Finally, p 219, stepped into the political economy, the tar, binding medieval Black Sea commerce! Located a perfunctory and incredible statement that slaves were NOT the most important commodity, as no discussion of other stock, OpEx, investment, or bi-lateral trade agreements ensues.

The reader is to fault the Mamluks and Venetians for not keeping tidy records like the Genoese who taxed. This is also to pardon reliance on anecdote and subsequent dodgy empirical representations of vol and val. I anticipate much confusion in description, if any, of trade balances between colonies ("factors" as they were known to the Atlantic trade) and the several kingdoms.

From Caffa to Aleppo! Crimea!
I must say, I do appreciate the digression outlining the "Golden Horde" khan dynasty politicking and multi-ethnic constituencies, because fine distinctions between Mamluk turk-circassian-tatar-kipchak sultanates, khanates, and amirs controlling Genoese and Venetian colonies, ports, and supply/demand creation which emptied into the Mediterranean had challenged my imagination. Imagine my surprise to learn Uighur/Uyghur was the written not spoken language of Mongols before it was an oppressed terrorist minority in China or joke at the Al Smith Dinner.

At various junctures (of evasive moral turpitude) I find myself comparing this business to Time on the Cross, the massive Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, or the most brief examination of Mycenaean riches, "Anatolian Women in the Linear B Texts. A General Review of the Evidence": slaves or economic migrants?


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.