The Ancient Silk Road

[Rinan]

Okay, after all it turned into an interesting discussion, so I opened a new topic to discuss it in, rather than the Post your Empires thread! So, the question is: was there contact between west (the middle east) and the east (China) during ROP’s timeframe? How much of a “Silk road” was there?

Well, I sure hope so. Bull will testify my... uhm... negative opinion of Greek fanboys.

The reasons the silk route allegedly opened with Alexander:
1. Before the Greeks were unaware of much of what was going on in the empire, e.g. trade;
2. The false assumption the Persians were a backwards oppressor state that existed for the sole reason of making life harder for Greeks. I am not accusing you of either of these, though.

Good points. However, all you’re saying is why according to biased western people/scholars, there couldn’t be a silk road before Alexander. You are, however, not giving proof of reasons why there would be a silk road.

There must've been some interaction, or do you think Persian and Indian merchants never set sail/send a caravan to find new trading partners? With the Empires in the east, silkroad or not, I think there must've been some interaction. The trading routes were already in place before Alexander, is my assumption. Those separate routes just happened to fall under 1 government when he conquered the Persian Empire, making it easier to transport goods from India to Greece.

Okay, first of all, not the whole route was under one government. Alexander didn’t conquer China, now did he?

Anyway, I found an interesting text when I finally resolved to googling the issue. There’s probably much more info out there, but this one will do: http://www.ess.uci.edu/~oliver/silk.html

It basically confirms one of my ideas why you can’t take for granted that there was a Silk Road in ROP’s timeframe. You see, we have only taken a look at the western end of the route. We have agreed that the Persians were sophisticated enough to warrant a foundation of the Silk Road. However, what about the eastern end? I don’t know too much about East Asian history. Certainly, China has been one the most advanced empires throughout history, but in ROP’s timeframe?

The point is, China was first unified by Qin Shi Huangdi in 3rd century BC. During the period of the Warring States, before Qin, it is not as likely that a trade route like the Silk Road could have come to been. As the article portrays well, it’s not only a really long route, it’s also a very difficult one. According to the article, the Chinese began to send scouting/diplomatic missions into Central Asia (trying to make contact with the Yuezhi) in the 2nd century. It must’ve been at this point that trade and communication between east and west could have started to grow. As I mentioned, the route was long and hard. It goes through unforbidding deserts, bordered by the highest mountain range in the world. And there’s plenty of bandits lurking on merchants laden with valuables. (hence why the Chinese started to protect the route – But that is far into the time of the Romans).
Allegedly, the Romans first came into contact with silk during Crassus’ campaign into Parthia. This is where their interest in and desire for silk supposedly begins.

Anyway, despite all this, you guys are still right that there may have been some contact. The article says

In the west, the Greek empire was taken over by the Roman empire. Even at this stage, before the time of Zhang Qian [‘father of the silk road’, 2nd century BC] small quantities of Chinese goods, including silk, were reaching the west. This is likely to have arrived with individual traders, who may have started to make the journey in search of new markets despite the danger or the political situation of the time.

So, conclusion: When the Persian Empire was at its height, China was not yet unified. So while the western part was sophisticated and stable enough to form the silk road, the eastern part wasn't yet. The only question remaining, in my opinion, is the nature of contact and trade of those 'individual traders'.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

Okay, first of all, not the whole route was under one government. Alexander didn’t conquer China, now did he?

Oh c'mon, you know what I meant

Anyway, despite all this, you guys are still right that there may have been some contact. The article says

And that was my point

Right, to continue on this:

The only question remaining, in my opinion, is the nature of contact and trade of those 'individual traders'.

I think that contact between Persians and Indians was there. Just look at the Greeks; by now, they had already been trading all the way to the Western Mediterranean. Now, if a trader from Ionia was able to bring his goods from his homeland all the way to Massalia (which was founded around 600 BC, iirc), wouldn't Indian traders (or Babylonians, whatever you'll have) have long at least found the ports in the Persian gulf (or in India), which is roughly estimated about the same distance as Ionia-Southern Gaul (although I do have to say Greeks were exceptional sailors, but I don't know how much that affects coastal waters here or how the conditions of Indian shipbuilding were). I think Central Asia and the Near East were stable enough to trade with each other, but that neither the West nor the Far East were stable enough to use this and get goods from the East all the way to the West and visa-versa. I might be overlooking things, but this seems very plausible to me, as both India and Mesopotamia were stable enough to have that kind of contact. And seeing as Persia is right along the sea route to Mesopotamia from Indian perspective...

[Rinan]

Oh c'mon, you know what I meant

Actually, I don't, sorry! Because, what land did Alexander conquer that wasn't already in the possesion of Persia, or under heavy influence of? According to wikipedia the founding of Alexandria Eschate (or something like that) was influential in forming the trade route, as it became a sort of crossroad. Are you referring to that?

Right, to continue on this:

I think that contact between Persians and Indians was there. Just look at the Greeks; by now, they had already been trading all the way to the Western Mediterranean. Now, if a trader from Ionia was able to bring his goods from his homeland all the way to Massalia (which was founded around 600 BC, iirc), wouldn't Indian traders (or Babylonians, whatever you'll have) have long at least found the ports in the Persian gulf (or in India), which is roughly estimated about the same distance as Ionia-Southern Gaul (although I do have to say Greeks were exceptional sailors, but I don't know how much that affects coastal waters here or how the conditions of Indian shipbuilding were). I think Central Asia and the Near East were stable enough to trade with each other, but that neither the West nor the Far East were stable enough to use this and get goods from the East all the way to the West and visa-versa. I might be overlooking things, but this seems very plausible to me, as both India and Mesopotamia were stable enough to have that kind of contact. And seeing as Persia is right along the sea route to Mesopotamia from Indian perspective...

Interesting points you're making So first of all, it depends on what time we're speaking of, doesn't it? At the heigh of the Persian empire, there certainly was contact between the two areas. But before? Maybe. Certainly you are right that if the Greeks were able to transverse all of the mediterranean at this point, then the Babylonians might have been able to reach India, or the Indians Babylonia. Maybe not. Do you know anyone who is an expert on Babylonian or early Indian maritime history?

At any point, I suppose that goods from India reached Babylonia and other way round, because if not done in one step, the goods could always have travelled the distance hopping from caravan to the next caravan (or from one port to the next port), much like the Silk Road functioned.

Anyway, the point is: proving that there was contact between India and Persia holds no relevance to the Silk Road! Because, from India, I don't think there was a route to China. As China and India are seperated from each other by nothing less than the Himalayas! In the article I linked, it is stated that Buddhism reached China from India via the silk route. But not from the deep interior of India, but from "Gandhara", modern day Pakistan. So from here, Buddhism travelled along the Silk Road towards China, north of the Himalayas. i.e. The Silk Road doesn't go through India, but India is one of its branches.

One more point:

And seeing as Persia is right along the sea route to Mesopotamia from Indian perspective...

The maritime route from India to Babylonia goes through the Persian Gulf... But not through Persia. If they were clever, they would land somewhere in modern day Iraq. In ROP, the province of Ur. Not in Fars or Elam (Susa), to then travel the rest overland to Babylonia.

Sorry for the textwall!

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Well, since Persia ruled most of modern day Pakistan, there is no question they knew Indians, and knew them well. You see, they had Punjab, and Punjab as a prosperous region was definitely in contact with the rest of India.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

Actually, I don't, sorry! Because, what land did Alexander conquer that wasn't already in the possesion of Persia, or under heavy influence of? According to wikipedia the founding of Alexandria Eschate (or something like that) was influential in forming the trade route, as it became a sort of crossroad. Are you referring to that?

Yeah, Alexander united *a large part* (I used hyperbole before to make my point on that) of the Silk Road, making transferring goods in his "empire" easier in some ways.

then the Babylonians might have been able to reach India, or the Indians Babylonia. Maybe not. Do you know anyone who is an expert on Babylonian or early Indian maritime history?

I kinda hoped you could tell me about that; this sparked my interest.

The maritime route from India to Babylonia goes through the Persian Gulf... But not through Persia. If they were clever, they would land somewhere in modern day Iraq. In ROP, the province of Ur. Not in Fars or Elam (Susa), to then travel the rest overland to Babylonia.

True, but there must have been some merchant who'd run out of supplies or get shipwrecked on the coast (remember, ships remained near the coast at all times). What are the odds of them sailing past Persia for 50 years but the Persians never getting interested in those weird ships or the other way around?

Anyway, the point is: proving that there was contact between India and Persia holds no relevance to the Silk Road! Because, from India, I don't think there was a route to China. As China and India are seperated from each other by nothing less than the Himalayas! In the article I linked, it is stated that Buddhism reached China from India via the silk route. But not from the deep interior of India, but from "Gandhara", modern day Pakistan. So from here, Buddhism travelled along the Silk Road towards China, north of the Himalayas. i.e. The Silk Road doesn't go through India, but India is one of its branches.

On that, I agree with you. Do note that a Chinese merchant taking the Indian branch to sell his goods there still interacts with the Greek merchant who's main route is between Gandhara and a Central Asian city (taking Alexander's timeframe as an example), so the Silk Road could theoretically have influenced India to a degree.

Sorry for the textwall!

No prob

[Rinan]

Well, since Persia ruled most of modern day Pakistan, there is no question they knew Indians, and knew them well. You see, they had Punjab, and Punjab as a prosperous region was definitely in contact with the rest of India.

Aye, I think we figured out already that Persia in its heyday must've had a lot of contact with India.

Yeah, Alexander united *a large part* (I used hyperbole before to make my point on that) of the Silk Road, making transferring goods in his "empire" easier in some ways.

So what part did he "unite" which wasn't united before, in the Persian Empire? Except for Greece of course, but that doesn't really open up any Asiatic trade route.

I kinda hoped you could tell me about that; this sparked my interest.

What makes you think I know that kind of things? Anyway, I googled it for you! Wikipedia: "Mesopotamian inscriptions indicate that Indian traders from the Indus valley—carrying copper, hardwoods, ivory, pearls, carnelian, and gold—were active in Mesopotamia during the reign of Sargon of Akkad (c. 2300 BCE)." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_...ory#Prehistory).

I also found this:

The world's first tidal dock is believed to have been built at Lothal around 2300 BC during the Harappan civilization, near the present day Mangrol harbour on the Gujarat coast.

Traders took merchandise by overland caravans to the sea-ports of Broach or Surat in the west, Kaveripumpatnam (Pukar) in the South or Banga in the East. Indian-built ships, laden with Indian manufactures, sailed to Ceylon, Egypt, Greece, Babylon, China or the countries of South-East Asia or Far East.

from http://hinduismtheopensourcefaith.bl...-maritime.html but I don't know this website.

True, but there must have been some merchant who'd run out of supplies or get shipwrecked on the coast (remember, ships remained near the coast at all times). What are the odds of them sailing past Persia for 50 years but the Persians never getting interested in those weird ships or the other way around?

Yes you are right, I just realised this too.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

Except for Greece of course, but that doesn't really open up any Asiatic trade route

This; he united the West with the "Middle" for the first time

What makes you think I know that kind of things?

Heh, I don't know. It's rare to find someone around here who actually makes good, unbiased points. Most people who do usually know more about the subject than yours faithfully

Interesting find, btw. I guess we'll have to take it as true until someone comes up with any counter-evidence.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Just because there was no trade between Greece and China doesn't mean there was no trade with China at all. Sure, it was limited because the Chinese were many warring states, but trade is likely to have still happened with at least the closest of the Chinese states.

[the persian Immortal]

hi , I don't know much about this topic so I will not interupt you guys just that ofcaurse there was contacts between persian and indians cyrus conquered a few parts of india darius conquered more parts of it so before alexander ,assuming trade between india and persian is a possability

The emergence of the Achaemenid empire in Persia, founded by Hakhāmaniš saw parts of northwestern subcontinent come under Persian rule. Indian emissaries were present at the courts of Cyrus the Great or Kurush (590 BCE - 529 BCE), whose empire extended as far east as Gandhara and Sind. It is also believed that when Cyrus was threatened by Croesus of Lydia, he received military assistance from at least one Indian king.[9] Under Darius I or Darayava(h)ush (519 BCE - 485 BCE), inscriptions refer to Persian relations with India. The Behistun rock inscription (ancient Bagastana "place of Gods") dating back to 519 BCE includes Gandhara in the list of his subject countries. The epigraph of Nakhsh-i-Rustam shows India as the 24th province of his empire. It was believed to be the richest in Darius's empire. Herodotus tells us of the wealth and density of the Indus population and of the tribute paid to Darius:
The population of the Indians is by far the greatest of all the people that we know; and they paid tribute proportionately larger than all the rest – (the sum of) 360 talents of gold dust.


The Indus Valley (Harappan) civilization, which is one of the oldest historically known civilizations, was located in Ancient India, and was contemporary with the Proto-Elamite and Elamite civilizations in ancient Iran. The Indus people, and their ancestors, had trade links with Iran, the ancient civilization of Mesopotamia, and Egypt/Nubia. At Susa in the western part of Iran, decorated pottery has been excavated which appears to be similar to those of the Kulli culture in the north-west of the Indian subcontinent. Indus seals have also been excavated at Kish, Sura and Ur. India, imported silver, copper, turquoise and lapis lazuli from Persia in return for ivory. India & Iran – Age Old Ties]</ref> Further, the Elamo-Dravidian languages form an assumed language family that includes the ancient Elamite language of western Iran and the Dravidian languages of India (now found mostly in the south), suggesting a possible linguistic relationship between the Elamites and Harappans before the (sometimes disputed) arrival of the Indo-Iranians speaking tribes from western Central Asia. The Elamo-Dravidian family, however, is in dispute, and scholars such as Elfenbein point out the late arrival (c. 1000 CE) of the Brahui speakers from Central India.

source : wikipedia.

[Rinan]

Just because there was no trade between Greece and China doesn't mean there was no trade with China at all. Sure, it was limited because the Chinese were many warring states, but trade is likely to have still happened with at least the closest of the Chinese states.

Do you have any proof of this? Or is this just a 'feeling' you have? I mean, it's possible that the occasional item from China reached all the way to Greece (you could almost write a novel about it), how a valuable brooch made in China falls in the hand of the Xiongnu when they raid a Chinese city. Next, the brooch passes ownership in a fued, the next owner is robbed from it in his sleep, the next owner sells it somewhere in Central Asia, by someone just on his way to Samarkand, etc. etc. etc.

Thing is, I don't think you can state there was any kind of trade between Greece and China in the sense it would come to be later. Because, if I interpreted my sources correctly, Chinese merchants simply didn't venture west enough before Qin Shuangdi, or the Han actually. The route was difficult, and the situation back home didn't provide the stability to undertake a journey westwards. It was probably more profitable anyway to trade with more closer people.

Again, I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible for trade with the west to have happened, but a sort of "proto- Silk Road" seems unlikely to me.

@the persian immortal: Thank you for your input. Interesting to know that the Indian language of that time may have been related to Elamite.

[the persian Immortal]

[QUOTE]

Do you have any proof of this? Or is this just a 'feeling' you have?

usually he post what he feel like is true like :

I doubt that, as the Persians were a part of the Median state. Besides, if you are Iranian, you are more likely to be of mede descent than persian, as the persians were really a small group of Iranian tribes who assimilated/were assimilated by the Elamites.

Immortal, we're being sarcastic. Someone has to break it to you eventually, so that's what I did. Equites is making fun of your ignorance.

the persian archers were better in numbers not in skills

all posted by cockroach

I think you shouldn't take roach serius at all

@the persian immortal: Thank you for your input. Interesting to know that the Indian language of that time may have been related to Elamite.

your welcome bro

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

Thing is, I don't think you can state there was any kind of trade between Greece and China in the sense it would come to be later. Because, if I interpreted my sources correctly, Chinese merchants simply didn't venture west enough before Qin Shuangdi, or the Han actually. The route was difficult, and the situation back home didn't provide the stability to undertake a journey westwards. It was probably more profitable anyway to trade with more closer people.

I think Roach means that, even though there was no Chinese trade with Greece (from whom most of our written sources come, unfortunately - in this case -.), there must have been some Chinese trade with, say, Baktria at least. But trade with China from Greece? No, never directly (although one should keep in mind that the Silk Road wasn't really one continuous road - it's not like Chinese merchants'd go all the way to Greece. The goods eventually came to Greece, sure, but the Chinese merchants didn't).

[Rinan]

The goods eventually came to Greece, sure, but the Chinese merchants didn't).

Of course, that's the very concept of the Silk Road. However, for this to work, a certain good must first "enter" the silk road, and then continue it's journey. So, this good would "enter" the Silk Road somewhere in China, and then it would be sold from merchant to merchant until it reaches the other end. This is what we agree on, this is how the Silk Road functioned... Once it came into existence. Which is, according to all sources I can find, in the 2nd century BC. Earliest.

So, before that, Chinese merchants probably didn't sell that much to whatever lay west of them. Because, it's a huge steppe/desert/mountain area. So not many rich people who are interested in buying silk or other exotic goods. It was only when the west learned of silk, that there came such a high demand for it that it would be worth it for the "middlemen" (the nomads/inhabitants of central Asia) to take silk and other goods from China to Persia.

But, as we found out in the OP, China only started to show interest in the huge region that was west of them once they were unified under the Han. And by this increased activity in the west, trade routes were established.

As I stated earlier, it may be that a good eventually ended up in Persia all the way from China before the 2nd century BC, because obviously, there must'e been some degree of trade between Chinese merchants and the inhabitants of Central Asia. But this trading must've been only in small quantities, so the goods that ended up in Bactria/Persia were, I think, exceptions, rather than the rule.

This is just what I am deducing from the things I read, anyway. I hope you understand what I am saying, I find it hard to explain! But this is the way it feels logical to me, with the facts I'm given.

all posted by cockroach

I think you shouldn't take roach serius at all

lol, you're not making friends with him this way mate

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

lol, you're not making friends with him this way mate

I give the same advice, actually

Of course, that's the very concept of the Silk Road. However, for this to work, a certain good must first "enter" the silk road, and then continue it's journey. So, this good would "enter" the Silk Road somewhere in China, and then it would be sold from merchant to merchant until it reaches the other end. This is what we agree on, this is how the Silk Road functioned... Once it came into existence. Which is, according to all sources I can find, in the 2nd century BC. Earliest.

So, before that, Chinese merchants probably didn't sell that much to whatever lay west of them. Because, it's a huge steppe/desert/mountain area. So not many rich people who are interested in buying silk or other exotic goods. It was only when the west learned of silk, that there came such a high demand for it that it would be worth it for the "middlemen" (the nomads/inhabitants of central Asia) to take silk and other goods from China to Persia.

But, as we found out in the OP, China only started to show interest in the huge region that was west of them once they were unified under the Han. And by this increased activity in the west, trade routes were established.

As I stated earlier, it may be that a good eventually ended up in Persia all the way from China before the 2nd century BC, because obviously, there must'e been some degree of trade between Chinese merchants and the inhabitants of Central Asia. But this trading must've been only in small quantities, so the goods that ended up in Bactria/Persia were, I think, exceptions, rather than the rule.

Yes, all agreed with this.
Can't really call this anything like an argument, eh? The two of us agreeing all the time

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I did not mean trade with Greece. But it is quite ignorant to assume some more western Chinese states never traded with the Achaemenids. Not with Greeks, the Persians. Sheesh. Not large scale, ofc, since I know China was not unified, but individual trade.

[Rinan]

I give the same advice, actually


Yes, all agreed with this.
Can't really call this anything like an argument, eh? The two of us agreeing all the time

Glad we have Roach then, a fierce adversary in this debate of epic proportions!

I did not mean trade with Greece. But it is quite ignorant to assume some more western Chinese states never traded with the Achaemenids. Not with Greeks, the Persians. Sheesh. Not large scale, ofc, since I know China was not unified, but individual trade.

No offense mate, but I just addressed this in my last post. If you read carefully you'll see I was talking about the Persians at the western end of the Silk Road, not the Greeks. So, the distance between the Qin kingdom and the outer reaches of Greater Iran is still about 4000 KM... through extremely hard terrain.

Despite that, are you suggesting that Chinese traded directly with the Persians? Because I can't believe that was the case, even not when the Silk Road was really established. There have always been intermediates

In any case I don't think it is ignorant to assume the Chinese traded with Persia, because the part that divides Europe/Middle East from the Far East is exactly the area that between Persia and China. That's the vital part: once goods can reach Persia they can easily reach the mediterranean and from there, beyond. But crossing the inhospitable land between China and Persia, that's the great challenge, the great obstacle for communication between East (China) and West (Persia).

By the way, you also have to take in mind that China was a lot less smaller than it is today. Actually, great parts of the difficult terrain I'm talking about is in the west of modern-day China. Tibet and the area north of it.

[the persian Immortal]

.

lol, you're not making friends with him this way mate

I give the same advice, actually

I wasn't really serius, roach is aware of that

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Despite that, are you suggesting that Chinese traded directly with the Persians? Because I can't believe that was the case, even not when the Silk Road was really established. There have always been intermediates

No. Not always. In Achaemenid times they were pretty much the center of the world - after all, they did allegedly rule over 40% of the world's population.

I said not large scale, and I never said direct trade.

[YuilenZ01]

Well you're in luck, I'm a history major and very informed on the ancient world era. The fact of the matter is, is that the allure of money has made people do crazy things. Merchants would travel though unexplored areas of the world, crossing over mountains and through jungles, trying to get to distant lands and bring back invaluable trade goods. The Middle East is still a part of Asia, even though we never really see it that way, but as more of a subcontinent.

If you read the Old Testament in the Bible, various books give detailed descriptions of trade goods that were imported or exported from various kingdoms and nations, and where the finest products came from, such as the best linen, the finest purple or scarlet silk, the best gold or silver, gems, iron, or bronze, as well as various woods for making different kinds of decor. Also, there is a special jewel called lapis lazuli which is found only in the northern mountains of Afghanistan, and this stone was imported by merchants all the way to Mesopotamia, during the reign of the Sumerian city-states from 2500-2000 B.C.

Also, another important factor was the life and religion of Siddhartha Budda. Since he was an Indian prince, and since his religion had many followers, after his death, missionaries went into different parts of Asia spreading the new ideals of Buddhism, which was around the middle 400's B.C. Buddhism reached Persia perhaps 100 years before Alexander, and so with the new religion came people from India and various different trade goods, as well as new ideas. Not to mention a good portion of west India was conquered by Persia during this time.

The problem lies in that beyond the advanced realms of India lay the uncharted and mostly tribal kingdoms of the Khmer, which was Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, Laos, and Burma. In order to get through this land, you needed a guide, most likely, and someone who could speak the language, as there was always the chance you would be murdered for being an outsider. For a Greek, it would be impossible. But for a Persian who has Indian vassals, it could be accomplished. This would also require several translators to get by these lands, or guides. And lastly, China. To get to the heart of China would probably require one or two more translators, unless the Chinese were familiar with Khmer or Indian dialects. Whether or not China was united makes little difference, because trade routes were still used and the Chinese still encouraged foreign trade.

The more brave route would be to go around the Himalayas, through Tibet, and go around the Gobi desert, most likely underneath it in Tibet, and head east for China. Although it would have less people and less "jungle danger" from poisonous snakes and the like, the climate would still be very cold, and probably lots of mountains to cross. However, like I said before, the allure of money makes people do crazy things, and just as explorers in Europe tried to find the bottom of Africa, and even tried to chart the Nile, it is extremely unlikely to say that no one tried to reach China and come back with riches. It is also extremely unlikely to say that no one succeeded, either. In Alexander's time, the silk road would be much less dangerous than it would be before his time, but not impossible.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Thank you for showing up! I'd gve you rep but I have too many infractions.