Pirenne Thesis

Posted at Sep 26/2006 01:29PM:
Bobby: In late antiquity (the fall of Rome, the rise of Charlamagne, the "Dark Ages," approx. 400-800 AD) the decline of Europe was partly a result of the rise of the Muslim state. After Islam grew in the mid-seventh century, the Mediterranean split Europe from the Arab world of North Africa and this ISOLATION is partly what caused Europe to evolve as it did.

First part of his thesis doesn't stand up because there was relative continuity, economically and culturally, in the Dark Ages.

Joey: More specifically, Pirenne posits that there was cultural and economic continuity in Europe up until Mohammad and the Mulsim conquest, and after that point Islam shut down trade in the Mediterranean, crippling Europe and giving classical/antique society a death-blow.

Fortunately for Pirenne, we do find some cultural and even economic continuity up until Mohammad's time (which differs from the traditional thought that placed the transition to Medieval society at the point when Rome "fell", ie, much earlier), but it all crumbles well before Islam makes an appearance on the global geopolitical stage.

Posted at Sep 26/2006 09:36PM:
Carrie: It's also worth noting that Pirenne was really the first scholar to look at the interactions between the ancient and medieval worlds and linking economic histories.

Ian's comments:

The point about economic history is important. Understandings of economic activities has been one avenue in which archaeology has sought to demonstrate its importance to historical study through the use of its particular forms of data. Do you think that such materialist, or economic determinist arguments, fully capture the social and cultural complexities of the interaction between east and west.

In what ways has the Pirenne thesis reified the distinctions between east and west for the medieval period? Or does it?

Posted at Oct 03/2006 04:50PM:
Joey: To the first question, of course economic arguments will not fully explain the social and cultural complexities of any location or era, because often economics (even in our own society) is not the whole issue; the theoretical "everyone acting in his own best economic interests" of Adam Smith's capitalism is just not realistic, as there are plenty of other types of events and motivations that influence peoples and history. That said, economics can certainly have a *lot* to do with events, but it is not, like any source, a perfect and complete explanation.