As an Economics major, I find the trade and cultural relationships between the various civilizations bordering the Indian Ocean to be particularly interesting. The peoples' of the Indian Ocean utilized triangle-shaped dhows to create the earliest known trade network of its size, spanning from the coast of Africa and Arabia to China and the Philippines.*

There has been trading in and throughout the Indian Ocean for millennia (I've listed some prior periods in the timeline), but the period of interest is from ~600 AD to 1497. During this time period, the Austronesian people's enjoyed a relatively peaceful trading network. Of course, there were still great wars waged on land as different empires shifted and came into power. The only major threat to this robust and expansive trading network was small pirate crews that had no allegiance to any particular nation. These pirates appeared rarely up until the 13th-15th century when their presence was increasingly notable as time passed. This golden age came to a close when the Portuguese began to set up trading outposts and routes around the cape of Africa back to Europe. Portugal led the way for many centuries of European interference and colonialism in the region that could be a reason for the loss of culture after the end of the Islamic Golden Age in 1258.

There are hundreds of port cities within the network, (I've added points to the largest ones, and some larger ones are visible if you zoom in). Geographically, India lies at the center of the network with many routes to East Asia and the Indonesian Islands as well as routes to Africa and Arabian states. The interesting thing about all of the ports is that they did not usually associate themselves solely with the country or empire they resided in, but almost as a separate entity altogether. This resulted in a similar and multicultural-tolerant environment that stayed consistent across many of the port towns. This allowed for barriers of religion, ideology, and most importantly language to be broken down and commerce to occur.

While these phenomena allowed trade to happen, it also encouraged competition between all port cities, especially ones of the same nation. Surprisingly, ports of the same nationality often compete with one another the most as they are competing for the same geographical segment and often offer similar goods to seafaring merchants. Many of the economic choices that we would make today based on facts and data were made purely off personal preference during this time period.

The network of ocean trading routes played a defining role in the development of the region's culture and was unfortunately cut short by European colonialism and expansion. It also serves as an excellent example of an early multinational and peaceful trading network that worked without the modern technologies we possess today. Its success shows the ingenuity of mankind

*Note: Some port names on the map have been anglicized and there may be discrepancies with a current world map.

Bibliography

Fitzpatrick, Matthew P. “Provincializing Rome: The Indian Ocean Trade Network and Roman Imperialism.” Journal of World History, vol. 22, no. 1, 2011, pp. 27–54., DOI:10.1353/jwh.2011.0016.

Margariti, Roxani Eleni. “Mercantile Networks, Port Cities, and ‘Pirate’ States: Conflict and Competition in the Indian Ocean World of Trade before the Sixteenth Century.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 51, no. 4, 2008, pp. 543–577., DOI:10.1163/156852008x354634.

Pollard, Edward, and Okeny Charles Kinyera. “The Swahili Coast and the Indian Ocean Trade Patterns in the 7th–10th Centuries CE.” Journal of Southern African Studies, vol. 43, no. 5, 2017, pp. 927–947., DOI:10.1080/03057070.2017.1345266.

Seland, Eivind Heldaas. “Archaeology of Trade in the Western Indian Ocean, 300 BC-AD 700.” Journal of Archaeological Research, vol. 22, no. 4, 2014, pp. 367–402., DOI:10.1007/s10814-014-9075-7.

Keshodkar, Akbar. “Who Needs China When You Have Dubai? The Role Of Networks And The Engagement Of Zanzibaris In Transnational Indian Ocean Trade.” Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, vol. 43, no. 1/2/3, 2014, pp. 105–141., www.jstor.org/stable/24643109.