In order to assess the validity of the name of something, one must first look at what the given definition in context to the name actually is. And so, before this essay begins, one must look at what the given definition of the term must include in order to assess the validity of its title. With a name such as the ‘Silk Roads’ one must present an inclusive and broad definition that takes into account all of the routes, to begin, and then further the economies, markets, politics, religion, and even the people throughout these routes. The countries that are included in relation to this context must look at these factors implemented all throughout Central Asia, India, Africa, Europe, and even Rome. Though despite all of this, the term itself wasn`t actually coined until 1877 by geographer Ferdinand Von Ritchofen (1833-1905) though, it wasn`t until the twentieth century that it became widely used, especially in literature. Albert Herman had been the first to use it in a book title in 1910 which consequently led it to be read and cited quite profoundly by the leader scholars at that time. This prevents being influenced by any political agenda and also analyses the concept that commerce in any one product, such as silk, did not exist in isolation but instead was formed as a result of the trade that also included other luxuries and commodities. Within the appropriate perspective, the word 'Silk Roads' is used to express the preoccupation of the rising nations' east and west between India and China; however, historians later realized that if the invented phrase was to explore a solely descriptive term, one could argue that it would be fruitless. In a descriptive sense, the term utterly disregards the effectiveness of these trade routes and gives the appearance of something less spectacular rather than brilliant. Through examples and facts, this essay will evaluate the concept of 'silk roads' in the Middle Ages to substantiate the argument that it is in reality unhelpful and antiquated.
Now that we have begun to explore and even assess the validity of the term we will now poise further into this essay and begin by looking at the argument posed by historian David Christian by which, which argues that modern historiography has not yet fully appreciated the ecological complexity of the silk roads. This argument poses the understanding that one then begins to fail to grasp the full importance of Eurasian history, alongside failing to grasp its full antiquity. The silk roads, on the other hand, played an important role in the exchange of goods, technologies, and ideas across various regions of 'agrarian civilizations.' As a result, a more in-depth examination of the Silk Roads' dual role as a conduit for trans-ecological trades leads one to reconsider the Silk Roads' age, significance, and location.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
As a result, when viewed on a larger scale, the phrase becomes less useful. The contradictory inferences appear to indicate a varying in the interpretation of what the silk roads meant to them, and this makes reference to the understanding that perhaps the term the 'Silk Roads' limits the expanse of what it covers in the sense that, while it was a huge ecological expansion, the name of it boils it down to a different understanding, as one could pose that the main form of trade was silk, when instead it emerged to be the greater technologies and greater goods.
It connected numerous sections of the Afro-Eurasian landmass due to its broad breadth and widespread trans-ecological highways that went across it. Despite its immense diversity, these paths ensured that Afro-Eurasia's history had always been able to keep its fundamental oneness, which was reflected through common technologies, styles, civilizations, religions, and even though disease patterns. In his article, historian David Christian believes that international historians have grown increasingly cognizant of the underlying unity of Afro-Eurasian history. However, there are additional articulated contrasting perspectives that are posed when it comes to the fundamental unity of the Silk Roads. Andre Gunder and Frank Gill, for example, argue that the entire Afro-Eurasian region was part of a single world system as early as 2000 B.C.E., whereas historians William McNeil and Jerry Bently restate the case for a unified Afro-Eurasian past. The conflicting conclusions seem to suggest a different meaning for what the silk roads mean to them, and this alludes to the understanding that perhaps the name of the silk roads limits the expanse of what it covers in the sense that, while it was a huge ecological expansion, the name of it boils it down to a different understanding as one could present that the main form of trade was silk, when instead it seemed to be the greater technologies and ideas that ran through these routes. Though, in contrast, historian Marshal Hodgson made the point in the early 1950s, when he argued that historical life from early times at least till two or three centuries ago, was continuous across the Afro-Eurasian zone of civilization: that zone ultimately indivisible The whole of the Afro-Eurasian zone is the only context large enough to provide a framework for answering the more general and more basic historical questions that can arise. Moreover, David Christian emphasizes the larger context and historical relevance of the silk Road throughout this publication. In this argument, his article makes the case for a broader definition of the term, arguing that it is obsolete and archaic because the meaning of the name was substantially richer and more widespread.
However, there are arguments that suggest that silk was one of the most important items carried on the Silk Roads due to its high value, remarkable beauty, and low weight. Hence the name was originally applied. Despite this, however, they also moved ceramics, glass, metals, and even sheep along one of its trading routes. Finally, while the phrase is now commonly used, it does have a solid intellectual background. Though, before the German traveler and geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen invented the term 'Silk Road(s)' in 1877, this network had never been characterized as a road or route from China to the Mediterranean, nor was silk ever seen as the primary object of trade along it. As a result, the Silk Road narrative suffers from a basic fault in that it is later viewed as some sort of pre-modern path between the East and the West. Thus adding to the argument that it is an archaic term from the past. However, the idea is further advanced in that it is intended for the reconstruction of the past, in which the West is positioned at the center of world history, thereby showing that all paths lead to the West.
More often than not, it becomes clear that the silk roads were not solely for the transportation of silk. Because the majority of its known historical sources are from China, India, Persia, and the Roman Empire, there is an increased emphasis on sedentary civilizations' trades throughout its historiography. As a result, this adds to the argument that the phrase 'silk roads' is clearly archaic and so meaningless. According to historian Ravi K. Mishra, historiography tends to put an emphasis on the subject that sees the Central Asian network solely through the eyes of sedentary civilizations. This system of trade predated the more familiar trans-civilizational exchanges and was equally integral in the functioning of the entire system.
In conclusion, this essay contends that the term 'Silk Roads' has become obsolete and, as a result, less credible as a term to explore the trade routes that shifted many more valuable, goods, and even technologies throughout the world, rather than limiting its name to something as insignificant as silk in comparison to what else it transported including religions. The essay questions how frequently historiography analyses the importance of trade routes. The restricted conception of the Silk Road as an east-west route connecting China and Rome, according to this historiography, also obscures the truth that there was no single 'way,' but rather a network of roads. The narrative of the 'Silk Road,' which involves specific cultural and technological interaction, must be written throughout this essay and its historiography. As a result, it is evident that the current discourse on these routes lacks historical evidence to back it up. Furthermore, one could argue that such a word did not exist in the context of Eurasian land ways, weakening the historical legitimacy and importance of sedentary civilizations. As a result, the phrase 'Silk Roads' looks to be obsolete and outdated in the Middle Ages. Furthermore, considering its backward projection of the present into the collective past, especially given that silk was only one of many essential commodities traded, including horses, cotton, religions, and, eventually, knowledge.
Stuck on your essay?
