottoman empire. Two cases which I find =
interesting: one, the expedition of Sidi Ali Reis from the Yemen into =
the Indian Ocean in the 1570's as far south as Mozambique, planned and =
financed by the Ottoman state. Two, one of the earliest maps showing the =
location of America is in the Topkapi Serail and must have been =
transmitted by Ottoman spies in Spain immediately upon its discovery. =
Europe was - in the fifteenth and sixteenth century - expanding =
simultaneously with and partly in response to the Ottoman empire; one of =
my favorite `what if's' is `what would have happened if the Portuguese =
had entered the Indian Ocean in the mid sixteenth century?' I personally =
think they might have found an Ottoman naval empire in place centred in =
the Gulf with satrapies in places like Diu, Cananore, the Maldives and =
Kilwa and European expansion in Asia would have been very difficult =
indeed as the example of the Mediterrenean in this period shows.
To return to Mike Shupp and to Mongol intelligence:
3.)Japan may be an exception but for the Mongol conquest of Khwarizm we =
actually know that the Mongol expedition was preceded by a number of =
fact-finding missions, mostly carried out by Uyghur merchants. Spying on =
long distances was quite normal in the diplomatic world of medieval =
Islam, facilitated by the existence of a Syrian/Uyghur merchant network =
which stretched the length and breadth of the known world.
Again, for obvious reasons no archives are left of the golden horde, but =
it seems that Mongols on the Volga had a very precise inside perception =
of eastern European politics (Hungary to the Teutonic order to the =
Novgorod dominon) e.g. their recruting the princeling of Moscow to =
gather tribute on their behalf as Mocow was this weak and this =
threatened by their neighbours as not to turn into a threat for the =
golden horde.
Randall Groves:
4.)On issurance: Yes and No, on the periods on which we have details =
(i.e. ninth-twelth, sixteenth-eighteenth century) there was an extensive =
and very old system of insurance in the Indian Ocean and the South China =
Seas for insuring ships, cargoes. bullion and even caravans. This is a =
hugely complicated issue on which I can not enter in detail except by =
noting that the freight fetched by the English east India company's =
servants on voyages within Asia was mostly insured by Indian merchants, =
that of the Dutch East India Company often by Chinese. Yes, it is true =
that we do not have evidence for the existence of permanent insurance =
companies backed by the government of cities as existed in Holland as =
early as the fourteenth century and life-insurance was unknown; this has =
to do with the Christian habit of reading masses for the deceased, money =
for which was mostly put aside in a special fund entrusted to the =
comunities; in Islam this was a function performed by the `guilds' =
rather than the government of towns.
Bruce McFarling:
Several fascinating issues but I am especially puzzled by his =
fascinating comments on `World Cities and World system' which paper, =
sadly, I didn't see.
5.)The definition of zones in the early World system depends very much =
on the definition of `axial age' : the word is derived from K. Jasper's =
whose `Achsenzeit' refers to the seventh to fourth century B.C. I think =
for this period two zones should be included in the definition if the =
central zone refers to Mesopotamia which I think is a reasonable =
proposition (India was central to nothing in the Vedic period) For one =
thing it should include a southern zone refering to Meroe, early =
Ethiopia and the early Sabean kingdom of south Arabia which was of =
course closely related to Egypt but had a different and separate =
economy, for another - and in spite of being accused of Eurocentrism- I =
think this should include a `western zone' referring to Greece and the =
Hellenic zone of settlement in the Mediterrean, the Etruscs and =
Carthago.
And here I think we have a major problem in that we know so little =
about Carthago - what we do know about Carthago is that Carthago had far =
more extensive contacts with Africa than Rome ever had - around 450 B.C. =
Carthago may have sent out an expedition which rounded the Cape of Good =
Hope and we know from coins that Carthaginian ships sailed as far as the =
Gulf of Guinea and the Atlantic islands. This trade was discontinued by =
order of the Roman emperor - a western parallel to the Cheng Ho puzzle ! =
It was a more drastic rupture, in fact, since the Romans actually lost =
the location of the Atlantic islands and most of the Carthaginian =
knowledge of Africa upon its destruction. Again, African trade seems to =
have dwindled after the Roman conquest; of course, since the Roman =
empire was a military/agricultural society profoundly averse to =
merchants. Anyhow, if we consider Carthago the western zone should =
include a sizable trunk of west Africa, until the Roman conquest at =
least. =20
Blauts note that one should not overlook the west-east African =
connections across the Sahara raises a huge issue which is only likely =
to be resolved in the next century: namely the ecology of the Sahara in =
the twelfth-seventh century B.C. we know that the Sahara has =
progressively become drier and it may still have supported =
agricultural/merchant communities in the seventh century B.C.. It might =
have been the focus of another Sahara/Niger zone of the world system: we =
know virtually nothing about this and this will have to await further =
archeological investigation in the Sahara and the Sahel.
Maybe some day we may find that the Sahara was the original birth place =
of the ancient world system somewhere around 3500 B.C. - a fascinating =
idea and very pleasant to all the politically very correct out there. If =
African robbers, smugglers cum `art collectors' in the `developed' =
countries will permit it, of course (any archeological site discovered =
in the Sahel one day will be looted the next morning and lost forever. =
Again, virtually the entire collection of the national museum of Mali =
has recently been stolen, I was told).
Which brings me back to the blessings of modern capitalism: =20
=20
6.)That the Spanish and Portuguese kings did not invest whole lots of =
money in the discoveries is at any rate wrong for the Portuguese. Most =
voyages of discovery were made under royal auspices - mainly since the =
Tuscan bankers were good risk-averse capitalist who would not invest in =
such uncertain ventures - and Joao III did not own his surname the =
`grocer king' for nothing: until the 1530's most products from India =
were sold on the crown's behalf. Because of the Portuguese accountancy =
system it is virtually impossible to say whether the Portuguse =
African/Indian empire was running at a profit, but it seems to me that =
all costs considered it was a losing proposition most of the time, which =
had to be heavily subsidized by the Portuguese exchequer.=20
There are more points raised in this debate (e.g. the old myth that =
Spanish and Portuguese merchants were not speding their money =
productively in the sixteenth century) but I'll better leave these for a =
latter time.
Hope this far too long posting pleases the readers of the `historical =
stuff'.
Dr. R.J. Barendse
IIAS-Leiden
Rene.barendse@tip.nl