Blog Entry 1

In“Before Europeon Hegemony” Janet Abu-Lughon argues that between the 13^th and 16^th centuries no culture obtained hegemony over others. Lughod focuses her argument on three areas; Europe, Middle East, and the Orient. Although Europe clearly dominated the other cultures in the 16^th century there was no clear hegemony prior. In the 13^th century these three areas achieved “cultural maturity” in many aspects. Lughod focuses on the 13^th century because this is the time period that global markets matured and truly developed. Although world markets existed to a small extent prior to the 13^th century this is where Lughod decides to trace European dominance since this is when international trade grew and countries made advancements in the arts, technology, and trade. Lughod explains “Europe pulled ahead because the Orient was temporarily in disarray” due to the fall of the Mongol empire and Genghis Khan, other reasons are hard to point out.

I found it incredibly interesting how three cultures are equal in strength and dominance yet decline in three centuries to a point where European dominance becomes evident. The Middle East and Asia were more advanced in many ways yet still declined by the 16^th century. It is also fascinating how many more similarities than differences existed between these regions. These similarities include invention of a currency, mechanisms for pooling capital, and wealthy merchants who could fund trade expeditions.

Although there is still a good portion of the book to read in which I anticipate Lughod to go more indepth to the reasoning behind Europeon hegemony, I would have liked her to elaborate more in the portion I have read so far. I would like to know more reasons for why Europe achieved dominance and how they ended up in a position of hegemony. I liked how descriptive Lughod was in explaining how the markets in Europe were set up, I thought she did a great job in explaing how the 13^th century markets operated and were set

Sean McNamara

Before European Hegemony: pp. 4-101

In Before European Hegemony, Abu-Lughod examines the world system of the thirteenth century and the roles that various regions had in forming and strengthening their connections while no one region rose to international domination. Beginning in the sixteenth century, the world saw an economy dominated by Europe, a clear distinction from the non-hegemonic world system that connected northwestern Europe to the Far East through a variety of trade routes. In the thirteenth century, however, Europe was still not fully recovered from the fall of the Roman Empire and the resultant economic decline amidst centuries of war and unrest (though there are examples of economic successes and political unity i.e. Italy’s continued trade in the Mediterranean and Charlemagne’s reign). Europe as a whole, especially northwestern Europe, did not experience any period of rebirth until the Crusades. Despite their military failures, the Crusades did succeed in integrating northwestern Europe and the world system through the extension of the existing trade circuits between Italian ports and the Middle East, India, and China. Regions outside of Europe were also experiencing cultural, artistic, and economic growth, all of which contributed to motivating the world trade system that developed. This system, while primitive when compared to those of future centuries in terms of technology, transportation, and finances, did link several geographic subsystems and their dominant cities, creating for the first time a world system. This first part of the book discusses the development of Europe as a player within the world system following centuries of “darkness” and remoteness.

An area of discussion that particularly interested me was the involvement of Islam in the development of the world system. As early as the seventh century, Islam was widespread, expanding to Asia Minor, North Africa, Spain, Persia, Afghanistan, India, and China. In looking at the map of the regions involved in the first major world system, the areas of Islamic influence form an extensive core of Pax Mongolica. Beyond its geographic reach, Islam obviously also served as an inspiration for the Crusades after its sphere of influence stretched into the Holy Land. Once Europe emerged from the Dark Ages, much of its attention moved to regaining this lost territory and restoring Christendom in the Holy Land. As mentioned above, while the Crusades ultimately failed, they did serve to unite Europe under a common goal and insert the continent into the world system of trade. Without Islam, it may have been many more years until these regions came into contact and took advantage of the economic benefits that each had to offer. Finally, without the increased prospects of trade provided by contact with the Middle and Far East, Europe would not so soon have undergone the same period of growth and urbanization inspired by the necessary development of exchangeable goods.

The points of discussion that remain vague involve the fragmentation of this world system and its varying effects inside and outside of Europe. Warring factions disrupted overland trade routes in Central Asia, obviously a factor in disrupting continued economic growth. At the same time, however, Europe also often found itself in a state of war. Following the same logic, the Black Death hit Europe in the same way it hit China and everywhere in between, creating as the book says, “fluidity in world conditions that facilitated radical transformations, benefitting some and harming others.” So why was Europe able to rise as a dominant power centuries later? Why did Europe supposedly benefit and rise to become the core region while the Middle East, India, and China fell to semi-periphery levels? Italy was devastated by the plague due to its concentrated dealings with the Middle East, so what allowed it to rebound while most of Asia was left behind?

History: "Inevitably Distorted by the Historian"

Many times, in fact nearly all times as students, we are taught that history is definite. It happened. It is as simple as that. We have grown into such a culture, though I am not aware if it is on a global scale or a much more isolated one, where we are simply taught to accept what is told us about history. Do not repeat it, do not dispute it. It happened. But what Abu-Lughood begins to teach us in Before European Hegemony is actually quite the opposite. Within the introductory section of his writing, Abu-Lughood disputes the accuracy of simply recorded history. Particularly stating that history is all relevent to what you set the start date at. She states "...beginning with a different outcome at a different moment in itme will lead to a different account of sequence and a different set of items to be explained." (pg 13, Before European Hegemony). It is something to consider, then, that much of what were told happened did, in fact, occur. But the sequence of events that lead up to said happenstance could vary entirely based on which account it is told from.

Abu-Lughod exemplifies this the best; the hegemony of Europe often shrouded (or still shrouds) the retarted state that most of Europe was in during the Pax Mongolica Era. From our current perception of present-day Europe, how could it have been possible that Europe was a peripheral in this system? I find it incredibly interesting that our perception is capable of turning our vision of history opaque. Nonetheless, Europe did exist as a peripheral and to the rest of the burgeoning world, Europe was first but a pesky blister that waged war upon one of its subsystems in the Holy Land. Only eventually was it looked upon as a new market, and even then its dependency on this world system, to grow its economy, was prevelent.

This, I find, to be the most interesting bit of the reading. In our daze of "Western greatness", we fail to recognize how globalization was (and still is) a conduit to supposed Western superiority. Without the already existent center and world system of Pax Mongolica, the European economy (particularly in the Northwest) might not have had ample opportunity to revitalize and grow. Without this particular boost of modernization (that is to say the rebirth of culture, knowledge, trade, and all other such things), Northwestern Europe may have actually remained in The Dark Ages. The outcome of that particular scenario is, most obviously, too difficult to predict; but an ever-important fact remains. History is seen only through perspective.

I think this is a beyond important fact to know and accept. As our world becomes continually globalized, different cultures will continue to meet and interact on all different levels (trade, religion, cultural ideals, norms, etc.). If we do not remember that history changes based on the lens it is seen through, how could we ever expect to fully integrate ourselves into a truly global community? While, clearly, this is a Utopia that is more than likely unachievable: people, societies, religions, cultures, and all such things (from here on out, referred to as "assemblies") will continually strive for uniformity. Perhaps, the answer to our differences on all such levels is not war, or even negotiation; but, instead, a sound comprehension of the lens that each assembly.

My take on the reading

The first 101 pages of Janey L. Abu-Lughod's book "Before European Hegemony" seek to drive home the point that Europe has not always been as privileged as it is today in the world economy. It was not always a major port of trade. Abu-Lughod strives, through several lengthy examples, to contrast European thought and society in the thirteenth century and that of the sixteenth century. She uses the examples of two scholars, one from each period in time, to display what interested the intelectuals of that time. The story of these two scholars, Rogar Bacon and Francis Bacon, display the change in European thought as the area moved towards hegemony in the world system. Abu-Lughod also does a good job of displaying what is important to someone studying the world economy, or any aspect of an areas culture, long after the witnesses of the time period have passed on. She speaks of gathering data (what is important?) and who to gather data from (how to interprete it).

Personally, I found the section in which Abu-Lughod goes in to detail about the drawbacks in Marco Polo's story very interesting. She takes a well known story and goes to show that even something so monumental can not be completely trusted because there are not many records with which to compare it. I enjoyed the details included as well. They helped me to visualize the world (both Oriental and European) in better context than I would have otherwise.

The only thing that still sticks out as confusing to me is the mention that Rogar Bacon's requests to gather more knowledge were largely ignored by the Pope. Is this because the Pope saw new knowledge of the sort Bacon sought to be against the church? Or is this simply because the majority of the people at the time did not wish to change. Is it possible that a society can willingly remain blind to another society which is apparently prospering at the other end of their trade route?

Commentary1

In this book, Europe is shown to increase steadily from the thirteenth century to the sixteenth century economically through trade. After the fall of Rome in Europe, Asia and the Middle East are the dominating or hegemonic forces for trade. Europe started to regain their economic standing in the world after the fall of Rome, and at this time they were underdeveloped or periphery. As Europe moves from periphery to developed, core or dominating, the Middle East and Asia fall behind. The Middle East and Asia are having independent problems that creates them to fall behind Europe allowing Europe to become the dominate power of trade. The Pax Mongolica is the prime trade route through Europe, Asia, Middle East, and India. Since Europe was just starting to rise the book brings up the point that there actually were no dominating forces during this time. This all leads up to how the present day developed and used the knowledge of the trade system in thirteen century Europe.

I learned some interesting facts as to how Europe rose above their hardships and how the hardships of other countries influenced their downfall in such a short time. Also I found it interesting how similar the trade of the thirteen century Pax Mongolica is to our own.

In class the slide that gives a quote from the book and then poses the question, “So do they Matter?” The trade and economic systems of the past are the foundation of the future. Without this system the future is in danger of slower development or worse no development at all. Today’s globalization is the direct result of trial and error from the knowledge from the past starting with one of the earliest trade routes like Pax Mongolica.

Before the West Won

Abu-Loghod stated that the thesis of her book was “that there was no inherent historical necessity that shifted the system to favor the West rather than the East, nor was there any inherent historical necessity that would have prevented cultures in the eastern region from becoming the progenitors of a modern world system” (12). And she certainly makes a strong case to argue that statement. Between 1250 and 1350 CE, Europe was still recovering from the fall of the Roman empire and the former unification of Charlemagne’s reign. Europe certainly had important trading centers and played a key role in the so-called “world system”, but was in no way superior to Middle Eastern or Mongolian culture.

            What I thought to be extremely interesting was Abu-Lughod’s juxtaposition of Roger and Francis Bacon. This very clearly illustrated the changing attitudes of Europeans towards eastern cultures. The fact that Roger Bacon was preoccupied with gaining knowledge from the “higher” civilizations (21) of the Muslim world was telling. This shows that during his lifespan, the East had a good chance of becoming a world power, rather than Europe overtaking the Middle East and China. But three centuries later, Francis Bacon thought nothing of the East; he “believed that little could be gained from others” (24).  So why did admiration of “the East” evaporate in “the West”? And where did the nationalistic arrogance that developed in Europe come from?

            As Americans, fond of our “Dogma of Otherness”, we would never suppose that “the West” was inherently superior, hence its rise to power. Rather, a more diplomatic explanation is that Europe was simply lucky, so to speak. To put it better, the circumstances that Europe found itself in during the 14^th century were favorable to their rise to a more hegemonic status, although these circumstances were due to external, uncontrollable factors.  I won’t repeat the details that we’re all familiar with, but Europe cannot take credit for its rise to dominance due to factors such as the Black Death, their favorable location, China’s decision to isolate itself, etc. China easily could have been the dominant power, I believe, had it not gone into isolation. World history as we know it would have been immensely different, because in many ways the Mongolian empire had advantages over Europe. They had possession of vast amounts of natural resources, a formidable population, and the advantage of being unified, whereas Europe was severely fractured into miniscule kingdoms.

            One thing that I could really like a more clear explanation of was what the political atmosphere was in Europe in the 13^th and 14^th centuries. Could someone sum up what the basic organization was? Was it mainly feudal systems or small kingdoms? Thanks.

Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350 by Janet L. Abu-Lughod
9/9 – 9/11 Readings pp. 4-101

In this text, Abu-Lughod attempts to explain the complex world system of the thirteenth century and examine how it came to be the way it was as well as what it became. She analyzes the international connections between the East and West in a variety of ways including trade, art, knowledge, and technology. During the time frame in which Abu-Lughod presented, the international trade economy first developed, connected Northwest Europe to China which foreshadowed the future of modern capitalism. Europe was the newest addition to this world system since many other Eastern powers already established world economies. This new shift led to a great international growth in some European cities. Europe had a very similar world economy to the China and the East Orient, and where they contrast, Europe was inferior to the East. At the beginning of the 13th century, Europe was behind the East in a number of ways but by the 16th century, Europe pulled ahead. As international trade in this world system developed, land and sea routes developed that merchants traveled to transport goods and markets increased. But by the end of this era, the city market declined since the trade system outgrew them, political turmoil disintegrated them, and new improvements in transportation made them unnecessary stops.

One point that this book has caused me to reflect on was this Eurocentric view of history as well as the modern world. Throughout this history, I’ve certainly learned everything with Eurocentricity and only studied the Far East and North Africa as marginal areas or if they interacted directly with Europe. Another point was the fact that all nations have a tendency to study history and the world as if they were the center and that certainly rings true for us in America. In this situation, it was particularly interesting because Abu-Lughod didn’t take this typical Eurocentric approach and now I’ve stepped back and looked at my knowledge to this point of the matter, and am really shocked. In classes, I’ve always been taught about Europe and its prestige. At this point all that mattered was that Europe was in the Dark Age and would soon emerge with the Italian Renaissance. This was all that seemed to matter, when in fact the East was thriving and advancing. Perhaps here and there as periphery information, I’d learn Europeans picked up a certain technology from Muslims, but it was very rare and completely marginal. I’m just really surprised that there was so much world development during this time and the foundations of the modern Old World were laid during this period when high school courses didn’t even touch on this fact.

This discovery led me to wonder one thing. If a completely unbiased person, like maybe an alien, were to analyze this entire world system, what would he consider to be the center?

DB

Janet Abu-Lughod's Before European Hegemony

Janet Abu-Lughod's book, Before European Hegemony, describes a reinterpretation of the global economic evolution which led to the rise of the banking system, money chargers, and using credit. This book puts together information from many different regions about the economic system. Abu-Lughod argued that the modern world economy had its roots not in the sixteenth century economy, but in the thirteenth century economy. This thirteenth century economy greatly differed from the European world system, however the thirteenth century economy is responsible for sculpting the European world system today. Before European Hegemony gives an understanding of how the world systems came about and traces back to the rise of these systems. The book covers from northwest Europe all the way to China (Pax Mongolica). Abu-Lughod also provides reasons for the decline of the systems. Europe, the Middle East, and China were starting to come together during the thirteenth century into a world system by means of trade. These areas were beginning to explore the banking system as well as a developed economic system. Abu-Lughod traces the ride of this world system back to its roots (starting in the thirteenth century, not the sixteenth century as it seems to be thought of as that), and provides examples of how these systems developed into the world system carried out now.

I found the second part of the reading extremely interesting, as Abu-Lughod explores deeper into how the economic system really got started. In less populated areas, merchants brought the goods to the customers at 'regular intervals' and followed a circuit to many other places. These merchants set up small stands that the people could go to and shop. Because of the success, this led to larger markets opening with greater variety of goods. When larger merchants began to come with their goods, the need for currency shot up and the need for a money charger became present. This could have given rise to the start of an early banking system and an institution of credit began. For example, if a merchant did not have a good that a buyer wanted, the merchant promised to bring it next time, and the buyer would give credit for the item in advance, or the buyer received credit from the merchant in advance. This led to what is now called, a down payment and even further, mortgage (borrowing against). With the banking system under way, the need for an enforcement system that guaranteed easy, secure transactions surfaced. This all led to the systems we use today. Cloth, 'the heart of the economy' was the main item exchanged by foreign merchants, and the presence of bankers and money chargers was essential in making sure everything was done fairly and properly.

--Gabby Szlachta-McGinn

Ever Changing World System

Upon the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the emerging world system is defined by lack of one or group of dominating powers. This time consisted of many countries such as: China, Rome, Mongolia, England, India and more stretching from Northwestern Europe to China. Although they are well known as prominent influences, throughout history none of them serve to be a hegemonic power, or superior influence. This period of time is described by Abu-Lugbod, as a “turning point in world history.” The world system that is created, in part due to Mongol unification of a major trade route in Northern China, links the known the world. Arguably, the known world at this time is linked in eight different trading routes. The fall of the Roman Empire takes place during this time, their former glorious empire is scattered into proto-feudal territories. Eastern Europe such as China as its own self-sustaining core started out with an advantage over the lagging West, yet eventually the world system favored the West in the end. Why was this possible?

A possible account is the downfall of China in the 15th century. China in the 15th century became recluse and shut themselves off from the remainder of the world, if they had not they probably would have been the core for many centuries. This is in part due to a couple factors. The first factor that I took notice of is the Mongolian loss of Northern China. This separated the once easily traversed trading route through upper China. This route was commonly used to attend the cities of the Champagne Fairs(Troyes, Provins, Bar-sur-Aube, and Lagny). After the fragmentation of Mongolia, into I believe three separate parts, there became need for another route to transport goods. Secondly, the Black Death had a huge role in decreasing East’s population and economy. The specific effects of the Black Death are not discussed in detail. Some 60 percent of the world’s population is devastated by the plague.

A second explanation for the switch of favor from the switch in favor from West to the East is the advancement in technology, mainly transportation, textiles. Technology that was previously retained by China for decades is now flourishing in the 12th and 13th centuries. Once the Mongol Empire ceased their became a need for a new route to cross with goods, primarily spices. The answer to this was a new ship created for the need to advance and cut costs. The advancement in transportation allowed civilizations the ability to by-pass previous land trade routes, and as well the “middle man.”.

The third possible reason for the switch in favor is nothing more than location. Abu-Lugbod makes reference that a city or territory is heavily involved in trade by geography. Italy is a great example of this. Italy even during the worst of times, the Black Death, continued to trade and make profit. Ironically, this was also why Italy was struck so hard by disease. Italy revived along with many other key cities that were geographically linked to key sea and land routes, such as Bagdad that is both. Eastern Europe is not located in key meeting destinations, of world trade. This lessened their lead that they once had among the other countries and allowed in my opinion the favor of the world system to shift to the east. The one point that is portrayed is any country or side of the world can have the World system favor them, in essence it is ever changing

The reasons that are mention are my own interpretation of how the West came to be the superior in the world system. I’m always open for criticism and feedback. Also, if anyone knows what they steps to recover from Black Death were used?

BEH: Commentary 1

This week the discussion of Abu-Lughod’s examination of the origins of the world system and the factors and characteristics of existence before the period of European hegemony began. Many perspectives are briefly mentioned, but in general the book takes the perspective that rather than being some unique positive characteristics of “the West,” the ascension of Europe to a hegemonic status is more of a result of problems in the Levant and the Far East.

Despite the notion that there were and are striking differences between the two extremes of the world system in the Middle Ages, the similarities are more compelling than the differences. Things like money and credit, group investments, and merchant wealth and supremacy spanned largely across the entire world system of that time. The fact that there are so many similarities is the main support for the idea that instead of Europe pulling forward, the Levant and Far East fell behind.

The examination of the pre-European dominance era begins with Europe itself. The early markets were called periodic as they followed a cyclic pattern that allowed merchants and traders to move along a predetermined route that allowed them to work many markets efficiently. These types of markets dominated as the population was sparse, there was little development and poor transportation mediums. These markets often started off small and grew as “bigger” merchants frequented them. These markets were the precursors to the world market and monetized system that later developed. Slowly elements like security, exchange currencies, and strategically placed markets allowed some cities to become major trading sites, like the Fairs of Champagne and later Bruges and Ghent.

However these places also eventually lost their significance and uniqueness. The factors that once made these cities the favored place for trade by merchants slowly faded. Examples include loss of security, political interference and development and industrialization in different places. The point of dependency on the Counts and raw materials also proved detrimental to both the Fairs of Champagne and the cities in Flanders, respectively.

I found it very surprising, yet compelling that many elements of present trade and modern day capitalism existed and dominated trade even during the Middle Ages. I knew that before capitalism, mercantilism dominated people and countries’ economic and political endeavors, but before reading Abu-Lughod’s rendition, I did not realize how seamlessly the two ideas work together. With so many examples, to me it is strange that is should be questioned whether these markets were capitalistic. I also found it interesting that the subsystems of the world during the Middle Ages were more self-sufficient than the subsystems today. It sounds counterintuitive at first glance, but when it is really contemplated the restrictions on transportation essentially made it necessary that these subsystems could survive independently; otherwise no real development would have occurred as everything would be limited by the speed and efficiency of the rudimentary transportation of that time.

Abu-Lughod states that there was no hegemonic power in the early world system as each benefited from the system but not through detriments to others (pg. 37). To me this does not make sense as it said repeatedly in the first week’s readings that the Italians came to different markets and through their expertise and better connections to the Levant and the Far East displaced local merchants and essentially dominated the trade. If, as Abu-Lughod does, the Italians are marked as a reason for Bruges and Ghent’s downfall, how can the mutual benefit without harm statement be true?

-Ragini Grace Gupta

The World System- A.D. 1250-1350

In the first two chapters of Abu-Lughod’s “Before European Hegemony” she talks about the World System of trade from 1200-1300. In this trade most goods were exchanged from Periphery countries to the Core countries. She talks about the different levels of countries and how they interact with each other. The Core countries were the ones that were most developed and that had already attained domination status over other countries. The semi-periphery level was made up of the countries in the middle that are not the most powerful but that did have some power over other countries. The lowest level was made up of the periphery countries. They were generally undeveloped and had high rates of exportation. This system was also called the Pax Mongolica and the major participants were India, China, Middle East and Europe. However, this trade was before Europe claimed all of its glory and had years of domination. Instead of talking about all of Europe’s accomplishments like most historians and writers Abu-Lughod started before the European era. In fact, at this time Europe was still a baby player in the trading game. Abu-Lughod describes to us that unlike now there were no strong dominating forces in the World Trading system.

I think an interesting comparison can be made with the World trading system we have to day and the Pax Mongolica system used in the 1200-1300 hundreds with the types of merchandise that was traded. Now we trade things that are fast and easy to make and that generally serve a productive purpose of some kind. In the twenty first century I think that the most successful traders are ones that can deliver fast. Where as, the items that were traded in the Pax Mongolica system were mostly superficial like beautiful rugs and tapestries, incense, gold, etc. Not only were the actual items different but the attitude was too. Speed was not the main concern; sometimes it took years for deals to be made in this time. At that time it was quality over speed. And considering the rate of time each transaction took I am impressed with the success system of trade. Even though compared to now this trade was rather small, without it we would have suffered. This trade made the initial connections and established relationships and trade routes.

I would have liked Abu-Lughod to go deeper into the issues surrounding the Black Death. She stated that the main problem was that it changed the way things were exchanged but it seems to me that there must have been much more serious problems. And if there was not if she could explain why. Was it because Europe was not a dominating player yet and one of the places that suffered the most and therefore it did not have a lasting effect on the actual trade? It makes sense to me that technology advancements were a factor in the end of the pax Monglolica trading system because any country would be left in the dust that did not conform. But I would think that the Black Death would also have played a major role.

--Dorothy "Bunny" Smith, drs@pitt.edu

The World System

At first glance, the network of exchange during the thirteenth century seems rather mediocre, consisting mainly of agricultural products like spices, but the expansion of this world system includes a series of important concepts to grasp. First and foremost, contrary to many beliefs, European hegemony was not always present. When it came to capitalism, much of what Europe had built up was similar to that of many other countries. Paper money was already being used in China since the ninth century, and the idea of credit was already well developed in the Middle East and Asia. The Middle East already had partnerships and a certain percentage of returns for merchants. Also, merchant wealth thrived in Asian, Arab, and Western forms of capitalism because merchants at this time were independent from the various forms of government.

Clearly during the thirteenth century Europe was no better off than other countries around the world, but then questions arise when Europe considerably pulls ahead during the sixteenth century. Abu-Lughod explains why the fragmentation of trade route regions that had once been unified by Genghis Khan play a role in the significant change throughout networks of trade, but I am still unsure of the reasons why. I also would appreciate a more elaborate analysis of the Black Death because the significant population drop must have had a greater impact on the world other than simply just changing “terms of exchange ” temporarily. I was thoroughly surprised by how the Black Death hardly changed trade in the long run in countries such as Italy, where the mortality rate was rather sizeable.

I did find one comparison of Europe in the thirteenth and sixteenth century very enticing. Abu-Lughod depicts Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon as two representations of this change (more specifically in England) over time. Roger lived during the thirteenth century, Francis during the sixteenth, and both were philosophers who possessed a commitment to the natural sciences, appealed to authority, and faced disgrace eventually. There sharp differences, however, portray the change in an exceptionally vivid manner. Roger had sacred beliefs and thus appealed to the pope, but Francis had secular beliefs and thus appealed to the monarchy. Directly related to the world system, Roger saw knowledge in the East, and of course a few centuries later Francis believed knowledge was right in front of them and had to be newly achieved. This made the alteration in European motives a bit more clear.

Also, I became more aware of how Italy (specifically the trade centers at Genoa and Venice) mediated foreign trade and determined what investments would be made. Establishment in the Middle East also began early for Italy around the Black Sea, coast of Palestine, and Egypt, although slightly more constrained, through beachheads. This is just one of the many examples of how elaborate the world system already was, even without the advanced technology that we know so well today. If anyone can help me better interpret Abu-Lughod’s interpretation of the effect of fragmentation and the Black Death on the change in trade networks, I would greatly appreciate it.