A very long way from home: early Byzantine finds at the far ends of the world

http://www.caitlingreen.org/2017/03/a-very-long-way-from-home.html

by diodorus • 9 years ago

106 28 9 years ago

stinkytaco3• 9 years ago

When I was growing up and devouring things on the Romans and Middle Ages I was led to believe that these were isolated societies, with no knowledge of the outside world. People lived in their village, never left it, and believed there were monsters beyond the horizon.

Many years and many words later I wonder if our understanding of the world has changed or if mine was just unsophisticated. Do kids still learn what I learned? The ancient world was incredibly mobile, considering the limitations. Not just traders moving overland between east and west, but within societies and craftsmen and scholars moving for work and opportunities. I find that quite comforting, in some ways.

pixl97• 9 years ago

I wonder if our understanding of the world has changed

I think that a lot of the worldview of past history was jaded by historians and their governments to show that they live in the best of times and that those that came before them, or were from other places, were savages. It may be easier to tell history more accurately if you're not trying to prove you're better than everyone else. Of course, my thoughts on what occurred in the past of telling history may be wrong.

wutangson12• 9 years ago

I think you're on to something. “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984.

empath75• 9 years ago

Some of that is a symptom of people teaching lousy history to kids. But afaik, it's been well known among historians that the romans traded with India and had silk from china. It's not exactly a secret that Alexander invaded India.

13of40• 9 years ago

In the past century, at least in the Western world, we've developed a completely new concept of mobility. We live in a world where pretty much anyone with a passport and $2000 can spend a week on the other side of the earth, but the caveat to that is you're depending on being able to travel quickly (who can take the time off work?) being able to depend on the physical security of the society you're traveling in, at least to some extent, and having a global financial and communication network to take care of you while you're abroad. Go back a hundred years ago and most of that's out the door. Go back 1000 years, and all of Europe was still living in walled cities. I think people traveled back then, but it was far fewer individuals doing it. (And probably a lot more walked out into the hills than ever came back...)

stinkytaco3• 9 years ago

Of course it was nothing like today, but it was a far cry from the isolated, dark world I was taught about where people didn't leave their villages and nobles were in their castles fighting off barbarians who shuttled between Norway and Britain for some occasional pillaging.

Skilled craftsman who worked on large projects moved between them. Arab scholars and traders brought ancient texts into Europe. Traders brought spices from the east. Viking traders who weren't pillaging Britain traveled through Russia as far south as modern day Turkey. It was a far more interconnected world than I thought when I was 12.

my_first_acct• 9 years ago

In 1919, John Maynard Keynes described what the world was like (for the elite, anyway) in the years before World War I (or the Great War, as it was called at that time, since no one was expecting a sequel). The world of global mobility, communication, and finance actually took shape soon after the laying of the trans-oceanic telegraph lines (that is, by the 1870s); it didn't require the jet plane or the internet.

One excerpt from Keynes' book:

The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep...

He could secure forthwith, if he wished it, cheap and comfortable means of transit to any country or climate without passport or other formality, could despatch his servant to the neighboring office of a bank for such supply of the precious metals as might seem convenient, and could then proceed abroad to foreign quarters, without knowledge of their religion, language, or customs, bearing coined wealth upon his person, and would consider himself greatly aggrieved and much surprised at the least interference. [1]

[1] http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Keynes/kynsCP2.html

Fricken• 9 years ago

I was travelling in Lombok a couple years ago, it's an island 70 km across, next to Bali in Indonesia, and stayed with a family. The woman of the house had never been off the island, and had only travelled to the capital city of Mataram (about a 45 minute drive from her village) on a handful of occasions. It's not uncommon for people in poorer parts of the world, even today.

benbreen2• 9 years ago

I do think it reflects some new archeological findings, and possibly also a new interest in globalization among historians due to the events of the last couple decades, which then causes them to revisit old evidence.

I teach my students a combination of the two models that you mention. In other words, the premodern world was indeed a place where most people didn't venture beyond their own village. However, among elites (diplomats, ambassadors, religious or political leaders, military officers) there was a remarkable amount of mobility and cosmopolitanism. I find that comforting too - I like knowing that people hundreds or thousands of years ago grappled with the same issues arising from cross-cultural contacts that people do today.

One example: my wife was born and raised in Iran, and I was having a lot of fun yesterday reading a 17th century Englishman complaining about Persian food ("their Cheese and Butter will make your mouths water at it; I ironize: in good earnest the cheese is the worst any ever tasted... its dry, blue, and hard, ill to the eye, bad to the taste, naught for digestion... their liquor may perhaps better delight you."). [1]

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in global travel in a slightly later period (late Middle Ages) I wrote a blog post about a Spaniard visiting Samarkand a few years ago. I'm really interested by people who aren't Marco Polo or Ibn Battuta but who made similarly epic journeys. [2]

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=mlJBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA240#v=on...

[2] http://resobscura.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-spaniard-in-samarka...

HarryHirsch• 9 years ago

In other words, the premodern world was indeed a place where most people didn't venture beyond their own village.

Not so sure about that. Consider the Didache, a church constitution and katechesis manual dated to the late 1st century AD. Chapters 12 and 13 are devoted to brothers in faith from other towns and itinerant prophets. Christianity at that time was not a religion of the wealthy. If this very practical work spends so much time on the subject then travel must also have been possible for the smallfolk.

jvm• 9 years ago

In other words, the premodern world was indeed a place where most people didn't venture beyond their own village.

According to this thesis[1], 40–50% of Romans were born outside the city, that sounds like quite widespread mobility!

[1] http://www.academia.edu/245988/Migration_and_Mobility_in_Imp...

flukus• 9 years ago

People lived in their village, never left it, and believed there were monsters beyond the horizon.

I think that's true of most people in most of human history and would describe a lot of people even today. Even traders would typically only operate in a small section of a trade network, they weren't travelling the globe like Marco Polo. Some would move from small towns to cities, but cities were a population sink until pretty recently. The most well traveled people were probably mostly soldiers.

clock_tower2• 9 years ago

Luxury goods traveled very far, even crossing the frontiers of mutually-hostile civilizations, but most commerce was local. As for people, merchants could really travel, mercenaries sometimes did the same, and elites and soldiers would sometimes go abroad and come back, but most people stayed put. Knowledge was also very expensive to come by, and the difference between what the best-educated and worst-educated knew was much larger than it is today. You might find Fernand Braudel's The Structures of Everyday Life interesting; likewise A History of Private Life, especially the first two volumes (the classical world and the Middle Ages), as well as Simplicius Simplicissimus, a novel about the Thirty Years War which was written in the 1670s but is still eminently readable today.

(Of course, my main area of interest is the early modern period, when Islam was a wall that bisected the world: Muslim merchants could and did travel freely through most of the Old World, but no one else could expect to get through Islam. The pre-Islamic world was more mobile, especially for merchants and mercenaries; likewise the early age of the Mongols, before the Golden Horde and the Il-Khanate converted.)

tici_88• 9 years ago

As a side note, the term "Byzantine empire" does not reflect how people called it or thought of it at the time of its existence at all. They referred to it as the (Holy) Roman Empire of the East and they considered and called themselves Roman citizens.

In fact the city Byzantium didn't even exist during the time of what we call the "Byzantine" empire. Byzantium was an Greek then Roman city that existed right until Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) was founded within a few kilometers from Byzantium by Constantine the Great in the 4th century AD. Constantine the Great moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople in large part due to the new town's strategic and uniquely defensive position. Constantinople was built fresh though - there were no prior settlements on its location.

Byzantium as a city ceased to exist in name and otherwise as everything that was worth moving over got moved over and the new capital of the Roman empire took over as the main city in the vicinity in the area.

I suspect the name "Byzantine empire" got coined to imply that the Roman empire's 'holy', 'god-given' and 'ancestral' lineage does not go East but is rather 'subsumed' by the empires in the West that ended up forming much later from the vestiges of the Rome-based Roman empire in the middle ages.

aaron-lebo• 9 years ago

It's also interesting to note that Mehmed II claimed the title of Caesar after his conquest of Constantinople and that geographically there was a lot of overlap between the greatest extent of Eastern Roman and Ottoman territory. Oh, and not only did a Constantine found the city, but it was the 11th Constantine that died losing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_(title)#Ottoman_Empire

cagataygurturk• 9 years ago

Another related historical fact: After Ottomans conquered Constantinople they started to copy Hagia Sophia's architecture to build their mosques. Therefore still the architecture of mosques in old Ottoman lands is similar to Byzantine while the architecture in other muslim world (North Africa, Asia etc.) is pretty different. Ottomans positioned themselves basically as the muslim version of Byzantines. Actually the root of Ottoman Classical Music (now called as Turkish Classical Music) goes to Byzantine music.

boriselec• 9 years ago

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Rum Rum == Rome

wutangson12• 9 years ago

Not sure your suspicion is accurate... Constantinople was a deliberate break from Rome, given that it's people spoke koine Greek and not Latin, and that before falling to the Turkish invaders was attacked and ransacked by the Crusaders who carried the banner of the Holy Roman Empire.

ycombinete• 9 years ago

Why is this comment flagged?

olavk• 9 years ago

Constantinople were deliberate attempt to move the capital of the empire, but it was still the same empire, and they still considered themselves Romans.

The Holy Roman Empire did not really have the same continuity from the Roman Empire, it was just a title chosen for the prestige.

Khaine• 9 years ago

The Holy Roman Empire is only so named because Charlemagne managed to get a Pope to crown him the Holy Roman Emperor of the West.

The Roman Empire was so large that at some point they needed two-four emperors to run it (Senior and Junior emperors)

The reason for the name split is probably due to Gibbon who moralised about the decline and fall and tied the fall to the rise of the Church

A very long way from home: early Byzantine finds at the far ends of the world

Related Stories