Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheTreesHaveRabies t1_j6ws5kb wrote

Reply to comment by ClaustroPhoebia in Discovery of embalming workshop reveals how ancient Egyptians mummified the dead by Magister_Xehanort

Well I'll bite:

What kinds of evidence are you looking at?

How do you navigate the language barriers?

Theoretically, how do you approach questions? Ex. Globally, regionally, locally? How do you derive inferences?

21

ClaustroPhoebia t1_j6wyr9t wrote

Okay so for context, my specialism is Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt so that is gonna inform my particular evidence. In terms of literature, there are bits and pieces all over the place: Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Diodorus, and a variety of Ptolemaic poets and stuff.

There’s also some contextual evidence such as references to goods that could only have come from abroad. One of the big pieces of evidence is the so-called Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, which is basically a trade guide written by a Roman sailor advising people on the best places to trade and sail in the Red Sea and parts of the Indian Ocean.

We also have papyri which often complements the literary evidence. As a good example, we have one papyrus attesting to the sinking of an elephantegoi, a type of ship developed by Ptolemy II for the acquisition of elephants from East Africa.

Then there’s just archaeology: a Roman coin under a Japanese castle, Greek-inspired art in Southeast Asia, many many pots in India, an Egyptian statue in Zimbabwe just as examples. What’s important to remember is that this doesn’t necessarily indicate that Romans or Greeks necessarily went to these places, but that they were tied into very active and wide ranging trade networks.

Language barriers are always difficult, not least in papyri where they can be in multiple ancient languages and have often been translated into multiple different modern languages. Often the best way is just to have a good knowledge of lots of different languages, especially modern languages in order to access as many translations as possible.

Going forward, I’d really like to work on my Greek and Coptic and try to push digitisation so that papyri are more accessible for future scholars. In other cases, sometimes the beta you can do is find other people who may know relevant languages or have expertise in relevant areas.

Theoretically, I’m of the personal opinion that local, regional, and global narratives are extensions of one another. They can be dealt with separately but a completely picture has to acknowledge that they are neither separate nor isolated.

Personally, I have dealt more with regional understandings of trade than either global or local.

Hope this helps!

67

TheTreesHaveRabies t1_j6wzbgv wrote

You rock pal! Thanks for that awesome info! Super interesting stuff! Do you have a book recommendation perhaps?

Best of luck to you!

12

2muchtequila t1_j6y726h wrote

Out of curiosity, do you know if it was it more common at the time for long distance trade routs to be a trader making a super long journey or a series of relays. Like I sell to the market that's only a couple of weeks away, they sell to another market and so on?

4

ClaustroPhoebia t1_j6zij92 wrote

Okay so for a time there was a theory that most maritime trade was basically this process of traders sorta just working their way along coastlines looking for a profit wherever they could. The idea was that Greek merchants didn’t really have set ideas of where there was a good market for anything so they just bought and sold whatever and wherever they could.

Nowadays, we know that is not true. Merchants in the ancient world actually had a very complex understanding of the wider market and where they could make a profit. As such, they plied specific routes, often over rather large distances, that they knew would make a profit.

For your question, the answer is that it kinda varies. Strabo tells us that, under the Ptolemies, some 20 ships made the journey to India each year which increased to 100 under the Romans. Now whether or not we accept those exact numbers, the point is that he attests to a certain number of Greek and Roman ships making the journey as far as India each year.

However, there are a couple of points to raise here. Firstly, there is no reason to suspect they personally went any further east than India (it just wouldn’t make any financial or personal sense to do so). Secondly, these Greeks and Romans are probably a minority of shipping.

Instead, the main journeys across the Indian Ocean were probably dominated by the Arabians and Ethiopians (specifically Axum) who understood the winds of the Indian Ocean a lot better than the Greeks. That said we do hear of attempts by Ptolemaic explorers to try and map the winds in the later periods of the dynasty.

So for the Greeks and Romans, trade in the Indian Ocean was probably mostly through intermediaries (buying and selling at, say Adulis or Muscat or Petra). However, plenty of Africans and Arabians were making direct trips across the ocean.

3