Talk:Spice trade/Archives/2013

history

The history is interesting but there seems to be a gap of five hundred years in it! 86.201.21.218 06:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo

great picture btw Vladdraculdragon 16:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Salt

Is salt actually a spice? Is this the right place for a discussion of salt routes in Europe as my, albiet uninformed, conception of the spice trade is that it is Asia & the Middle East westward rather than the trade in salt within Europe. Also what does the Production in Tons table relate to is this salt or spices? A more detailed heading for this would be beneficial. AllanHainey 07:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that salt is a spice. I would say, along with pepper it is the most important one. The production in tons table is quoted after the French Wikipedia and concerns all spices.--Fenice 06:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Going by Wiktionary spice is "plant matter (usually dried) used to season or flavour food." (this is backed up by Spice), while salt is certainly used to season food it isn't plant matter but is an ionic compound, sodium chloride. I don't think that the spice trade article is an appropriate place for the information on salt routes for this reason & because salt has never been & isn't generally considered as one of the 'spices' transported in the traditional East West spice trade (or the New World spice trade) which seems to be the basis of this article, I'd say it could be more appropriately dealt with in a seperate article on the salt trade (which when you consider Celtic salt trading with the Romans & trans-Sahara salt mining & trading for slaves & gold would be, eventually, a substantial article in its own right). Unless you, or any other users, have any objection I'll make this change & leave a link on the spice trade page. AllanHainey 08:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to remove the paragraph on salt routes. Websters encyclopedic dictionary also defines spices as "...aromatic substances of vegetable orgin.."--Fenice 08:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, a link should be included.

Any other minerals-as-foodstuffs and similar that could be referred to in this context?

Jackiespeel 16:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Copied from WP:IDRIVE comments

• I have added a small amount to the article, but it can be expanded much more. As stated, the spice trade was THE reason for the Age of Expansion, THE reason for the power of the Hanseatic League, THE reason for the power of naval exploration etc. Batmanand 11:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

---

End of copied text. Maurreen (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Refs

This is listed as part of a reference: "XCAXZOWCONEUQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIVOTQNQEMSFDULHPQQWOYIYZUNNYCGPKYLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGMEPYOQKEDOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHDMNNSKVFVWRKJVZCMHVIBGDADRZFSQHYUCDDJBLVLMHAALPTCX". Is this for real? Maurreen (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

no, can't be, ir looks like an accidental deletion.--Fenice 14:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Table

What does the table at the bottom represent? Is it global produciton of Saffron? If so are the figures in kilograms pounds or (unlikely) tonnes)? Lisiate 23:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

According to [1], Iran produced 185 tons of saffron which was the most of any country that year (2003, I think. The article doesn't specify.). So it looks like the table represents tonnage for all spices, however the FAO defines a spice. Anyone else think we should just redo that table from scratch? It's kind of ugly. Recury 02:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Recury is right. I added the saffron info, the table was already there. Maurreen (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The table apparently relates to global production of all spices in tonnes, as I asked about it earlier, under the heading salt. I agree that it should be redone, or at least have a more accurate/informative heading. AllanHainey 10:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Russia

According to Braudel (p.194) there was, in the mid-16th century, an alternate spice trade route from Persia through Russia (largely up the Volga), initially trading with the English and later with the Dutch. Does anyone know anything much about this? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Disguising rotten food

I have to disagree with this paragraph from the history of spice trade.

"Spices were some of the most valuable items of trade in the ancient and medieval world. This was primarily as a result of the lack of refrigeration and poor standard of hygiene that meant that food often spoiled quickly. As a result of human evolution, our sense of taste tends to dislike food that is "off", as these foods tend to have a higher chance of being poisonous. In order to mask these flavours, spices were in huge demand in the Europe in the High Middle Ages." To understand my misgivings here is an article from Science Daily Cornell University. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/03/980305053307.htm And I quote: "The idea that people use spices to disguise the taste of spoiled food, he says, "ignores the health dangers of ingesting spoiled food.""

My personal take is that since spices were luxury items afforded only by the very wealthy, they were used accordingly; that is to impress upon your guests with your wealth and worldly manner by serving them exotic dishes with fine imported spices. To get an idea of I am talking about consider the difference between the plebeian menu at your local lunch place and the menu at some of Los Angeles's finest joints. At the very least the people using expensive imported spices could also afford to eat fresh produce and meat.

It is for these reasons that I propose we delete this paragraph in its entirety.

Lica Nistor

Stongly agree; the view that spices were popular in Europe in order to hid the taste of bad meat has been discounted by every modern writer on Spices that I have come across. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC

This contention is not supported by the article that you reference. Indeed, the article actually says: "The biologists did consider several alternative explanations for spice use and discounted all but one: the 'eat-to-sweat' hypothesis.--Nicholas 13:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, too. Modern writers discount the disguise-rotten-food theory, but there's no consensus on why spices actually were in demand in Europe. Jack Turner's Spice: The History of a Temptation (see full reference info in Black pepper) spends some time musing on various reasons; from memory, they include:

• A feedback loop involving them being expensive, which led to both:
  • Some people (the rich and noble) wanting them precisely because they were expensive and
  • Major efforts to find new trade routes or take over spice territories dominated by others
• The flavors themselves, of course
• Food and medicine weren't particularly distinguished from one another, and spices, being stronger-flavored, were viewed as stronger medicine. The first apothecaries were largely spice stores.
• The exotical appeal of the near-mythical lands where the spices came from. Particularly in the Early middle ages, when nobody could really say anything concrete about the spice lands (spices passed through many hands from there to Europe, and likely few if any knew much about anything a few steps down the chain). Spices essentially came from a land of mythology.
• Similarly, religious connotations of those lands and the spices. The Egyptions used and burned spices more in religious rituals than in cooking, and that continued somewhat as time went by. The mythology around the exotic locales where spices originated was sometimes stretched to full "garden-of-eden" type stories.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that spices were, indeed, used to make food more palatable. The article that is referenced above quotes scientists as saying "We believe the ultimate reason for using spices is to kill food-borne bacteria and fungi". The scientists also state "Everything we do with food -- drying, cooking, smoking, salting or adding spices -- is an attempt to keep from being poisoned by our microscopic competitors. They're constantly mutating and evolving to stay ahead of us. One way we reduce food-borne illnesses is to add another spice to the recipe. Of course that makes the food taste different, and the people who learn to like the new taste are healthier for it." --Nicholas 11:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: "It has been claimed that this was primarily as a result of the need to disguise the taste of spoiled food" - "It has been claimed" by whom? - please provide references.

RE: "but there is no evidence to support this claim" - the reference that was given above suggests that spices were, indeed, used to make food more palatable. In that article, scientists suggest that "We believe the ultimate reason for using spices is to kill food-borne bacteria and fungi".

If anyone would like to disagree with this contention please provide evidence, including a quotation, to the contrary. --Nicholas 22:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused regarding your stance; I'll get back to that. First, a quote from Dalby, p. 156: (typos mine, I'm transcribing.)

It is also neccessary to look critically at what earlier historians have said. It is easy to perpetrate errors. At some time in the twentieth century, a British historian unfamiliar with foreign food was told (possibly by his mother) that spices serve to mask the flavour of rotting meat. This assertion is now made of medieval cousine in several otherwise well-researched histories written in Britain. It is undocumented, and, in general, for ancient and medieval cuisines, it is most unlikely to be true. Spices were a luxury item, afforded only by those who could afford very good food. No recipe or household text recommends them to mask bad flavours. On the contrary, spices are called for liberally in ancient recipe books for their positive flavour, their aroma, their preservative and dietary qualities.

That paragraph supports both "claims" you were asking about. Now, on to the part I'm a little confused about.

We seem to be discussing three separate claims. Could you clarify your feelings regarding these three points?

1. Spices were used to disguise or hide the taste of rotten food.
2. Spices were used to preserve food.
3. Spices were used because they taste good.

Number 1 is the claim that appears to me entirely non-factual; I've cited references to two recent books, books all about spices and the spice trade, to back that up.

Number 2 may have some truth. Spices probably were thought to be more of a preservative than they actually were (salt was much, much more effective than most eastern spices), but there are still some elements of truth in there.

Number 3 is obviously the case. Nobody is trying to argue against that, I hope. It just doesn't entirely serve to explain why Europeans were so willing to pay so much for this stuff from so far away, no matter how good it tasted.

Now, where do we stand? The old text was counter-factual, I believe, but I'm sure the new text could bear some improvement, especially regarding points 2 and 3. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Above you give 3 explanations as to why spices came to be used. I have reason to believe that all 3 explanations are correct. Once again, I shall quote the scientists who conducted research on the history of spices who stated "We believe the ultimate reason for using spices is to kill food-borne bacteria and fungi". Are you, Bunchfgrapes, disagreeing with these scientists? --Nicholas 14:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think those scientists have the whole story, but I don't disagree with them. The statement "the ultimate reason for using spices is to kill food-borne bacteria and fungi" is basically the same as my reason #2: preserving food *is* killing bacteria and fungi. And like I said, there is some truth to that being part of spices' popularity. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

GA review

An intiative was launched by a group of users involved in the development of the Good Articles project with the goal to ensure that all Good Articles are held to a high standard, and that all current Good Articles conform with the current quality criteria. This review has the aim to establish how well this article complies with them. They will be listed in italics, one by one, and review comments will be put below in normal type.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

It reads OK for me and the prose and style is involving, though it seems terribly mixed up as concerns the sequence of paragraphs - almost like a scattered jigsaw puzzle! See below for more.

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

Continuing what was said above, there is only an illusion of any structure there - the paragraphs come in a moderately random sequence - examples:

1. "History of the spice trade", paragraphs 1-5 - Middle Ages come chronologically after the biblical period and the ancient Roman Empire, so the second paragraph is a bit out of step.
2. There is a section on "Spice Islands" that does not link to the main article on those, and contains quite a lot of irrelevant information, including the paragraph on 1200-1500 Venice domination, which should come earlier in the article. Also - technically improper reference to "Ferdinand Magellan" as main article at one point.

The above example is also a good one that the use of sections is poor - not only there are only four, all top-level, sections (obviously not counting "notes", "references" and such), but their captions also do not really reflect the content.

The lead section is another weak point of the article - it fails to explain what the spice trade actually is, but on the other hand out of the blue describes who dominated West Indies. It also fails to establish the scope of the article - does it end with the advent of the industrial era or extend until today?

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline:

I am not an expert on that, and there are other, more important issues here, so excuse me for not reviewing the article thoroughly for that.

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

OK with me, should be understandable to almost any person possessing just a brief knowledge of the world's history and geography, thanks to abundant Wikilinks.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

Discussed below.

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;

A total failure to conform with this criterium. Only two or three attempts at an inline citation, all not conforming to the official styles (though I have to appreciate that specific pages in books are mentioned).

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

The publications mentioned seem very appropriate, though I have to note I did not check the ISBN numbers to prove whether they actually exist, as there are no inline citations anyway. If Turner's book serves as one of the sources, it makes little sense to link to its review, IMHO. No actual information on the FAOSTAT source.

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

Until inline citations appear in this article, almost everything could be original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

Not at all. The description of the history of spice trade suddenly ends somewhere in the beginning of the 16th century, then suddenly out of nowhere some statistical data from 2000 pop out, leaving out a huge gap of five centuries, the section on the "effects" on spice-growing regions seems underdeveloped, and I guess the consequences of the development of spice trade should be discussed more broadly (in part they already are in some places in the article). I have the feeling it is a nice attempt to collect some important facts, but this is far from being a complete article.

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

I think it does, and overall it maintains a reasonable level of briefness to serve as a good summary of the topic and not develop into a large essay. After the information gets better organized in a chronological manner the need to further balance it might become more apparent.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

I would delve deeper into the "spoiled food" debate to make sure all voices are reflected in the article.

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

See above.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

Edits are infrequent, and some vandalism seems purely random. No entires on talk page since 2005. Theoretically this shouldn't be a problem, though the article fails to meet other important criteria, so this is irrelevant anyway.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

Everything's OK, perhaps bar the overly naïve caption of the Vasco da Gama picture.

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

Well, it does not and for the current size of the article there seems to be just enough images.

Overall, as I mentioned above, the article is a pleasing example of a rather good and involving writing style, good judgement as to the briefness of information included, good use of wikilinks, and I guess of a good attempt at research on the topic. That said, it clearly seems unfinished, so it needs to undergo quite substantial further development to be considered for a Good Article nomination. It also needs to use consistent inline citations throughout the article. The conclusion is - delisting.

This is a really interesting topic and the work so far seems really high quality, so I hope the editors will continue to develop this article so that it could be awarded the GA status. Bravada, talk - 23:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Britain disambiguation

I delinked the word "Britain" in the last paragraph of the section entitled "Spice Islands" because it links to a disambiguation page. Wikilinks in articles are not supposed to connect to dab pages; they're supposed to connect to relevant articles. Since I don't know when the seed smuggling took place I couldn't disambiguate it. Depending on the date the word "Britain" could be piped to Early Modern Britain, Kingdom of Great Britain or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. --Steven J. Anderson 00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have edited the article recently using Robing A. Donkin as source. I will produce his credentials below:

Robert Arthur Donkin, geographer: born Morpeth, Northumberland 28 October 1928; King George VI Memorial Fellow, University of California, Berkeley 1955-56; Assistant Lecturer, Department of Geography, Edinburgh University 1956-58; Lecturer, Department of Geography, Birmingham University 1958-70; Lecturer in the Geography of Latin America, Cambridge University 1971-90, Reader in Historical Geography 1990-96 (Emeritus); Fellow, Jesus College, Cambridge 1972-96 (Emeritus), Tutor 1975-96; FBA 1985; married 1970 Jennifer Kennedy (one daughter); died Cambridge 1 February 2006. - http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article363052.ece

I will cleanup and expand the article further. What bothers me in particular is the missing gap between the Eighteenth century and 2004. Some substantial information will have to added in order to make the article more informative.

I will ask for feedback once I'm through with cleanup, correcting typos (if any), image alignment and expansion.

Havelock the Dane 11:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, too tired/blind to do any more editing for now and will check for cleanup after a while. Havelock the Dane 19:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, Havelock the Dane 08:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please make the "bibliography" more presentable. I added a couple more sources and alphabetized it, but also messed up the presentation (the font is changed). Apologies, --Schwegles (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you add the isbns for the books? For the bibliography, you must use the Cite book templates —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Both requests are  Done. Nice job to all who improved the inline references and the bilbliography section. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 11:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to reduce Eurocentric POV

I began to edit with an eye to reducing what seems me to a Eurocentric POV, but I ran out of time before I got too far into the article. Some of the issues I tried to address include -- the trade between Europe/Mediterranean area and India seems to have been written as if it was initiated and conducted by European people, when as I understand it the majority of the trade was established and conducted by Indians, Persians, and Arabs. Also, as I understand it, India was the main center for spice trading, but not the only or even main source. Something ought to be said about the ancient trade between the Far East and India, which made the great markets of India possible... ie, more focus on the "native" Indian Ocean trade.. sure the Greeks and Romans went to India to buy spices, but those spices got to India through other, equally important traders. Another example, the article describes Alexandria as the commercial capital of the world, due to the spice trade. But my understanding puts the commercial capital of the spice trade at Calicut. That was where spices from far-flung places were gathered and were traders from as far as Alexandria came to purchase them. Alexandria grew rich as the spice gateway to the Mediterranean, sure, but it seems a stretch to call it the capital when it depended upon Calicut.

Also, I began to temper the notion that Europeans suddenly dominated the trade immediately following da Gama's voyage. The Portuguese had great difficulty in breaking into the Indian Ocean networks. After decades and decades of hard work they managed to establish a system of isolated forts and trading ports, but they never really "took over". They just became another player in the great trading system. Another example: ...maritime trade routes led to tremendous growth in commercial activities, further bolstered by the European Age of Discovery, during which spice trade became an influential activity. This seems to suggest that the spice trade was not influential before the Europeans arrived. Perhaps the intent is to say that the spice trade became influential for Europeans once they broke into the system.

I also edited the map caption to make it clearer that Vasco da Gama was hardly the first European to go to India, but just the first to do so via the Cape of Good Hope. I might note that just after rounding the cape Gama reached Sofala south of Mozambique and entered the existing Indian Ocean maritime network. From there on he was not so much an explorer as a tourist following established routes and guided by local pilots. But .... out of time, maybe later!

Just wanted to point out the Eurocentric POV here... a little too much credit given Europeans for a system invented, expanded, and long dominated by Indians, Persian, Arabs, Malays, Javanese, Chinese, etc. The Europeans came into the picture at a fairly late date and just took over the old system with minimal changes, as least as far as the maritime routes and ports go (with some exceptions). ...gotta go! Sorry if I came off too harsh, just typing too quickly (sorry for the typos!). Pfly (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopedia, therefore a Western European POV is not only appropriate but inevitable. Unfortunately, very little hard data exists on the scale of the spice trade prior to its domination by Europeans. For this reason there is a lack of serious scholarship about the Indian Ocean spice trade prior to the 1500s. Despite my limited knowledge of this area, it is my understanding that the volume of the ocean-going spice trade increased dramatically following European entry into the Indian-Ocean trade routes. Prophet121 02:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophet121 (talk • contribs)

I don't think that a "Western European POV" is inevitable. Common, perhaps, but with some editing effort it is never inevitable. As to appropriate, not at all. That would be akin to perpetuating stereotypes about persons of African descent in the South simply because of being from the South. Pfly is absolutely correct in attempting to remove such a bias. Remember that neutral point of view is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. If an ethno- or geocentric POV is present in an article it should be reduced, or hopefully eliminated—but without going the opposite extreme and adding an opposite bias into the material. Keep up the good work, Pfly. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 11:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Opium?

Wasn't opium one of the main "spices" that was shipped into europe from the middle east and later asia?

Vanilla

The Spice trade had brought great riches to the Abbasid Caliphate, and even inspired famous legends such as that of Sinbad the Sailor. These early sailors and merchants would often set sail from the port city of Basra and eventually after many voyages they would return to sell their goods including spices in Baghdad. The fame of many spices such as Nutmeg and Vanilla are attributed to these early Spice merchants.[16]

This is certainly in error since vanilla is a new-world spice that was unknown before the Spanish Conquest.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, unknown to Europeans --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oneway Trade?

It's interesting to note, that all trade goods mentioned in this article - from Roman times to the VOC and later - where flowing East to West. Surely nobody supposes that Alexandrian traders got their spices in Calicut for free and Portuguese and Dutch were abusing reckless Moluccan generosity.

So, what was the European export component of this trade? Hirsch.im.wald (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

How much money did spice traders actually make a year? How much did each spice cost?

How much money did spice traders actually make a year? How much did each spice cost? Why did europeans who were always near to starving pay for spices whenever they could have used that money to buy food? Which class of europeans were the main ones to buy spices? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.145.4 (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Opium mixed in with the spices?

Did spice merchants ever mix opium in with the spices? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.145.4 (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)