Wikipedia:Peer review/Post-classical history/archive2

Post-classical history


Greetings, I am the user Sunriseshore, I have worked on this article for approximately seven weeks, when I began the article looked like this, [1] This article prior to that point had been much larger but problematic as it was competing with articles with its content. On Wikipedia due to the widespread tendency of 'Medieval History' to mean 'European Middle Ages' there was much confusion for what this article was meant to do. Using World History sources (and some regional ones) I have attempted to create a proper summary of the 400-1450 period in world history that would meet Wikipedia and professional standards. I must also thank the User:GreenC and all others for his advice on fixing this article.

I made a peer review over for years ago that was never answered, I am trying once again. Sinice my first peer review I have thought more about histography and the use of the term -post classical- at that time. My goal is to create an authentic snapshot of humanity in the time period while also delving into the progress of current academic research on the subject. To create a history of the world, or very broad regional history (when a world perspective is just not possible due to oceanic barriers.

Currently the article is graded as C and I really don't want/thnk it should be there. I at least want to upgrade this article to a B if possible. Thanks to everyone who has already helped Sunriseshore (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Sunriseshore (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Sunriseshore (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

 * There's not really a formal mechanism to declare an article a B-class. If you think the article meets the B-Class criteria, you can update it yourself. Here's some comments below on suggestions for improvment:


 * Ensure there is a citation at the end of each paragraph, minimum.
 * I'm not sure what the purpose of the Marco Polo sound files are, and I think most can be removed.
 * "[160] In the times of the Sui, Tang and Song dynasties (581–1279)," Citations should not be at the beginning of a paragraph.

I hope these comments help. Z1720 (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am prepared to defend the presence of the sounds. I have selected all of them on purpose

The Marco Polo Sounds have very specific purposes. The first one descrbes the great Mongol Civil wars of 1250s which are part of the Eurasisan section of the article and describe the pivotal break up of the empire. Also the recording describes Mongol fighting tactics, which is very relevant given the earth shattering legacy of the Mongol victories/conquests. The second file is abut 13th century and mentions the great quanities of silk, and its position at being on the eastern end of the SIlk Road which is very important for Post Classical Eurasian History.

I overall think history articles on wikipedia should be more interactive, and sometimes use primary sources that can bring readers into the period as examples for whatever the content is about (provided that the actual content has modern academic citations)

I ca assure that almost every sentence has a citation! Ill take a look at the citation you mention, I sometimes have confusion when editing the source code.

Thanks so much for the review. :) Sunriseshore (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * for the sound recordings, Wikipedia articles do not typically quote sections of source material. Instead, articles usually summarise what the source material says, and cites them so that editors, if interested, can read the source material themselves. I think these sound clips should be removed and instead summarised in the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read the policy regarding sound filles and the use of sound recordings here is certainly not forbidden. I suppose anyone can use Wiki soup to promote a certain point of view in style but I have not seen any rule or guidline that says they cannot be used. The scope of the files are very particular in what they are showing. I am not using entire source files only compartively small excerpts that are meant to illustrate certain highlights.
 * We will have to agree to disagree here, articles should be interactive and go with the times. It would be silly to not use materials that are readily be avaliable because in this case the sound files give context and real world examples for what is already written.   Great time and consideration was used in selecting them and each has a partcular purpose, I wish that could be appreciated.
 * In addition, history courses including AP U.S and World History also use excerpts of source materials. Why can't this enclyopedia do the same? The recordings are not overly long, in fact I trimmed them to highlight a certain point (example of Mongol Warfare to demonstrate their tactics, an eye witness account of a silk road city. The sound files do not mess up the article's formatting and are placed into a space that could not be used for anything else. Why deprive the audience examples of history? It is backwards and retrictive.
 * There are also cases where sound files are used to give examples of art and literature of the time period those are even more paramount.I catgeorically oppose the removing of sound files. If this becomes a larger issue I will defend my case.
 * But thanks again for the feedback and overview. Any look at the article is always appreciated. Sunriseshore (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24

 * The biggest issue I think, as we discussed on my talk page, is the Eurasia section, most of which I really do think should be split into the main trends or regional history sections. The Mongol Empire for instance, does not need its own section outside of the regional histories section, the Feudalism section should be built into the Europe section, while the other three probably make sense in the main trends section
 * Inconsistent formatting with refs; things like Expanding webs of exchange and conflict, 500 CE-1500 CE and  World History : Culture, States and Societies to 1500 should probably be sfn
 * The Timeline starts far earlier than the postclassical period
 * I'm not sure why the "History by region in the Old World" can't just be renamed "History by region" and have the Americas & Oceania included
 * The "Literate culture and arts" section is extremely lacking, and most of the music information is either highly misleading or incorrect. Does not mention the visual arts either
 * There is quite a bit of image WP:SANDWICH, such as in the "West Asia", "Oceania" and "End of the period" sections
 * Further reading and see also sections should be trimmed a lot to only include things directly related to the post-classical period and not topics which are more or less broad
 * The East Asia section is rather choppy, also what's going on with ref 165?
 * Many of the image captions are unnecessarily long, defeating the purpose of having a caption. The lead image is the main issue here, though the first image in the East Asia section, Europe section, Silk Road section etc.
 * Refs in the lead are all unneeded and unnecessary, see WP:LEADCITE
 * Lot of missing refs in the Climate section
 * The Approaches last doesn't need that many refs, even in that context; also an overcite at the end of the Oceania section
 * Terminology and periodization missing some refs at the end
 * The Americas missing some refs at the beginning
 * Some of the "Main article:" not correct and should be either "See also:" or "further:"; for example, the main article of the "Growth of civilization" section would be "Civilizations of the post-classical period", not just the "Civilization" article.  Aza24  (talk)   05:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Response  Once again thank you for your feedback, forgive me if some of the below sounds combative as I am glad that someone else looked at this.


 * There is a trend increasinigly within World History (that is verified by the sources- not my opinion) to see Eurasia as a large interactive world that has many interactons within it and therefore have some shared attributes that apply to it and only to it. (At least when concerning attributes that again are backed up by sources). You see the old Post-Classical History article made sections about indiviual countris too long an in the end years of work by editors was removed because an editor said it violated (CPFORK policy) and though I never like seeing articles reduced the way it was I think the verdict was right. Notice that as much as possible I look for world history/regional summaries as sources. World History in the Post Classical era now looks for more commonalities than differences.
 * I have long favored generous use of images, and it seems that in this case I am in the slight wrong here by the style standards (I ave tried to avoid terrible text sandwhiches and usually none directly always on the corners) in the spirit of compromise I will remove some images though I will remind that even image was carefully choosen with a purpose.
 * Another user that edited this article mentioned how the boundry between Late Antiquty and Post-classical history blur with each other. However, I actually did not push the timeline back to 200 but merely ensured that it was included. Some Historians like Susan Wise Bauer for example postulate that 'medieval history' began with Constantine. Would a cutting off at 350 and 400 be acceptable to you? Id rather have a date before 500.
 * The seperation is done deliberately and is supported by the sources. The three worlds seperated becuase with the exception of Polar interactions (Norse in Greenland and Inuit migrations). Oceania, Americas and Eurasia had nothing to do with each other. The formatting of the article represents the point of view of Cambridge publications of the issue. Just think of the world before the Columbian exchange and perhaps the formatting might make a little more sense. I worry that readers could be mislead about continental exchanges if all the regions are indiscriminatlly placed together. I am willing to have additional discussion but I am afraid this is a key point wich I cannot compromise on in good faith.
 * I can take a look at the captions, but simliar to what I said about the images- everything has a point. I thought about all before I created. The captions attempt to make a more direct connection to the article. However I conceed being concise and short is always more productive
 * This is not my strong point, and I have not quite figured how sfn works, I know that I techincally have been on Wikipedia but I was mostly absent since 2018. I have been frustrated by the fact that 're cite' in the citation wizard has been greyed out for me. Any advice or help is appreciated!
 * Can the refs be moved somewhere else instead of being removed? You see, from the I started editing on this article I was worried that whatever was made would instantly be critcized and removed without due process. Early on in 2018 a random non account wrote on the talk page accusing the article of being widely inaccurate, not sourced ect, despite the fact that I had bent over backwards to be as orthodox and neutral as possible. However, on reading the LEAD style convention I can see that you are in the right here.
 * I can assure you that the citations support all of the information there. I admit that this was one of my earlier works and I was trying to avoid citation-clutter (a convention I clearly abandoned). While your comment is in good faith of course it also illustrates my point- I worry that every sentence or every other sentence must have a citation even if its a repeat of the same page because it will be challanged otherwise.
 * Perhaps you can help out with the See Also and Further Reading, but try not to remove some of the books especially those by Susan Wise Bauer
 * I bulked up the approaches to verify what is essentially the core of the article (if the periodization was not properly supported I could see someone swooping in calling the article Original Research (even though it is not) and maybe even trying to start a deletion nomination. Also how is college board not good enough, it has determined the High School curriculum in the United States for 70+ years?
 * I will take another look at the mentioned sections but I know (or am pretty sure) that all of the information there is supported by the sources given.
 * I believe the article you mention about civilizations does not exist. What problems do you have specifically?

I apologize if I sounded harsh in the above but once I deeply appreciate you looking at the article. Any additional help is appreciated. The feedback is helpful! Sunriseshore (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * A lot to respond to, but I am happy to help out with reference formatting and some of these other matters. Will try to leave more detailed responses soon. For the Main trends vs Eurasia section issue, I think a renaming would solve this. What if it was "Global trends" and "Eurasian trends" instead?  Aza24  (talk)   23:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, since Airship below is finding the same layout issues with these sections as me I remain hesitant.  Aza24  (talk)   23:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer! I think remnaiming those to be trends would make sense. I just saw your edits after a power outage. I myself have alot to learn on how to use sources repeatedly. Thank you for your edits and for taking an interest it the article in te first place. Sunriseshore (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Airship

 * Lead should probably be longer, and aim to summarise events not just chronologically and geographically but also thematically
 * I am unsure about the lead image, with its very long caption—a gallery must be better?
 * Layout is weird. First two sections are fine, then there's a section on Eurasia before one on the Old World by region, and then its back to by continent? Honestly the information in the Eurasian section should just be moved to other sections.
 * Even as a historian of the Mongol Empire, there is no reason for it to have its own section. Same goes for feudalism, and the Silk Road. Perhaps the plague, science, and arts section could be moved to the themes.
 * There are several problems with citations. Overciting in some places, underciting in others. I think others have outlined the same above.
 * The sound bites are an eccentric touch. I think the Marco Polo ones are nicely chosen, but I have some difficulties with the musical ones. Not enough to really disagree with them though.
 * If you fix the above, B-Class level (informal as it is) is definitely on the cards. GA-class and higher, however, will require a lot of work. Good luck. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Response
 * The challange is that this article is also about histography as much as it is about histry. The old version of tis article had long lead and it was removed before I started working on it
 * This image was choosen for several reasons -technology (printing press), emphasis on religion, non western (trying to have a global focus here) and the strength of East Asian economies during te time period.
 * Do not misunderstand me, I am not trying to dox but I must ask. Do you have a Phd? Do you work for an acdemic insitution or this is an interest for you? You see even it is world history is its own growing field and increasingly world historians have worked on building a 'Eurasian History built on common simlarities instead of differences. These are commonalities that are discussed in the sources- trade, feudalism, mongols disease especially tie Eurasia together.
 * I am not sure what the solution is here. If someting is not sourced enough it will be challanged, if something has too many to show that the information is supported by respected academic insitutions there are still complaints. I can tell you as I worked on this in 2018 that all information is connected to a source. I also don't understand all the Wikipedia tricks when it comes to reusing sources multiple times- this is actually where I need to most help.
 * I appreciate that you took a look at te sund bites. Marco Polo's were choosen as they demontrated specific things as I said before. The music is to give a demonstration for what music patterns sounded like during the time period.
 * Look its a given that there will always be complaints on a topic this broad butfor me its all or nothing. I get this to GA or I give up and go away.

I appreciate your feedback but again I said before I must profoundly disagree with attempts to scuttle the Eurasian section. How would overflowing regional sections be apprropiate in World History, by what sources would I justify a new layout. I do not want to see OR tags smeared all over this article. This is a world history article mostly supported by world history or at least contiental sources. This means that while it talks about events that historians of more specific fields are famliar wit hit has a different purpose than much more localized situations. I would be more willing to hear your perspective if you are a proffesinal academic but bear in mind that even in this case world history is most likely not your field. You study for the Mongols for their own sake rather than looking at their collective impact on Afro-Eurasia and the many regions they inserted themselves into.

I placed the Eurasian section closer to the top to show areas of commonality before going more specific into teach world region.

I get the impression that most history buffs are not thinking about the current theories of history and how they apply to the article. If this the article not done this it simpily loses cohesion and would no longer be in line with current views of the subject. Do I need to start history textbooks throwing quotes out here? I really appreciate your feedback but there are somethings the article must get across. Eurasia, the Americas and Oceania are sperate from each other if they are not seperated out in the article a non-expert might get other ideas. Sunriseshore (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A particular bone I must pick is that the comment that Feudalism only concerns Europe. While the section does include citations as to why the whole term is problematic it is still used to describe multiple systems when being used in a world history context.

Don't believe me? Here is the University of North Georgia

12.5.1 Global Context: Thus far, we have discussed feudalism in eleventh-century Western Europe, but a decentralized state dominated by a warrior aristocracy could emerge anywhere that central authority broke down. A similar system emerged in Heian Japan of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when mounted soldiers (in this case samurai rather than knights) came to occupy the social role of a warrior aristocracy (see Chapter Four). Such an arrangement would emerge at the same time in the Middle East: the Great Saljuq Empire was dominated by mounted warriors in control of iqtas, units of land whose revenues (often from taxation) would fund these warriors, who in turn held their iqtas from the sultan.


 * Well, that was an unsually disappointing and combative reply.
 * As to your questions: yes, I do work in an academic institution on history. I am perfectly aware, not only of how the fields of comparative history and area studies have evolved into world, international and global history, but also how they in turn have evolved into the truly modern discipline of transnational history. In case you are unaware, these most recent theories explore interconnectivity and dynamicism between different cultures without relying on the 19th-century model of the nation-state.
 * The solution to citation problems is (fairly obviously) to make sure every citation-worthy claim is referenced with a reliable source. It is not enough to say "I can tell you", just as how it is not enough to dismiss others' advice by asking if they have a PhD. You can find all the information you need at WP:CS.
 * As far as I can see, that North Georgia quote specifically says 'a similar system' and 'such an arrangement'. Please provide a reliable source which uses the term 'feudalism' to explicitly describe multiple systems of government in a world history context.
 * On a similar note, please provide evidence from reliable sources that the defining feature of world history is Eurasia. As you are a no doubt a professional academic who has extensively thought about "the current theories of history and how they apply to the article", please provide evidence from reliable sources that feudalism and the Mongol Empire are two of the primary concerns of modern world history.
 * And finally, please provide evidence from yourself on why you want a peer review when you unceremoniously reject any suggestions put to you. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your response.


 * I asked about your credentials only because you used them to support an argument. My question is not personal per-se but only as to how your expertise relates this discussion.
 * I am aware of citation problems in that not every single sentence is cited, but all of the claims the article makes does from cited information. The way you paraphrase "I can tell you" to suggest that I am creating sentences without sources in an arbtriary way just isn't true. The sources that already within the article exist prove this.
 * Sometimes multiple sources are used to support the same point (when I realize it will cause controverly. Sometimes, especially when I was inexperineced with Wikipedia's citation systems years ago a source was used to verify two-three preceeding sentences. I understand this is inperfect, I also want to thank you and all of the editors that have helped with sfn.
 * I am not exactly sure why you suggest that I am using 19th century construct to justify the article. Indeed the sources used including A Companion to the Global Early Middle Ages and Expanding Webs of Exchange and Conflict and others stress the contiental interconnectivy of the period
 * Your point about the uselessness of 19th century constructs focusing on nation states highlights the problems the article had years before I began editing. Other editors reduced post-classical history to a list of states that looked like this. It was not world history. However it was declared original research and synthesis by another editor.
 * One of my larger concerns is that by questioning the Eurasian section as a whole and proposing to section it off into different regions is that it could inadverntly cause the focus on world history to be lost once again. Note I am not making a determination about your intentions, I know you are trying to improve the article and I appreciate that; I only worry about the implications of some parts of your opening message.


 * I have asked for a Peer-review in good faith, precisely because I am aware of my own limiitations. I worked on this article for years without much outsidee help except for the 'Approaches' section which I am grateful for. However I do not think a peer-review prompts a write rto surrender to every suggestion made from others without due process or discussion. The chocies made were deliberate in that I was doing my best to be faithful to the present information on the subject. When I decline certain proposals it is not 'uncereminous rejection'. I have specific reasons. My primary concern with your first message is that your proposal to take down the Eurasian section contradicts evolving views of the subject. Furthermore I appreciate all interest and suggestions for the article, and I have already conceded on some points made prior.

Likewise try not to assume bad faith or to 'uncereminously reject' the work that has aleady been done without an understanding of the rational behind the layout of the article and/or providing sources that may support your concerns. While I did not take it personally your usage of the word weird to describe the layout of the article could have been interepted as combative. You did not ask why it had been done this way, you simpily assumed (or seemingly so) assumed all was wrong and demanded sweeping deletions/moves. All of this would have been done without discussion had I not raised my concerns whiich neither question you or your intentions but to the points of disagreement. Again, I do appreciate that you cared enough to contribute to this discussion in the first place. However, it still would be disingenuous to Wikipedia if passively submitted to all suggestoins without debate or examination of the sources.

Theoretically neither my profession or yours should not matter on Wikipedia as we are both good faith editors using sources. Again I only asked about your credentials as you used those to vindicate your point suggesting that because you as a Mongol expert could not justify the Mongol Section it must be removed from the article. I was genuniely asking if you had published or had been part of a project that determined the Mongols were or were not one of the determinating factors of the 500-1500 or at least the 1200-1500 period in Eurasia. Had you not mentioned your crdentials as an argument they would not have been a part of the discussion in any way shape or form.

As far as your request for sources here are some quotes. I am not sure if they completely sastify all of the requests you made here but they do support the article.

On North Georgia and Feudalism: I think for what its worth the quote supports the usage of Feudalism to make comparisions while also seeing differences. Also the text in the article by no means states that the term Feudlaism has no problems- the problems with the term are also mentioned to provided a balanced view for readers.

Here are some additional quotes from the text bok when the word feudalism is used to describe potentially similar systems in vastly different areas:

"The solution was a reorganization of the military. Instead of having a military that was paid out of a central treasury, the emperors divided the Empire up into regions called themes. Each theme would then equip and pay soldiers, using its agricultural resources to do so. Themes in coastal regions were responsible for the navy. In many ways, the theme was similar to the way that other states would raise soldiers in the absence of a strong bureaucratic apparatus. One might liken it to what we call feudalism in Zhou China, Heian Japan, and later Medieval Europe."

(From what I can see my written text in the article reflects thequote above)

But even at the Frankish monarchy’s weakest, these nearly independent nobles were understood to hold their territories from the king and to owe allegiance to him if he called on them for military service. In this way, feudalism of the European Middle Ages resembled Western Zhou feudalism. (now I understand western Zhou does not factor in as part as Post Classical History of course) but the word is being used across different regions in this context).

Historians also use feudalism to describe India during the early medieval age. But the usefulness of this term is much debated, because conditions on the ground varied from place to place, not only in Europe but also in India. Therefore, historians now only use the term in a general sense while also describing specific variations. In general, feudalism designates a political and economic scene characterized by fragmented authority, a set of obligations between lords and vassals, and grants of land (including those who work it) by rulers in exchange for some kind of service Again the word feudalism is being used in a world history context, being used to compare different regions, is stated clearly by the article and also defines what Feudalism means gy broad generalizations.

The information in the Eurasian section should not be moved to other sections, that would negate the collective impact those events had on that entire world area.

"For all this debate, however, global history has been a field with relatively little input from those working on periods before 1500. This is despite the existence of important scholarship such as Marshall Hodgson’s seminal study in the 1960s and 1970s of ‘Islamdom’ (a wide and interconnected Islamic world that stretched across many centuries), and Janet Abu-Lughod’s presentation in the late 1980s of a late-medieval ‘world system’ catalysed by the expansion of the Mongols"

"It is well known that the kinds of phenomena often associated with global history, including dense and intense trading connections and very extensive empires, often happened outside Europe before 1500. In the case of the medieval centuries obvious examples include the overland Silk Roads (Map 3) and the Islamic Caliphate (Map 6) in the early medieval period; the Mongol-shaped, pan-Eurasian world system described by Abu-Lughod (Map 8)"

Quotes supporting a Eurasian perspctive and the subheadings within it. From: Introduction: Towards a Global Middle Ages

"It is well known that the kinds of phenomena often associated with global history, including dense and intense trading connections and very extensive empires, often happened outside Europe before 1500. In the case of the medieval centuries obvious examples include the overland Silk Roads (Map 3) and the Islamic Caliphate (Map 6) in the early medieval period; the Mongol-shaped, pan-Eurasian world system described by Abu-Lughod (Map 8)"

"Environmental change across this period is the subject of ever-increasing scrutiny, with Bruce Campbell and Victor Lieberman in particular seeking to explain how socio-economic shifts across Eurasia in the later medieval centuries can be connected to the transition from the Medieval Climate Anomaly (c. pre-1250) to the Little Ice Age.34 In a closely related development, the pan-Eurasian experience of disease, above all plague, has been the subject of recent collaborative projects"

"Still later is the example of the pan-Eurasian and African impact of the Black Death.24 And, indeed Columbus himself, with his copy of Marco Polo and awareness of the North Atlantic sea routes,"

From The Cambridge World History Expanding webs of Exchange and Conflict

"She acknowledges the destruction that was part of this empire building, but primarily emphasizes the role of Chinggis Khan and his descendants as active promoters of intercivilizational exchange that bolstered Eurasian integration and broadened the horizons of the Mongols’ subjects and neighbors." Thus across Eurasia during the fifth through the fifteenth centuries, centers of political power, although varying greatly in size, physical stability, organization, complexity, and structure, nevertheless showed certain commonalities. All were centers of intense competition for power and access to royal favor. They developed specific forms of comportment that regulated this competition and that simultaneously distinguished men and women participating in court life from those outside the court. All were sites of cultural production, consumption and ritual. Moreover, many courts directly or indirectly borrowed practices and values from other court cultures: Regional courts mimicked central court practice, while central courts at times adopted regional forms of culture and comportment. The Chinese court formed the model for Eastern courts such as the Japanese, while the Byzantine, which had absorbed aspects of Persian courts before the Islamic conquest as had those of India, provided a model for Western Christian and Islamic courts, which in turn influenced each other. Through reception of ambassadors as well as the search for new and precious cultural products of display and consumption, Eurasian courts participated, however indirectly, in a Eurasian system of exercising and representing of power

"The immense size of the Mongol Empire encouraged cross-cultural ties both within and beyond its borders, as no polity had hitherto commanded such a large portion of Eurasia’s talent pool. However, as adeptly illustrated in the seminal works of Thomas T. Allsen,1 the Mongols were not simply a passive medium that enabled such contacts to take place. Instead, they were the main agents who promoted and directed such contacts. What is more, they served as a filter that determined which particular cultural elements would be diffused across the continent"

The above quote illustrates the need for a Eurasian section, in that the states and political structures from different regions can be compared with one another.

"What is more, the Mongols integrated Eurasia on an unprecedented scale, a globalization of the Old World that contributed to the discovery of the New World and helped shape the early modern period."

A COMPANION TO THE GLOBAL EARLY MIDDLE AGES

"From the early medieval period, however, there is abundant evidence for such long-distance connectivity (see Chapter 16). The countless regional trade circuits all taken together created a network of exchange of truly global proportions, ultimately connecting the large empires in the centre of Afro-Eurasia with western European monasteries, oases on the southern edge of the Sahara, harbours on the Swahili coast of East Africa, nomadic communities in the Central Asia steppes, local kingdoms on the Indian subcontinent, polities on the Malay and the Korean peninsulas, and merchants from the Indonesian and Japanese archipelagos. While the origins of this vast network of exchange were commercial, it also facilitated the exchange of soldiers, of diplomats, missionaries, intellectuals, and the texts and ideas that they brought, and, finally, of germs. The Justinianic Plague, which emerged in the sixth century and did not truly subside for two centuries afterward, was able to affect people from East Africa to eastern Europe and beyond because the early medieval world was so connected (see Chapter 18). Early medieval connectivity also had its limits. While the Afro-Eurasian network of exchange included areas as far apart as the Sahel in West Africa and the Mataram of Central Java, it did not extend beyond them. The most important regions that had already been inhabited by humans for centuries or even millennia, but which were excluded from the global exchange of this period were large parts of Oceania, central and southern Africa, and northern Siberia. That exclusion did not entail a sudden end of trade routes. Connectivity is a gradual process, and a trade network does not end abruptly"

Thanks again for your contributions, interest and any future replies. Sunriseshore (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Good luck with your future endeavours on this article. You have the intellectual capacity to take it to Good Article status or above. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)