Born With A "Silver Spoon": The Origin of World Trade
Born With A "Silver Spoon": The Origin of World Trade
Born With A "Silver Spoon": The Origin of World Trade
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
World History Association and University of Hawai'i Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of World History
The birth
p. 17) inoftheworld
followingtrade hasafter
terms: "Only been described
the Portuguese had by C. R. Boxer (1969,
worked their way down the West African coast, rounded the Cape of
Good Hope, crossed the Indian Ocean and established themselves in
the Spice Islands of Indonesia and on the shore of the South China
Sea; only after the Spaniards had attained the same goal by way of
Patagonia, the Pacific Ocean and the Philippines?then and only
then was a regular and lasting maritime connection established
between the four great continents."
Although Boxer does not pick a specific date for the birth of global
trade, his logic leads us to choose 1571?the year the city of Manila
was founded. Manila was the crucial entrep?t linking substantial,
direct, and continuous trade between America and Asia for the first
time in history.
For our purposes, global trade emerged when all important popu
lated continents began to exchange products continuously?both with
each other directly and indirectly via other continents?and in values
sufficient to generate crucial impacts on all the trading partners. It is
true that there was an important intercontinental trade before 1571,
but there was no direct trade link between America and Asia, so the
world market was not yet fully coherent or complete. To understand
the global significance of the direct Pacific trade between America
and Asia?international trade history's "missing link"?it is useful first
to discuss the underlying economic forces that motivated profitable
world trade in the early modern period. The singular product most
responsible for the birth of world trade was silver.
201
More than the market for any other commodity, the silv
explains the emergence of world trade. China was the domina
of silver. On the supply side, Spanish America (Mexico an
erupted with unprecedented production of the white metal. C
tive official estimates indicate that Latin America alone
about 150,000 tons of silver between 1500 and 1800 (Barr
P- 237)> perhaps exceeding 80% of the entire world produc
that time span (Cross 1983, p. 397). Despite America's dom
silver production over three centuries, Japan may have been
mary exporter of silver to China in the late sixteenth and ear
teenth centuries, shipping perhaps 200 tons per year at times
silver exports, however, fell off dramatically in the second h
seventeenth century (Innes 1980, chap. 6).1 "The amount of
silver poured into foreign trade in the heyday of Japan's overs
1615 to 1625, through Japanese, Chinese, Dutch, Portugu
other ships, reached tremendous value, roughly estimated
160,000 kilograms?equal to 30% or 40% of the total world
duction outside Japan. This explains why European and A
chants were so enthusiastic about developing trade with Ja
1976, p. 10). The central point is that all the great silver min
hemispheres sold ultimately to China.
We intentionally emphasize the role of China?and its t
system (Hamashita 1988)?in the silver trade because the
literature in general has neglected this pivotal country, ce
terms of recognizing China as a prime causal actor. The lit
New World treasure is huge and multifaceted?sometimes f
sixteenth-century price inflation (the price revolution),2 a
rise and fall of Spain,3 and/or the transition from feudalism
ism,4 and many other issues?but it is unified in one central r
focuses virtually exclusively on Europe as the fulcrum. E
considered the epicenter of early modern commercial acti
sixteenth-century price revolution, for example, is mostly th
5 For price inflation in China, see Cartier 1981 and Wilkinson 1980; for Japan, see
Innes 1980; for Turkey, see Sahillioglu 1983; and for Russia, see Blum 1956.
6 Cross 1983, p. 420, talks of a vast smuggling trade in the sixteenth century: "Quanti
ties of silver left the New World through the ports of Buenos Aires and Sacramento and
through the Manila Galleons. At the peak of these activities, perhaps as much as 6 million
pesos per year (159,000 kg), or half the output of Peru, was diverted to these channels from
the Seville trade."
7 Pierre Chaunu's conclusions were based on study of the almojarifazgo duties, which
covered only the taxed portion of the trade. It is widely known, however, that smuggling
was rampant in the Manila trade, and sources from the Asian side of the Pacific provide
estimates of silver exports far in excess of Chaunus numbers (Flynn and Gir?ldez 1994a and
1995).
8 Phelan (1959, p. i78).There were thousands of Japanese in Manila, too, including
Japanese Catholics fleeing persecution at home. Spaniards feared a Japanese "fifth column"
within the Philippines, however, and expelled large numbers of Japanese several times
(Innes 1980, p. 59).
The value of the coin lay in the metal, not in the mint. In that respect
copper coins were hardly different from silver; each was valued as a
9 Demand for silver along Chinas coastal region alone must have been significant, con
sidering that Nanjing contained more than i million inhabitants and Beijing around
660,000 in the late Ming period (Rodzinski 1979, p. 201).
tive market. The process yielded prodigious profits for key individuals
and institutions. From mines in the Andes and Japan to the streets of
China, profit was the motive force at each stage of the trade. European
middlemen profited mightily from intercontinental trade and perhaps
even more from the inter-Asian trade linkages, but the truly grand
profiteers in the silver saga were those entities that controlled the
centers of its production: imperial Spain and the Tokugawa shogunate.
Conversely and ironically, the silver trade may have contributed
indirectly to the overthrow of the Ming dynasty.
The richest silver mine in the history of the world was discovered at
more than 15,000 feet altitude in the Andes in Potos? (present-day
Bolivia), a one-way journey of two and one-half months via pack
animal from Lima. Nothing grew at that altitude, so there was no pop
ulation at the time silver was discovered in 1545. During the ensuing
sixty years, Potosi's population swelled to 160,000, about equal to that
of London or Paris.10 This would be the modern-day equivalent of, say,
20 million people moving to a spot on Alaska's North Slope. Evidently
something unusual was going on in Potos?.
Potosi's cerro rico (rich mountain) may have produced 60% of all
the silver mined in the world in the second half of the sixteenth cen
tury.11 Its veins were incredibly rich. In addition to naturally bountiful
deposits, a series of new production technologies?the most famous
being the mercury-amalgam "patio process"?combined to render
Spanish American mines the world's lowest cost sources of silver (Jara
1966). This supply-side phenomenon was particularly fortuitous
because it coincided chronologically with the extraordinary rise in the
value of silver caused by the Chinese demand-side forces culminating
in the Single-Whip tax reform. The combination of low supply-side
production costs in Spanish America and Chinese-led demand-side
elevation in silver's value in Asia generated probably the most spectac
ular mining boom in human history. This combination of supply-side
and demand-side forces implied enormous profits.
No entity reaped greater rewards from the silver industry than the
12 The crown did directly control the famous mercury mines near Hua
Peruvian coast. Potosi's resurgence after 1573 was attributable to the r
Toledo, which included successful adoption of the mercury-amalgam mi
1983, p. 402).
13 For discussion of the quinto, which frequently amounted to far
reality, see Brading and Cross 1972.
14 Note that the 27.5% of shipments belonging to the crown represent
27.5% of the total profit. Much of the crowns revenues could be conside
huge costs had to be subtracted from private receipts before arriving at pr
15 Scholars such as Elliott (1961) and Lynch (1984, 2:i), have long
external and domestic foundations of the Spanish empire. For a more co
of why we believe that the foundation of empire was external, not domest
Gir?ldez 1995.
Truly global trade dates from the founding of the city of Manila in
1571, which formed the first direct and permanent trade link between
America and Asia. From this date forward, all heavily populated conti
nents traded with each other directly and indirectly in substantial vol
umes. Silver was the sine qua non of this global trade. Spanish
America was the source of an estimated 150,000 tons of silver between
1500 and 1800, comprising perhaps 80% of world production. The
second-leading source of silver was Japan, responsible for around 30%
of world output in the sixteenth century and perhaps 16% in the
seventeenth century. Not coincidentally, entrep?t Nagasaki was
founded at virtually the same time as Manila. Silver was shipped to
China, the world's dominant end-customer, regardless of whether it
was produced in Asia or in the West.
Much American silver traversed the Atlantic Ocean, passing
through Europe on its journey to Asia. Europe exported at least 150
tons of silver annually to Asia, a significant portion of which passed
through Amsterdam. Attman has been most vocal in calling attention
to the Baltic route, which carried eastward at least 50 tons per year.
Traditional Mediterranean-Levantine trade routes carried vast quanti
ties of silver too, but the Cape route was biggest of the three. Direct
trade out of Acapulco, through Manila, and onward to China has been
mostly ignored in the scholarly literature, despite evidence that 128
tons annually may have been shipped through Manila in the late six
teenth and early seventeenth centuries (and 307 tons in 1597, accord
ing to a single source). Recent research seems to indicate that the
Manila trade did not drop off after the 1620s or the 1640s, notwith
standing the claims of Chaunu (1960K The tremendous volume of
unofficial trade (smuggling) rendered official figures misleading.
Chuan (1969) indicates that the Pacific leg of silver's journey carried
more than 50 tons of silver per year throughout the seventeenth cen
tury, equal to the combined European shipments of Portugal and the
Dutch and English East Indies Companies.
The conventional explanation of this west-to-east flow of "money"
is that Europe had to send treasure to Asia because the West had to
settle its trade deficit with Asia. Europeans liked Asian silks, spices,
and porcelain, but Asians had not yet developed an appreciation for
European wares. This conventional view is flawed for at least three
reasons. First, it was not "money" or "treasure" that flowed out of
Europe, but silver. Silver, not gold, was attracted to Asia; Asian gold
and sometimes copper (both "money" substances) flowed in the oppo
site direction, into Europe. It is best to look at factors affecting the
supply and demand for silver in its own right, rather than confusing
the issue by aggregating this unique substance with other metals
as "money," which is alleged to have played a passive, reactive role.
Second, the role of Japan needs to be considered. Japan was the Asian
counterpart of America (site of production) and Spain (country con
trolling production) combined. We prefer to focus on the supply side
and the demand side of the silver industry, irrespective of which hemi
sphere contained centers of production, rather than to visualize global
trade as an abstract East-West issue. Third, there is a basic anomaly in
the treatment of America in the conventional view. Since treasure is
alleged to have flowed from Europe to Asia because of a European
trade deficit, then why has the Pacific trade not been explained in the
same terms? We know of no one who argues that the Manila galleons
carried huge quantities of treasure to Asia because of America's insa
tiable appetite for Asian goods, which in turn caused an American
trade deficit with Asia.
Depicting precious metals as passive "money" that adapts to trade
imbalances diverts attention from the central issues. Silver was pro
duced for profit. It migrated from points of production (Japan and
America) to end-customers (mostly in China). Developments within
China have been largely ignored in the diverse literatures dealing with
global flows of precious metals and early modern price inflation, yet
China was the pivotal country. International business entities would
not have shipped tens of thousands of tons of silver to China unless
significant profits induced that activity. Profits from the silver trade
were immense for two reasons. First, on the demand side, China's
monetary and fiscal systems had substantially converted from a paper
money system to silver by the time of the Single-Whip tax reform of
the 15 70s. Conversion of more than one-quarter of the world's popula
tion (and its government) to silver customers contributed to the rise in
the price of silver in China. Second, on the supply side, extraordinarily
rich silver mines were discovered in Japan and Spanish America, and
new technologies reduced production costs. Supply and demand forces
created disequilibrium: silver's value in China was double its value in
the rest of the world. This is what drove the silver trade?the birth of
world trade?and not some abstract notion of trade deficits.
During the decade 1616-1625, recorded imports for Buenos Aires (the
sum of legal and confiscated goods) were 7,957,579 pesos, while
exports for the same period amounted to only 360,904 pesos. The
annual trade deficit, which was met with smuggled silver from Upper
Peru, amounted to at least three-quarters of a million pesos per year.
Between 1619 and 1623, port officials seized a total of 3,656 slaves
from illegally landing vessels; their market value in Lima would have
approached two million pesos. These numbers do not include those
slaves legally imported and those which evaded port officials. The size
of these figures clearly indicates a flourishing and considerable illicit
trade up the Rio Plata from the 1580s until probably the 1640s. Dur
ing its most successful years, no less than 1-2 million pesos (roughly
25,000 to 50,000 kg) flowed illegally from the mines of Peru out
through the port of Buenos Aires. These totals equalled from 15% to
30% of the silver output of Potos?. (Cross 1983, p. 414)
Not all the slaves remained in Brazil, nor were all of them plantation
laborers. Palmer (1995) has provided demographic information sug
gesting that between 10,000 and 20,000 Africans were domestic slaves
in Mexico City in the early seventeenth century. Since, as we have
argued, the Spanish enterprise in America was financed by the world
silver market (as were the activities of the Portuguese traders), and
since China was the dominant factor in the global silver market, then
it appears that the trans-Atlantic slave trade was heavily, though indi
rectly, influenced by monetary and fiscal developments in Ming
China. In other words, end-customer China created profitable trade in
the New World, and profitable trade in America created the demand
for African slaves. Clearly, a global view of early modern trade may
suggest many research topics that might otherwise be overlooked.
Scholars have long been interested in the impact of Europeans on
Asia (and the rest of the world). The focus has shifted in recent years,
however, especially among Asian scholars who increasingly emphasize
the dominant historical role of the intra-Asian marketplace. These
revisionists view Europeans as having participated in a vast and sophis
ticated existing Asian commercial network, rather than as having
introduced modernization to backward Asia. This essay is in the revi
sionist camp; it even suggests a reversal of causality. The economic
impact of China on the West was far greater than any European influ
ence on Asia in the early modern period. We agree with the sentiments
of Moloughney and Xia (1989, p. 68), who protest that "late Ming
China was not an outpost of a Seville-centered world economy."16 Per
haps a reversal of this logic would be more accurate: Seville was an out
16 Moloughney and Xia (1989, pp. 67-68) have criticized Atwell for insisting on the
importance of American silver in early modern Chinese history. The basis of the Molough
ney-Xia counter-argument is empirical: the influx of American silver peaked during, rather
than before, the decline of the Ming in the 1640s. This essay is consistent with both sides
of this debate. American silver may have been crucial in the decline of the Ming dynasty
not because of its scarcity but precisely because its abundant accumulation depressed the
value of silver. Views that are contradictory from the perspective of conventional macro
economic logic become compatible in terms of our cost-of-production model.
post of a world economy that had not one center but three (Beijing on
the demand side, and America and Japan on the supply side).
The physical presence of Europeans in Asia in early modern times
?and the simultaneous physical absence of Asians in the West?has
understandably led scholars to pay attention mostly to the impact of
the West on Asia. Superior naval firepower may explain the presence
of Europeans in Asia, but the most powerful economic undercurrents
ran in the opposite direction. Without the Chinese demand for silver,
there would have been no finance mechanism for the Spanish empire.
Without China, there would have been no century-long price revolu
tion. Without China, the birth of world trade would have been
delayed to some unknowable extent. But China did convert, both
monetarily and fiscally, to silver. This fact reverberated across all con
tinents and gave birth to world trade in 1571, providing a powerful
force in shaping the modern world.
References
Attman, Artur. 1986. American Bullion in the European World Trade, 1600
1800. G?teborg.
Atwell, William S. 1977. "Notes on Silver, Foreign Trade, and the Late Ming
Economy." Ch'ing-shih ven-tii 3/8:1-33.
-. 1982. "International Bullion Flows and the Chinese Economy circa
1530-1650." Past and Present 95:68-90.
-. 1986. "Some Observations on the 'Seventeenth-Century Crisis' in
China and Japan." Journal of Asian Studies 45:223-44.
-. 1988. "Ming Observations of Ming Decline: Some Chinese Views on
the 'Seventeenth Century Crisis' in Comparative Perspective." Journal
of the Royal Asiatic Society 2:316-48.
Barrett, Ward. 1990. "World Bullion Flows, 1450-1800." In The Rise of Mer
chant Empires: Long-Distance Trade in the Early Modern World, 1350
1750, ed. James D. Tracy, pp. 224-54. Cambridge.
Blair, E. H., and J. A. Robertson. 1903-1909. The Philippine Islands. 55 vols.
Cleveland.
Blum, Jerome. 1956. "Prices in Russia in the Sixteenth Century." Journal of
Economic History 27:182-99.
Boxer, Charles R. 1969. The Portuguese Seaborne Empire, 1415-1825. New
York.
Brading, D. A., and Harry E. Cross. 1972. "Colonial Silver Mining: Mexico
and Peru." The Hispanic American Historical Review 52:545-79.
Brenner, Robert. 1977. "The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique
of Neo-Smithian Marxism." New Left Review 104:25-92.