Investigating the Middle East during the pre-European hegemonic period is much more vast than I thought it would be. However, with its location and political climate during the era, I can the various complexities that are involved.
It behooves any reader in Eastern civilization to understand the vastness of Mongol domination prior to European conquest. In a large part, the Mongol Empire has had great influence over the Middle East and Asia throughout history. What's interesting about Mongol hegemony, as Abu-Lughod points out, is that throughout the whole reign, wealth of the empire was not signified by any form of production but instead was solely relegated from tributes. This separates the Mongol Empire from any other empire that I'm aware of.
Not surprisingly, what was apparent was European's description of the Mongols. Labeled as Tartars, after the Biblical region of Tartarus of Hell, Europeans perceived Mongols as barbarians and projected the sense of Otherness to a extremely powerful empire. The account given by missionary sent by Pope Innocent the Fourth said repulsive things such as "they have small opening for eyes" and another account goes onto a strange account of how Chinese obtain red dye for their silk by stating that it comes from a creature called "Chinchin" that drinks mead.
Nevertheless, it seems that Marco Polo had a little more reverence for the Mongols describing them as "prosperous agriculturalists, skilled industrial producers, and many foreign traders." (yet dismissing the foreign traders as only "Mohammedans" - a reference to Muslims).
Abu-Lughod does point out that the exclusion of Muslim cultures from the beginning of the Mongol conquest did help segregate their empire from the Black Death that was spreading throughout the world. However, it was then from trade and mixing with other cultures that inhabitants inevitably caught onto Black Death that killed a large percentage of the population.
Being geographically and somewhat historically inept when it comes to the Middle East, I didn't realize the significance Baghdad and Iraq had on the world markets. I guess it would have a significance when it comes to its geological location but it seems to be a one time the prevailing thoroughfare between the West and East. Nevertheless, as Abu-Lughod points out, it fell to its demise due to increased protection costs, thus leading merchants to find other routes, and the seperation of Iraq and Persia.
Also, Egypt playing a huge role in the relationship between China and India, exploited their location to use it to their economic advantage. With principles set in Muslim values, which were based on the Prophet Mohammad, a business agent, Egypt developed a whole economic system that consisted of agents, accountants, credit, banks, etc. In addition, they also utilized a system called commenda, which was used as an agreement that would serve to what we would consider as an investment strategy in today's era. Nevertheless, monopolistic practices and poor management inevitably brought Egypt to a diminishing state.
I do find the Middle East to be an interesting area and even in today's society, still have remnants of its pre-European nature. I think that a lot of merchants still practice similar practices in Egypt but on a global scale. One could argue that Egyptian mercantile dynamics could have served as a forerunner to today's globalized markets.
I too find it strange to think of Baghdad as being once a cradle of civilization and technology, yet I remember hearing the CNN reporters talking about how Iraq was trying to recapture its former greatness during the Gulf War. Through the advances of shipping, travel, and world commerce, many methods and routes have changed since then and that has also muscled out some of the former world players. But I too found the history of trade in the region to be most interesting.
ReplyDelete