Comments by "" (@TheDavidlloydjones) on "Extra History" channel.

Paul Butkovich, You affect a tone of sweet reason and moderation in your evidence-free post. Looked at closely, however, what you have said here is the most hilarious lunacy. Long distance trade predates the existence of nations by tens of thousands of years, so you're making no sense whatosever, just strutting your ignorance and lack of self-awareness. Simply reasoning from human nature one would expect long distance trade to evolve in the course of exploration as short-distance trades led to a lot of "I wonder where that came from." Almost all human relationship start from gift-giving, it seems to me, and modern explorers and anthropologists certainly go out on the work carrying supplies of gifts for the peoples they hope to get along with. Why would you make up a story as different from this as you have? My proposed story at least has the virtue of matching observable human behavour.
3
@JustAManFromThePast Shure. The silk road never existed. There was no such thing as an itinerant merchant. Any more fairy stories for us?
2
Anonymous "Zoidberg," Evidence? None. Just one of half a dozen plausible speculations, somewhat likely to be somewhat true... in some times and places. This discussion of money seems to me like most discussions of language. Everybody has a little bit of it, and a lot of people take this as justification for their passing off any idle notion they have as settled fact.
1
The author of this very shoddy piece of work seems to understand neither "history" nor "money." This is just a farrago of witless speculation, some of it plausible, some of it not. When I checked one supposed fact, the age and primacy of cowrie shells as money, it turned out to be unlikely to the point of being almost certainly bogus. D-
1