462 elizabeth ann pollard
varying degrees. While there are intermittent early attempts by various Mediterranean-
based imperial powers to establish political–military control over exchange with the
Indian Ocean, significant control on the grandest scale is not achieved until the
second millennium ce. This desire for political-military control was likely driven by
the enduring appetite of western markets for Indian Ocean commodities. It often
appears that the Indian Ocean markets desired “currency” (or at least raw metals,
such as copper, silver, and gold) over finished goods (Italian wine being a first-
century ce exception). In earlier phases of Indian Ocean–Mediterranean connec-
tivity, “exotic” goods were the primary commodity moving along these routes, but
by 1250–1500 ce, the Indian Ocean trade included more bulk goods, such as tim-
ber, sugar, rice, wheat, barley, and some manufactured goods (Curtin, 1984: 120).
Facilitating the movement of these goods—and, in the case of slaves, sometimes
constituting the goods themselves—were the people moving about the routes
between the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean. While it is difficult to trace informa-
tion exchange in the earliest periods, ideas were no doubt traveling along with
goods and peoples that moved between these two seas. What is clear, however, is
that three of the traditions destined to become major world religions—Buddhism,
Christianity, and Islam—proselytized heavily along the networks linking the
Mediterranean with the Indian Ocean.
Political-military networksPrior to Portuguese circumnavigation of Africa c. 1500 ce, the routes connecting
the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean generally required some amount of
overland travel along two of the “nexus corridors” (Nile–Red Sea and Syria–
Mesopotamia–Persian Gulf) described by Gills and Frank. Consequently, many
polities over time sought to control these corridors, or find ways to circumvent
them. Robbing the Portuguese (or at least da Gama) of their primacy, Herodotus
describes an expedition to circumnavigate Africa commissioned by a much earlier
Mediterranean power, namely twenty-sixth dynasty Egypt, dispatched by its phar-
aoh Necho II (610–595 bce). According to Herodotus, the Phoenicians that Necho
II sent out spent over two years sailing clockwise around the continent, putting into
land to plant and harvest crops before continuing on their way (Herodotus, 4.42.1–
4). Such an expedition does not, of course, imply that an all-sea route was anything
more than truly exceptional, but the Necho-sponsored mission does demonstrate
Mediterranean powers’ interest, Egypt and Greece (given Herodotus’ reportage)
included, in linking the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean. As for the need for
some amount of land-transit to link the Mediterranean with the Indian Ocean
routes, Herodotus also reports that, around 600 bce, this same Necho II built a
“canal into the Erythraean Sea, which Darius the Persian later completed. The
length of the sailing voyage is four days” (Herodotus, 2.158.1). This canal has been
the subject of much debate in both modern scholarship (for example, Sidebotham,
2011: 179–182) and ancient sources: Darius I of Persia (c. 500 bce) and Ptolemy II
Philadelphus (mid-third century bce) claimed credit in inscriptions; Herodotus and
Diodorus Siculus agreed the canal was completed but differed as to by whom
(Diodorus claiming it was Ptolemy II Philadelphus); and Aristotle and Pliny sug-
gested it was never completed.