Talk:Indo-Roman trade relations

Ports

My two cents, If this section is renamed "Ports" and is divided two sub-sections "Roman ports" and "Indian ports" it would add to the overall content of the article.

Also, a section dealing with the decline of trade may do the same as well. Havelock the Dane 17:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented the idea of a main "Ports" section and the mention of Roman ports. I'll look around for how the trade eventually declined. Havelock the Dane 14:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, Havelock the Dane 15:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Needed - more citations

There are still some sentences and paragraphs missing inline citations. I am sure when the GA reviewer comes around, it will be one of the items raised.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article has several major areas in which work is needed, and the article as a whole should be reviewed for style. The lead fails to provide a basic definition of the subject, which prevents a clear scope for the article. Defining the subject solely though its period in time is not sufficient. The article in general does a poor job of stating the obvious for the reader. Also, remember to provide clear transitions between sections and topics. This is admittedly a bit subjective, but in my view the article relies too heavily on block quotations. This is essentially a balancing issue related to the expansion needed (as detailed below in section 3).

2. Factually accurate?: The article suffers from a common problem of sourcing, namely that it has a goodly amount of references but an inadequate amount of inline citations to these refs. Citing a section at the end of each paragraph is really the bare minimum, and any fact likely to be challenged should be verified. Several of the formats used in the footnotes are unacceptable. Please see WP:CITE for more info on this, and consider using appropriate citation templates for some of the footnotes, especially numbers four and ten.

3. Broad in coverage?: This is the central area where work is required. Per WP:LEAD, the introduction is far, far too small. It should give an overview of the entire article (i.e. a summary of all major sections, and a basic timeline). Other sections desperately needing expansion are Decline and Roman ports. The article provides a good basic timeline and recounting of the mechanism of trade between Rome and India, but fails to give an adequate recounting of the cultural exchange that took place as a result, and the effect this may have had on modern Europe and India. The Background section does a decent job of connecting the subject to the preceding periods, but then a tie-in to later periods seem to be forgotten. To put it more succinctly, the article suffers from a time bias.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article is certainly neutral.

5. Article stability? Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.

6. Images?: Though for the most part, the images are well-used, appropriate and accounted for, there are a few issues. The tag for Image:BegramGladiator.JPG is deprecated and needs fixing. The lead image is a good choice, but it is practically impossible to read the map, which rather defeats the purpose. In the Decline section, the text is sandwiched between the two images. This is discouraged by WP:MOS#Images.

Customarily when an article does not obviously violate any of the quick-fail GA criteria, a hold period is applied to fix any minor problems. However, this hold should not be given if, in estimation, it would take longer than the maximum of seven days to complete the necessary changes. As the issues above, especially in desired expansion, are not minor and would exceed that time limit, I have failed the article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^Talk 22:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that there has been any error in the assessment. My response in form of editing the article to address these concerns would have been swift but I have been down with Influenza recently and have been slow at recovering. Will edit to address the concerns in a couple of days and hope to ask for your opinion if you can still spare the time.
With Regards,
Havelok 11:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Addressing concerns

I have performed the following tasks in order to address the concerns mentioned above:

1. Reformed lede.
2. Provided in-line citations and sourced the article.
3. Provided newer maps and made the older ones readable.
4. Removed Image:BegramGladiator.JPG
5. Improved sentences and addressed writing concerns.
6. Worked out a tie-in to later periods in the "Background" and "Establishment" sections.
7. Created a Cultural exchanges section.

With Regards,
Havelok 11:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Passed "good article" 2nd nomination

As you have clearly addressed all the concerns of the previous review, I am happy to promote this article to GA-status. Good work! VanTucky ^Talk 21:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

I am interested in this topic, and was delighted to discover that this article and the map exists. Thank you to all concerned. I don't care if it doesn't meet the Good Article criteria; it answers my questions. wikibiohistory 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern India term is confusing

This article has become confusing. The source quoted the most, a page from Ian Shaw's book, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, "is attempting to chronicle the history of Egypt from prehistory until 311 BC." (Quote is from Amazon.com review). The time frame in the article seems wrong. Could someone clear up my confusion? Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, why is there no mention of the land trade routes, such as the Silk Route that was involved in traded between India and Rome? –Mattisse (Talk) 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with page move

I strongly disagree with this page from Roman trade with India to Roman trade with modern India as the new name makes no sense in the article. Modern India did not exist until approximately 1950 when India became a republic. I request that the article name be changed back to its original name. –Mattisse (Talk) 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am of the same opinion as Matisse. The title should be returned to Roman trade with India. Romans never traded with "Modern India"... PHG (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

After commenting in at the Village Pump (policy), I was WP:BOLD per the suggestion there and returned the page to its former version without all the introductions of the word "modern" into the article. This is the version that makes sense to me. Please discuss on this talk page before making major changes to the article, such as a name change and changing the time frame to "modern". Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now the question of the title remains... can anybody move back Roman trade with modern India to Roman trade with India? PHG (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it back. To me, the term "Modern India" implies time-traveling Romans. --Carnildo (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not how it is used in the history of India articles. "Modern India" is not a term that is used any in those Wikipedia articles. Sorry, I misunderstood you. My apologies! Thanks for moving the page back! –Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Indian Union didn't exist until the 1950s, so the word "modern" was used to highlight that it wasn't India as we know it today that the Romans were trading with, although I can see why that might have been a little confusing. I'm adding details on the ancient Tamil country's trade with the Romans back into the article, since many of these ports were present in Tamilakkam and I think it's relevant here. See Economy of ancient Tamil country for more details. Wubbabubba (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "modern" had the opposite effect than you intended, I'm afraid. As the editor about said, it "implies time-traveling Romans"! Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I gathered. But I still find the title confusing. The term India implies the union existed then. Many of the kingdoms and ports the Romans traded with, and those that are mentioned here were in different countries such as Tamilakkam during this time (Damirica is what Periplus calls it). I think this should be noted. Wubbabubba (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

India is the name of a subcontinent. Using it in this context is commonly used to refer to a geographical location of the present day India and not the modern republic of India. In the hundreds of other Wikipedia articles on Indian history using the word India in this manner, there is no problem in clarity or understanding. Are you going to go around to all of those articles and make similar changes? Qualifying every mention of India in this manner in all the articles that routinely do so means that you have your work cut out for you. The area referred to is not just ancient Tamil country but an area much broader.–Mattisse (Talk) 13:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not for you and me, but for other readers, it can be easily misunderstood if not qualified. There is a reason why the article isn't "Italian trade with India" for instance. I never suggested it wasn't about Trade in a much broader area, that's why it's important to qualify it. There's a reason why India is a different article to Indian Subcontinent. Following WP:Bold, and sticking with the guidelines, I suggest for now renaming the article "Roman trade with the Indian Subcontinent" or something along those lines. Wubbabubba (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be against that. Much, if not most, of the trade over time was via China and the Silk Route. Your use of the term, India is not congruent with the common use on Wikipedia. India as a locality, bounded by geographical features, is understood by all. The Republic of India is probably less so. Perhaps the article on modern India needs to be changed to the Republic of India. That would cause less upheaval on Wikipedia that if you intend to change all the references to India to the Indian Subcontinent. It would be relatively much fewer to change the modern use of the term from India to the Republic of India. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, those who guard the articles on China do not have your view, so that articles on the history of China can use the word China without such qualifications, resulting in articles that are clear and cleanly written. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The lede of the article needs to be fixed

The lede is supposed to be a summary of the entire article per WP:MOS. Nothing is supposed to be mentioned in the lede that is not elaborated more fully in the article. Currently the lede no longer fulfills the function of a lede. Pehaps this article should be broken into an a article on Tamil country and leave the current article for the larger topic of Roman trade with India as a whole. –Mattisse (Talk) 13:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead, I see one line on Rome's trade with Tamlakkam in the lead right now, and I don't think that's too much at all. But yes, the lead is around three paragraphs long, and could be cut down. Perhaps the article could be broken, or see my title suggestion above.Wubbabubba (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence ruins the lead. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence runs "Roman trade with India through the overland caravan routes via Anatolia and Persia, though at a relative trickle comparative to later times, antedated the southern trade route via the Red Sea and Monsoons which started around the beginning of the Common Era (CE) following the reign of Augustus and his conquest of Egypt." Yes I think it could be rewritten. Wubbabubba (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ship coinage

Indian ship on lead coin of Vasisthiputra Sri Pulamavi.

Here's a example of a two-masted Indian ship on lead coin of Vasisthiputra Sri Pulamavi, testimony to the seafaring and trading capabilities of the Satavahanas during the 1st-2nd century CE. Feel free to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Indo-Roman relations

I began an article on Indo-Roman relations recently because it was listed on the WikiProject Indian History page: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_history) as an "Open Task". It is still an uncompleted article which I should expand.

Unfortunately, I was not aware until today that there is already this substantial article on Roman trade with India and there is, not surprisingly, a great deal of overlap - particularly as little is known about Indo-Roman relations other than what can be deduced from the trade plus a few short references in Roman and India literature. I cannot see how one can write an article about Indo-Roman relations without a detailed study of the trade.

I propose combining the information in both articles into a new article headed "Indo-Roman trade and relations". I would very much appreciate any comments or suggestions from other editors. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A merge sounds good to me. If nobody objects in the next week or so, feel free to go ahead. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Australia link

There is an ancient roman rock inscription on the north shore of Australia. A roman ship from Red Sea, bound for India, was swept away for the convoy and ended up down under, where they perished on the un-inhabitable north shore, but only after leaving a message on the cliff. 87.97.96.24 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please give some evidence and references for this striking claim. I have never heard of it before. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging articles

I have just moved the previous article "Roman trade with India" to this new heading of "Indo-Roman trade and relations" to begin the process of merging the two articles, "Indo-Roman relations" and "Roman trade with India." This process has been discussed previously on this page. I will now start moving material from "Indo-Roman relations" while avoiding duplication as best I can. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Help

I have just been looking ovder this article with a view to merging (see note above) and find it has a number of very questionable unreferenced assertions (eg. Rome learned abougt the trade with India from Axum when, in fact, the Ptolemies were doing it before the Romans arrived on the scene and so were the Arabs from the east coast of the Red Sea). In spite of glaring problems such as this, it was previously awarded a "Good Article" status. I don't know how to remove this status rating and I also don't have time to handle this and also do a decent job of merging the information from each article - as I leave on a long overseas trip this Wednesday. When I started doing the merging I thought it would take me just a few hours, but I can see now that it is going to be a really big job to combine the two articles and reference them properly. Is there anyone out there who could please help? If not, please be very patient and I will try to get back to it when I return in November. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OK John, I'll see if I can help. First I'll deal with the GA rating. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

[[1]] gives the criteria for the various gradings, are you suggesting it should have a C? Or B? We could list it at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment but that isn't really necessary unless there is a dispute. A huge chunk was added by one editor in May last year [2]. I see he made 3 edits (his only edits ever), the first being just 'hmmm' which I reverted, and then 2 edits which are in the link I've just added. Shall we just remove all of that? I wonder if it's copyvio. I have found a source for a rewrite on Dwarka [3]

" At the entrance of the gulf, large ships called trappaga and cotymba helped guide foreign vessels safely to the harbor. " isn't copyvio, but it's just a paraphrase from the Periplus: " native fishermen in the King's service, stationed at the very entrance in well-manned large boats called trappaga and cotymba, go up the coast as far as Syrastrene, from which they pilot vessels to Barygaza. And they steer them straight from the mouth of the bay between the shoals with their crews;" [4] Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The trade of exotic animals and not only.

I would put in this article a draft about the important argument of the commerce of animals. I am not english speaker so I would have an help about the language form.

The remains of Roman villas with mosaics and frescoes depicting the capture of exotic animals from India and from other parts are well represented. Probably one of the sources of richness of the owners of villa del Casale was the trade in exotic animals.

Elephants of greek King Pyrrhus of Epirus used in the war campaign against romans (280-279 BCE) in italian peninsula were Indians.

The italian wikipedia article of villa del casale has more information about the hunt section. Mosaic with tiger in indian or indochina forest is into the ruins of Villa del Tellaro. It is only an example.

In Ambulacro della Grande Caccia, there is a scene that shows the technique to distract the mother tiger to take the puppies tigers using a shimmering ball of glass or mirror. It this mosaic there are also Indian Elephants and Indian Peafowl. There are also other esotic animal from black and south Africa and Indochina. And it is also possible distinguish between the graeco-Romans and the Indians that assist them to take the Indian animals. It is also represented in the hunt of tiger with red ribbons. Lot of Tigers as the Asian and African Lion were used in the arenas or in the circuses. At the time of building of villa, the European lion was already extinct (the last lived in the Balkan Peninsula were killed in arenas hunting).

About the mirrors and the glass they were also important items in the trade with China and India as the silk from China. The Romans probably continuously sent emissaries to steal the secret of silk production that was well guarded. With Emperor Justinian "secret agents" risking their lives managed to bring the "industrial" secret in the West in a stick. (As today industrial espionage). It would be interesting if there are remains of Roman manifactures for example gold, glass and mirrors in India. In China I know that exist numerous examples. Other thing my city has founded a part of her medieval and fantastic renaissance richness on the piperaceae and spices trade with India via Alexandria.

--Andriolo (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

PS About Navigation compared to the Mediterranean and Black Seas (irregular wind) and the Atlantic Ocean (often with stormy), navigation in the Indian Ocean is very regular and easy. The animals were closed in cages and loaded on ships that arrived until Egyptian Red Sea harbours but it is reasonable to think that they arrived directly into Mediterranean in Alexandria throug de Ancient "suez" canal that at the time was open. --Andriolo (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

_____________________________________

I have put a little chapitre on animals trade. If anyone can help me improve the language form of my chapter on animals I will be happy. I have quickly and simply described the mosaic, using the museum guide in the Italian internet site. Section: "Ambulacro della Grande Caccia"

Unfortunately in Italy the things are often approximate indeed the English translation of the site does not work.... help us....still need to remove the roman lead pipes .... ;-)

--Andriolo (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A methodological question.

The decline in trade saw the ancient Tamil country turn to Southeast Asia for international trade, where it influenced the native culture to a greater degree than the impressions made on Rome.[22]

The use of monsoon winds, which enabled a voyage safer than the long and dangerous coastal voyage, was pioneered by the seafaring Axumite kingdom and subsequently learned of by the Romans, who in any event had cordial relations with Axum and used Axum carriers in many cases.[citation needed]

We must avoid the close decks. The things are more complicated. Not only Axum, but also from the near Greeks (with the first studies of the monsoon winds see Arrian) and Mesopotamia. I remember the navarch Nearchos with greek-persian (hellenistic) fleet in India ocean during Alexander campaign. The Greeks learn obviously from Persian Empire and Egypt about Indian Ocean and surely also from Axum. I have collaborated to translate for job a Roman d'Alexandre in its there is a tale about Candace.

But a thing as today in the Roman Empire the state didn’t have the principal trade initiative. The rich families with private ships and fleet had the trade initiative. Cosmopolitan families (not only Romans of Rome but from numerous Mediterranean cities and probably not only) and ethnic groups as the Hebrew or Phoenicians were interested on trade. It could be that an Roman family of Sicily collaborated with a Hebrew or Egyptian merchants in India (maybe all roman citizen). These non financial companies were common in Roman Empire. And these families or lobbies often financed a colonisation war in continental Europe for political advantages.

In Italy we are discussing because the Hellenistic-Roman world did not develop the industrial revolution and the financial system. And we debate about the role of the religion, of the slavery, and about the lack of democracy after Augustus and about the influence of aristocratic political lobbies in the Senate. And why these factors prevented the industrial jump. The favorable factors were free market economy, the mercantilist mindset and technology. But the free market of the Republic period became oligopoly market in the Empire, and the oligopoly stopped the development, the equitable distribution of richness and the consumer society. With the Empire this consumer society were limited only a few million persons with too much and more more numerous slaves and poors. The archaeologists, where I live, find houses with modern conveniences such as running water, taps, pumps, underfloor heating and summer cooling systems with cold water. There are aqueducts and bridges that are still in use today. Arch dams and differentiated concretes some of these concretes can be used in submarine built for harbours.. There were also the cities specialized for bath and sea turism as today. The incomparable level of statuary often copied with multi-axes copy machine as in Italian Renaissance, agrimensory and centuration system. In that era there was with no doubt an advanced pre-industrial technology and the question is only one why this civilisation is emploded ? The commerce in large-scale with China or India ot other parts with this tecnology is obvious.

This civilization was much broader than the Roman Empire and also included the Partian-Persian empire and Greek-Bactrian kingdoms, western India, Meroe, Axum and south India and Ceylon (the last two influenced) each with its own local characteristics. (The Greek language was used as English). A scholar who lived in Eboracum (York) in Great Britain island could speak to a scholar who lived in the Western India (example in Taxila) or in Central Asia (Alexandria on the Oxus) with a common language. It is fantastic. Only today is possible this thing. But often the cyclical wars between Partia and after Sassanide Empire against Romans often impeded the commerce and the relations.

Substantially I want to tell that we cannot write on the Roman-Hellenistic-India trade as suspicious uncertain tribes trade but as a whole.

--Andriolo (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)