The Indian Ocean - Michael Pearson [78]
Merchant networks could be very extensive indeed, stretching all around Eurasia. From the early fifteenth century the Venetians, who dominated the trade in spices in the Mediterranean, had networks of correspondents and associated merchants' firms going from Venice to Aleppo, Baghdad, Basra, Hurmuz, Diu and Tabriz, and probably to Mashad and Samarkand as well. The aim, successfully realised, was to get information on planned movements of goods. The Armenians had similar networks, spreading from Amsterdam to Moscow and from Istanbul to Cochin and Abyssinia.123
Some of these were kin based networks, in which family ties and a common religion intersected. Armenians practised a particular form of Christianity. Jews had their own faith. Larger trading groups were internally divided: Hindus most obviously by caste, as were Jains. But the best information we have on these religious divisions relates, fortuitously, to the major dispersed trading communities in the Indian Ocean, that is Muslims. As we commented extensively earlier in this chapter, merchants and religious specialists worked hand-in-hand in our period, indeed could be the same person, in that a trader could well adhere to a particular Sufi (Muslim devotional) order, and a religious specialist would trade on his own behalf. In the fifteenth century we know of a group who came from a town in Iran called Kazarun, whose community solidarity was based on locality as well as common religious practice. These merchants were all adherents of a Muslim saint of this town, and his successors sold 'spiritual insurance', in that the merchants would get a blessing and in return, once back from a successful voyage, they would pay a sum of money. This particular network had people in Cambay, Calicut, Quilon, and Guangzhou in China.
Yet we must not let a communal flavour come in to our discussion. There is clear evidence that in Gujarat Hindus and Muslims interacted economically, with for example Muslim traders being happy to use Hindu brokers to secure their goods. Similarly, Jews traded with Armenians, and so on. Indeed it could be, reverting to our discussion of littoral society (see pages 37–41), that all those who travelled and traded by sea had a certain commonality which gave them some identity with those who also did this, as compared with those of their own religion who did not. A Muslim sea trader may have felt more at home with a Jewish sea trader than with a Muslim peasant, or for that matter a mullah, located far inland. The physical aspect of the sea, and the port – the ship, the prostitutes and taverns, the role of the monsoon, haggling over customs – made up an experience which differentiated sea travellers from all others.124
These merchant groupings acted relatively autonomously within the port polities. In Melaka at the time of the Portuguese conquest in 1511 four merchant communities were important, each of them living autonomous lives with their own headmen, called shahbandars, and governing themselves with little or no reference to the ruler, the sultan. The most important of these four groups were the Gujaratis. Many were resident, but some 1,000 merchants from Gujarat visited each year. The other main groups were other merchants from the west, that is from India and especially Klings from Coromandel, Malays from Indonesia and as far east as the Spice Islands and the Philippines, and the East Asians, mostly from South China but also from Japan and Okinawa. They lived in ethnically based quarters, here called kampongs, and each group was represented before the 'state' by a shahbandar. The sultan participated vigorously in trade, but apparently gave himself no particular advantage from his position as ruler.125 Similarly,