{"title":"发现通往印度的直达海路:远海旅行和曼德海峡","authors":"Mateusz Lisak","doi":"10.31338/uw.2083-537x.pam29.1.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The issue of discovery of a sea route to India is one of the most important questions about Indo-Roman trade relations and it has yet to be resolved. Historians tend to focus on who and when made the first open-sea journey, and whether it was a sudden change or a process. Conditions essential for discovery of a new route are not considered (not clear – are not considered here, in this paper?), nor are the circumstances that would have made this journey possible. Another issue (of what?) is the case of the Arabia Eudaimon port. The 1st-century AD Periplus Maris Erythraei states that the port had been ransacked and there was no direct connection between India and Egypt, but that all ships were forced to stop there. Thus the resumption of active trade with India necessitated the lifting of the tentative blockade of Arabia Eudaimon and discovering the trans-oceanic route. The nautical guide, however, does not describe the new repute in the context of the troubles in Bab el-Mandeb, but can we be really sure that these two events were not related? What were the circumstances and conditions that had to be met for it to be possible to discover a new route?","PeriodicalId":156819,"journal":{"name":"Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discovery of a direct sea route to India: open-sea travel and the Bab el-Mandeb barrier\",\"authors\":\"Mateusz Lisak\",\"doi\":\"10.31338/uw.2083-537x.pam29.1.24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The issue of discovery of a sea route to India is one of the most important questions about Indo-Roman trade relations and it has yet to be resolved. Historians tend to focus on who and when made the first open-sea journey, and whether it was a sudden change or a process. Conditions essential for discovery of a new route are not considered (not clear – are not considered here, in this paper?), nor are the circumstances that would have made this journey possible. Another issue (of what?) is the case of the Arabia Eudaimon port. The 1st-century AD Periplus Maris Erythraei states that the port had been ransacked and there was no direct connection between India and Egypt, but that all ships were forced to stop there. Thus the resumption of active trade with India necessitated the lifting of the tentative blockade of Arabia Eudaimon and discovering the trans-oceanic route. The nautical guide, however, does not describe the new repute in the context of the troubles in Bab el-Mandeb, but can we be really sure that these two events were not related? What were the circumstances and conditions that had to be met for it to be possible to discover a new route?\",\"PeriodicalId\":156819,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31338/uw.2083-537x.pam29.1.24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31338/uw.2083-537x.pam29.1.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
发现通往印度的海上航线是印度罗马贸易关系中最重要的问题之一,这个问题尚未得到解决。历史学家倾向于关注谁在何时进行了第一次远洋航行,以及这是一个突然的变化还是一个过程。没有考虑发现新路线的必要条件(不清楚-在本文中没有考虑?),也没有考虑使这一旅程成为可能的情况。另一个问题(关于什么?)是阿拉伯半岛尤达蒙港的情况。公元1世纪的Periplus Maris Erythraei说这个港口被洗劫了,印度和埃及之间没有直接的联系,但所有的船只都被迫停在那里。因此,要恢复同印度的活跃贸易,就必须解除对阿拉伯半岛的暂时封锁,并发现跨洋路线。然而,航海指南并没有在曼德海峡发生麻烦的背景下描述这一新名声,但我们真的能确定这两件事没有关联吗?要发现一条新路线,必须满足什么样的环境和条件?
Discovery of a direct sea route to India: open-sea travel and the Bab el-Mandeb barrier
The issue of discovery of a sea route to India is one of the most important questions about Indo-Roman trade relations and it has yet to be resolved. Historians tend to focus on who and when made the first open-sea journey, and whether it was a sudden change or a process. Conditions essential for discovery of a new route are not considered (not clear – are not considered here, in this paper?), nor are the circumstances that would have made this journey possible. Another issue (of what?) is the case of the Arabia Eudaimon port. The 1st-century AD Periplus Maris Erythraei states that the port had been ransacked and there was no direct connection between India and Egypt, but that all ships were forced to stop there. Thus the resumption of active trade with India necessitated the lifting of the tentative blockade of Arabia Eudaimon and discovering the trans-oceanic route. The nautical guide, however, does not describe the new repute in the context of the troubles in Bab el-Mandeb, but can we be really sure that these two events were not related? What were the circumstances and conditions that had to be met for it to be possible to discover a new route?