06-28-2017, 11:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2017, 06:14 PM by Nathan Ross.)
(06-28-2017, 05:39 PM)Michael Kerr Wrote: Iran/Persia which he assumes doesn’t get enough credit for being the major destination of the Silk Road/Route/Routes.
Thanks for the detailed reading Michael!
Yes, the author does seem very Persophile (?), but his overall point is, I think, quite a good one - we are inclined to view the 'silk road(s)' as a conduit of trade between west and east, with everyone in between either acting as 'middlemen' or vanishing into a sort of geographical vacuum, into which caravans set forth and then emerge at the other end... Whereas actually we have both China and Rome dealing with various Central Asian and Indian peoples at the extremities of their trade routes, who in turn passed goods and ideas onwards, at several removes.
I do quite like his suggestion that 'Daquin' was actually Ctesiphon though (or some sort of very distant notion of the Persian capital)!
Nathan Ross