3 ms·

I do think it reflects some new archeological findings, and possibly also a new interest in globalization among historians due to the events of the last couple

I do think it reflects some new archeological findings, and possibly also a new interest in globalization among historians due to the events of the last couple decades, which then causes them to revisit old evidence. I teach my students a combination of the two models that you mention. In other words, the premodern world was indeed a place where most people didn't venture beyond their own village. However, among elites (diplomats, ambassadors, religious or political leaders, military officers) there was a remarkable amount of mobility and cosmopolitanism. I find that comforting too - I like knowing that people hundreds or thousands of years ago grappled with the same issues arising from cross-cultural contacts that people do today. One example: my wife was born and raised in Iran, and I was having a lot of fun yesterday reading a 17th century Englishman complaining about Persian food ("their Cheese and Butter will make your mouths water at it; I ironize: in good earnest the cheese is the worst any ever tasted... its dry, blue, and hard, ill to the eye, bad to the taste, naught for digestion... their liquor may perhaps better delight you."). [1] Incidentally, if anyone is interested in global travel in a slightly later period (late Middle Ages) I wrote a blog post about a Spaniard visiting Samarkand a few years ago. I'm really interested by people who aren't Marco Polo or Ibn Battuta but who made similarly epic journeys. [2] [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=mlJBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q=cheese&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=mlJBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA240#v=on... [2] http://resobscura.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-spaniard-in-samarkand-1404.html http://resobscura.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-spaniard-in-samarka...

HarryHirsch 10y ago
In other words, the premodern world was indeed a place where most people didn't venture beyond their own village. Not so sure about that. Consider the Didache, a church constitution and katechesis manual dated to the late 1st century AD. Chapters 12 and 13 are devoted to brothers in faith from other towns and itinerant prophets. Christianity at that time was not a religion of the wealthy. If this very practical work spends so much time on the subject then travel must also have been possible for the smallfolk.
- benbreen 10y ago
  It depends on where/when, of course - I wouldn't claim that the inhabitants of premodern urban areas never left. But keep in mind that in a world (like the 1st century Mediterranean) where the majority of people were illiterate and didn't live in cities or towns, then written sources will tend to be biased toward urban, literate people and their habits. Perhaps it's a stretch to say that "most people didn't venture beyond their village" in the premodern world, but I'd bet money that a statement along the lines of "most people didn't venture beyond a 50 to 100 mile radius around their place of birth" would hold true in most times and places prior to around 1700.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    I get that we are talking about a vast majority of people who never traveled, at least not far. But even if they didn't travel, they were not entirely ignorant of the world because there were plenty of people who did travel that they would have encountered regularly. It's a bit like hearing Christopher Columbus sailed to prove the world was round. It makes sense on the face of it for a 9 year old, but once you start breaking it down, it's obvious that statement is somewhere between a gross oversimplification (i.e. he sailed to find a western route to China, which would necessitate roundness) to an outright falsehood. This has largely been my experience with comparing the history I learned to the history I now know.
  - Baeocystin 10y ago
    I'd bet money that that holds true even today. Write off a one-time move to a large city, and I'd be certain of it.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  The Roman world was a lot better-developed than the post-Roman one -- much better roads, better law enforcement, more industrialization and specialization of work. They even had a bowstring factory in Ravenna; The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization gives a sense of just how modern their society was (in some regards). Mobility for the poor was definitely a part of that.
jvm 10y ago
> In other words, the premodern world was indeed a place where most people didn't venture beyond their own village. According to this thesis[1], 40–50% of Romans were born outside the city, that sounds like quite widespread mobility! [1] http://www.academia.edu/245988/Migration_and_Mobility_in_Imperial_Rome http://www.academia.edu/245988/Migration_and_Mobility_in_Imp...
- Houshalter 10y ago
  I've read a theory that all big ancient cities had negative population growth. Because of poor sanitation and understanding of pathogens (and other problems), diseases killed off people quicker than the birthrate. However it was made up for by constant migration from the countryside by people looking for work. I don't know if that's true, but I have heard credible people reference it.

HarryHirsch 10y ago

In other words, the premodern world was indeed a place where most people didn't venture beyond their own village. Not so sure about that. Consider the Didache, a church constitution and katechesis manual dated to the late 1st century AD. Chapters 12 and 13 are devoted to brothers in faith from other towns and itinerant prophets. Christianity at that time was not a religion of the wealthy. If this very practical work spends so much time on the subject then travel must also have been possible for the smallfolk.

benbreen 10y ago
It depends on where/when, of course - I wouldn't claim that the inhabitants of premodern urban areas never left. But keep in mind that in a world (like the 1st century Mediterranean) where the majority of people were illiterate and didn't live in cities or towns, then written sources will tend to be biased toward urban, literate people and their habits. Perhaps it's a stretch to say that "most people didn't venture beyond their village" in the premodern world, but I'd bet money that a statement along the lines of "most people didn't venture beyond a 50 to 100 mile radius around their place of birth" would hold true in most times and places prior to around 1700.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  I get that we are talking about a vast majority of people who never traveled, at least not far. But even if they didn't travel, they were not entirely ignorant of the world because there were plenty of people who did travel that they would have encountered regularly. It's a bit like hearing Christopher Columbus sailed to prove the world was round. It makes sense on the face of it for a 9 year old, but once you start breaking it down, it's obvious that statement is somewhere between a gross oversimplification (i.e. he sailed to find a western route to China, which would necessitate roundness) to an outright falsehood. This has largely been my experience with comparing the history I learned to the history I now know.
- Baeocystin 10y ago
  I'd bet money that that holds true even today. Write off a one-time move to a large city, and I'd be certain of it.
clock_tower 10y ago
The Roman world was a lot better-developed than the post-Roman one -- much better roads, better law enforcement, more industrialization and specialization of work. They even had a bowstring factory in Ravenna; The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization gives a sense of just how modern their society was (in some regards). Mobility for the poor was definitely a part of that.

jvm 10y ago

> In other words, the premodern world was indeed a place where most people didn't venture beyond their own village. According to this thesis[1], 40–50% of Romans were born outside the city, that sounds like quite widespread mobility! [1] http://www.academia.edu/245988/Migration_and_Mobility_in_Imperial_Rome http://www.academia.edu/245988/Migration_and_Mobility_in_Imp...

Houshalter 10y ago
I've read a theory that all big ancient cities had negative population growth. Because of poor sanitation and understanding of pathogens (and other problems), diseases killed off people quicker than the birthrate. However it was made up for by constant migration from the countryside by people looking for work. I don't know if that's true, but I have heard credible people reference it.