Silk Road myth

[gilius]

In the Greco-Roman times, China and the West were almost oblivious to each other's existence, so what are the arguments for and against the Silk Road? I have heard the arguement, but am unsure exactly what the scholars are aguing about:

*A trading route existed on land connecting the West with China, which is how Silk reached places like Britain.

*No such trading route existed, and commodoties were traded via India and reached the West through seafarers.

 

Does that sum up each case or have I misunderstood?

[GhostOfClayton]

The Silk Road wasn't just one road, but a network of trading routes. Ergo, if silk ever reached the west, the Silk Road existed.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Like GoC say's it wasn't just one road that led from China to the west but many different routes spanning across Asia, Africa and Europe.

 

 

Silk road in the 1st centuary.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2011 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Maladict]

Also, merchants would generally only travel parts of the overland route. Hence, only products and hearsay would travel from China to Rome and back.

The famous "ambassadors" of Antoninus Pius seem to have been the exceptions to the rule. If they traveled overland, that is.

[gilius]

Sure, so I take it you guys aren't aware of the arguments against the overland route existing? I'll have to read up on it again, but I heard something along the lines that there's no evidence for the red routes on the map above used for trading between Europe and China.

[GhostOfClayton]

OK - let's take it as read that the maritime trade existed, and stick to the overland trade.

[Maladict]

Sure, so I take it you guys aren't aware of the arguments against the overland route existing? I'll have to read up on it again, but I heard something along the lines that there's no evidence for the red routes on the map above used for trading between Europe and China.

 

I would like to see those arguments.

[Melvadius]

Obviously anyone making such statements has never read Pliny Natural History VI, XX et. seq.

[gilius]

I've just re-checked my sources...

 

"But the fact remains that the existince of the 'Silk Road' is not based on a single shred of historical or material evidence. There was never any such 'road' or even a route in the organisational sense, there was no free movement of goods between China and the West until the Mongol Empire in the Middle Ages."

 

"It was not until 1938 that a book was first published entitled The Silk Road, by Sven Hedin"

"Another of the same title was published in 1966"

 

Some other points mentioned:

*There was a internal overland route inside the Parthian empire and there was a separate route between India and Bactria and other, but there was never any trans-Asian connections for trading.

*All Silk (not the main commodity traded from China) reached Europe indirectly via India and maritime routes rather than overland through Iran.

*China did not receive roman coins in exchange for Silk, but would have received Indian commodities.

*Romans thought Silk came from India

*Romans never met any Chinese at trading stations in the middle east.

*If anyone did reach China from Europe then it wasn't through any organised overland trade.

[Melvadius]

I've just re-checked my sources...

 

See previous post and name them

[gilius]

I've just re-checked my sources...

 

See previous post and name them

Main article starts here:

 

http://books.google....tion%22&f=false

 

and ends here:

 

http://books.google....oned%22&f=false

 

 

Another useful source:

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2011 by gilius

[Melvadius]

Gilius that particular book is primarily interested in and discussing the interaction between Rome and the Near East not the Far East asthis review from History in Review makes clear.

 

It specifically states that:

 

...Most of our knowledge of the ancient Near East has been gained from western, classical writers. In this book Ball has attempted to present the history of the Near East from an eastern perspective. Ball's research is based almost entirely on the material remains from this period, rather than upon literary sources. Instead of limiting the scope of this study, concentrating primarily upon material remains enabled Ball to present a much more accurate picture of what life was like in this region than would otherwise have been possible. In addition, Ball used this material information, in combination with the known historical record, to effectively establish that the Near East had a far greater influence upon Rome than the Roman Empire had upon the Near East....

 

For this reason any mention of Rome's interaction with China is entirely secondary to the main purpose of the book. I had a quick check and as the review infdicates there is a marked lack of literary evidence mentioned by Ball and he doesn't appear to make any reference to the section of Pliny I referred to above (Loeb edition) describing the overland route.

 

If you do read it you will quickly see that in Pliny's period there was a reasonably good knowledge of the main elements of the overland routes to both China and India. In my view this argues for traders making us of them on a fairly regular basis and that information being readily available to Pliny at least second-hand if not through personal research.

 

Even if only a relatively small groups of traders operated along it at any one time and most goods were exchanged between them rather than going with one group the entire length does not negate the fact that the Silk Road did exist as a 'real' physical entity which saw a lot of use over the Millenias.

 

As the maps above indicate throughout the last 2,000 plus years there were several routes which could be used to carry goods along the 'Silk Route'. Depending upon the season, what was being traded, the intended destination and various political events or wars sections of it were opened and closed or simply used at different times and for different purposes.

 

If you were expecting something paved in gold or simply in tarmac for its entire length then you still wouldn't find it today.

[gilius]

For this reason any mention of Rome's interaction with China is entirely secondary to the main purpose of the book. I had a quick check and as the review infdicates there is a marked lack of literary evidence mentioned by Ball and he doesn't appear to make any reference to the section of Pliny I referred to above (Loeb edition) describing the overland route.

I find your dismissal of this author and attempt to discredit him a little unfair. He has synthesised and brought together many subjects and cited works to cover Rome in the "East" to it's fullest definition and extent of what the word describes. Although Warwick Ball may not be an expert on any particular topic, his section on Rome and China contains many references. Even the title has a footnote that references 5 main works on the subject. And he does reference Pliny, but in an insignificant way compared to the 2 main cited sources for the supposed existence of the silk road overland routes.

 

 

If you do read it you will quickly see that in Pliny's period there was a reasonably good knowledge of the main elements of the overland routes to both China and India. In my view this argues for traders making us of them on a fairly regular basis and that information being readily available to Pliny at least second-hand if not through personal research.

 

I shall try to track this down when my library opens up again next month. Would you happen by any chance to have a link to Pliny's work online, or better still, able to quote or reference the exact part supporting the existence of the silk road?

 

Even if only a relatively small groups of traders operated along it at any one time and most goods were exchanged between them rather than going with one group the entire length does not negate the fact that the Silk Road did exist as a 'real' physical entity which saw a lot of use over the Millenias.

True, but I don't think Iran would have let traders through like that on a regular basis or there might some other reason, be it political, lack of shared knowledge/cooperation, danger, which may have meant traders only went via India and maritime routes. Who knows? What exactly does Pliny have to say on the matter?

 

 

If you were expecting something paved in gold or simply in tarmac for its entire length then you still wouldn't find it today.

 

Another cowardly tactic: ridicule an alternative viewpoint and "attack the straw man", like anyone would really think that... you would expect some archaeological evidence still, as we cannot rely solely on literary works as you know.

[Melvadius]

 

I find your dismissal of this author and attempt to discredit him a little unfair. He has synthesised and brought together many subjects and cited works to cover Rome in the "East" to it's fullest definition and extent of what the word describes.

 

No, I simply pointed out that the only review I could find for this work indicates that his primary interest is Rome's relations with the Near East and not China AND that he had not made use of literary sources which appeared some what at odds with your declarations in previous posts.

 

Not having read his work in it's entirity myself I do not comment on how well or otherwise he may have achieved his primary aim but as I have already indicated with a quick scan I could not find any significant mentions of Pliny, or indeed any of the other literay sources my own references cite, amongst his references so if I missed them I apologise.

 

Would you happen by any chance to have a link to Pliny's work online, or better still, able to quote or reference the exact part supporting the existence of the silk road?

 

I have already cited the relevant reference in Pliny I did find a Latin version on Lacus Curtius but the only English version I could easily find is the Holland 1601 version on Tufts which is not as clear as the Loeb translation.

 

you would expect some archaeological evidence still, as we cannot rely solely on literary works as you know.

 

There are strings of caravanserais dating from at least the thirteenth century known to exist along what is known as the Silk Road. Given the long history of trade between China and the west these can only have been the latest incarnation of earlier way stations, trading centres and other places convenient to stop along the routes.

 

BTW I take serious issue with any source deciding arbitarilly that for the Silk Road to have existed then there 'must' have been 'free' trade along it. 'Free' trade has never been a requirement for people to make use of long distance trading routes - only the bottom line of could they make a profit.

 

The 'Silk Road' has only ever been a convenient term for the series of overland routes along which trade could AND did actually pass between China and the West for at least two thousand years no more no less.

 

You may find some of the articles at About.com of interest on the topic of trade between China and the West.

 

Plus this more recent article from Stamford University on the smuggling of silk worms from China to

[gilius]

Thanks for your reply. You've made it clear that you believe trade routes and connections existed between Europe and China overland during the classical period (including periods before and after). However, it seems not everyone accepts this hypethesis as fact and believes it to be a modern fabrication. Again, Warwick Ball cites all sources and classical authors combined to form the romantic view of the silk road, including Pliny. In fact, the previous chapter on trade with India again cites Pliny and specifically the book number you mention as one of the main sources for Maritime trade.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QRAOvgcamzIC&pg=PA123&dq=%22this+has+been+supplemented+by+references+to+the+sea+trade%22&hl=en&ei=6r5QTuOAOoXX8gOy4eigBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22this%20has%20been%20supplemented%20by%20references%20to%20the%20sea%20trade%22&f=false

We can return to this topic next month once I've read the actual paragraphs detailing what Pliny has to say about landward routes/trade, as I cannot find it online..