|
INTRODUCTION
Sushil Chaudhury
No comprehensive study has yet been made on the role of the Armenians in the long-distance trade in Asia in the 16* to the 18* century. But this is a very important subject in trade history, especially in view of the fact that the Armenians were one of the most active groups, perhaps the most dominant, in overland trade in the early modern era. Moreover a study of the theme is aE the more essential for a proper understanding and clarification of some the crucial issues and the on-going debate on the relative importance of the traditional overland trade vis-à-vis the seaborne European trade as also the characterization of the Asian trade in the 16th through the 18th century.
I
One of the major issues concerning the long-distance trade in the Eurasian continuum in the early modern era is whether the advent of the Europeans resulted in the ultimate demise of the Asian overland trade. It has been held for long that with the advent of the Europeans in the Indian Ocean region, first under the Portuguese in the 16th century, followed by the English and the Dutch East India Companies in the 17th century, the overland trade was doomed and from then onward, especiaüy from the early 17th century, the oceanic trade of the Europeans ruled supreme in the long-distance trade. The most eminent protagonist of this theory is Niels Steensgaard who in his seminal work, The Asian Trade Revolution of the Seventeenth Centuty, propounded that the Companies succeeded in breaking the caravan’s hold over the overland trade of Asia from the early 17th century, though he somewhat qualified his position in two later essays (Steensgaard, 1974; 1987; 1999, 55-73).
It is true, no doubt, that the discovery, and hence the opening of the direct maritime route from Europe to Asia by Vasco da Gama around the Cape of Good Hope in 1498 brought about a "commercial revolution" and resulted in the integration of trade on a global scale between the 16th and 18th centuries. The huge profit earned by the Portuguese from the spice trade with the eastern archipelago lured the North Europeans to venture in the Eastj and as such the English East India Company was formed in 1600, followed by the Dutch East India Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC) in 1602. In this connection it is well to remember that the inflow of silver from the Americas made it possible for the Europeans to have trade with Asia with ease. A part of the silver that came to Europe from the “New World” could be used for commerce with Asia and this along with the silver that was brought in from Japan enabled the Europeans to buy commodities in Asia for export to Europe (Chaudhury, Morineau, 1999,1, Introduction).
However, even before Steensgaard, William H. Moreland, one of the pioneers in the field of Indian economic history, emphasized the role of the Europeans in the Indian Ocean trade in the 16th century. He held that the advent of the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean in the 16th century ushered in "a new era" in the region. Though he acknowledged that the Asian ships were active in some parts of the Indian Ocean during this period, he however maintained that the important routes of maritime trade in this area were dominated by the Portuguese. He was also of the opinion that India’s traditional overland trade in the 17th century was of little importance and that the important development took place at sea (Moreland, 1920,186-188, 192-209, 218; 1923, 58). The idea was so much entrenched that Kavalam M. Panikkar, writing almost forty years after Moreland, talked of the "Western dominance" in the Indian Ocean with the coming in of the Portuguese (Panikkar, 1959).
A second issue that comes up in connection with the discussion on long-distance trade in the early modern era is the characterization of Asian trade as “peddling trade” and Asian merchants as inferior to the Europeans in regard to commercial organization and techniques of trade. In his classic work, Indonesian Trade and Society, Jacob C. van Leur, despite an anticolonialism iconoclastic for his day while discarding some aspects of the Eurocentric approach to Asian history, could not break out of a Weberian dichotomy between European capitalist trade and an unchanging “Oriental trade” and hence characterized Asian trade as a "small-scale peddling trade" (van Leur, 1955, 63-79, 133). As is known, “peddling” is a term to describe an archaic form of commercial activity and as such, an ineffective method of trading. Later on, Steensgaard reiterated van Leur thesis of peddling trade even while admitting that the peddling trade could make use of fairly sophisticated commercial methods, such as “commenda, bottomry, partnerships, and combined credit and transfer transactions by means of bills of exchange.” He tried to compare the commercial organizations of the caravan, i.e., peddling trade and those of the European trading companies, and demonstrate the organizational superiority of the Companies over the caravans (Steensgaard, 1974, 24-59. See also Baladouni, Makepeace, 1998, xxxiv-xxxv).
Thirdly, the issue is also concerning the characterization of the Asian merchants as peddlers. Here again it is van Leur, later on reiterated by Steensgaard, who stressed that the Asian merchants were mere peddlers compared with their European counterparts in the 17th and 18th centuries. Steensgaard (1974, 30) wrote that “the ordinary [Asian] entrepreneur operates on the pedlar level, and there is nothing in the sources to indicate the existence of comprehensive coordinated organizations—of an Armenian, Turkish, Persian version of a Fugger, Cranfield or Tripp.” Fourth, the Asian trade is characterized by van Leur as an exchange of luxury goods, small in bulk but high in value. In other words, that it was a trade distinguished mainly by luxury goods, rather than in mundane commodities for daily use.
Again, yet another issue comes up in the discussion of long-distance trade in the early modern era. It has been held for long that as the European export trade by oceanic route was the dominant factor in the commercial life of Asia, especially India and for that matter Bengal which was the largest supplier of export commodities like textiles and raw silk, they were the major exporters from Bengal, and as such they were the main importers of bullion into Bengal, especially in the first half of the 18th century (Chaudhuri, 1978, 247. Marshall, 1987, 65-67. Bayly, 1988, 49-50). As a corollary, it has been maintained by historians that the inflow of precious metals in the wake of the European trade resulted in “marked and sustained” increase in prices in Bengal in the first half of the 18th century (Marshall, 1975, 65; 1987, 73, 142-143, 163-164. Chaudhuri, ibid., 99-108). One of the noted scholars on trade history even went to the extent of asserting that:
“The development of European trade with Bengal in the late 17th century had the effect of shifting the balance radically in favour of the seaborne trade. During the first half of the 18th century Europe was unquestionably Bengal’s chieftrading partner and its textile industry had not only expanded at a rapid rate to keep pace with the increased demand but had also fully adjusted its output to the special specifications required for selling in Europe” (Chaudhuri, ibid., 24; emphasis added).
.....
|
