craftsmen, they produced nothing but were thought to live off the labor of
others. Where commerce was viewed as an unpleasant or degrading occupa-
tion, as in Homeric Greece, foreigners were allowed or even encouraged to
engage in it. The merchant foreigner represented the unknown outside world
and as such was usually suspected of being in some way potentially danger-
ous. A curious insight into the contradictory image of the long-distance
trader is provided in theArthashastra, a handbook written for rulers in India
between the fourth centuryBCEand the second centuryCE. In it trade is
recognized as one of three economic activities constituting the main sources
of wealth for a country (agriculture and cattle husbandry being the other
two). Rulers are advised to promote trade tofill their treasuries with taxes
and obtain war material. Nevertheless, theArthashastraspecifically warns:
“Merchants ...are all thieves, in effect, if not in name; they should be
prevented from oppressing the people.”
Commercial boundaries and political boundaries did not as a rule coincide.
If rulers and elite classes wanted access to particular products beyond their
borders, they could raid or invade the territory where these goods originated,
or they could participate in consensual trade. Long-distance trade operated
through commercial networks, and political power could impact on seg-
ments of a network. In the worst case scenario of a state inflicting enough
damage on a network to mortally wound it, new networks would likely arise
or existing networks adjust, provided market forces remained constant. In
many instances, there was a direct correlation between strong government
and commercial prosperity, especially if a strong government attempted to
support trade even in some minimal way. On the other hand, political dis-
unity did not necessarily mandate commercial decline. In some places, pros-
perity could result from not having to suffer interference by strong political
authority. India enjoyed one of its greatest periods of commercial growth
between the collapse of the Mauryan Empire in 184BCEand the reestab-
lishment of centralized control under the Gupta dynasty in 320CE. A similar
situation occurred during the Late (Eastern) Zhou period when the Chinese
state fragmented.
Throughout history war has had one of the most profound impacts on
long-distance trade. War can open new routes, create new demands, and
introduce new commodities. Generally, however, war has been a disruptive
factor. Unlike raiding parties or pillaging hordes, organized armies on the
march usually left merchants alone, but the same cannot be said for cities.
Plundering a prosperous trade center was one of the great rewards offighting
a successful campaign even if in a war of conquest the conqueror was, in
effect, despoiling himself. If a commonsensical formula exists in which peace
equals increased trade equals increased prosperity, those who had the authority
to make war often did not think this out from a commonsensical perspective.
The opportunity for immediate gain without remuneration had too strong an
appeal.
52 Land of gold