Whilst this is an interesting article, I believe that the following is not accurate:
"Thus, in the Medieval era, confined basically to the Continent and fishing mostly in rivers, Europeans largely did not encounter sharks."
Whilst the maritime fishing industry in England was relatively small and the consumption of sea fish confined to coastal communities prior to c. 1000 AD, it did expand afterwards with 60,000 herrings being rendered from certain communities by 1086. As well as that, the locus of maritime trade shifted from the Mediterranean to the North Sea, starting from the 7th century with the emergence of an economy based upon gold bullion and the development of early coinage in England. I believe that the shift of fishing activity and trade to the North Sea is likely more important in explaining the lack of written sources relating to shark attacks. Whilst the Mediterranean has 47 species of shark, including the Great White Shark, the North Sea only has 5 species of shark, with 2 of those, the Greenland shark and Basking shark, being seasonal visitors. The other three are relatively small in comparison to some of the species found in the Mediterranean, with the Starry Smooth Hound shark growing to a maximum of around 140cm long. I do not believe that there have been any documented attacks on humans by any of the species in the North Sea. I therefore think that the lack of documentation of shark attacks in Medieval Europe is more due to the species of sharks in the North Sea than anything else.
This seems like saying the same thing? In the confinement of Europe, fish were mostly drawn from rivers, but one of the exceptions was the North Sea, even if that set-up was still influenced by the quarantine, and this reality was why sharks were largely not encountered. The reason for not spelling this out was simply to try to keep the word count down.
Whilst it is largely saying the same thing, my contention was more about the claim about most fish coming from rivers. Whilst a large amount of fish may have initially been sourced from rivers, from my understanding there was a large expansion of maritime fishing during the Medieval period, with maritime fishing becoming increasingly important overtime. I believe that from the 13th century onward, catches were increasingly dominated by cod, and isotopic analysis of cod bones found in mittens in London show that in the 13th and 14th centuries, nearly half of the cod consumed in London had been caught in waters around Iceland and the North Atlantic. I may be wrong, and I admit that I am likely not as well-read on the history of maritime fishing to be nitpicking as much as I am, but, as mentioned, my understanding is that maritime fishing increasingly came to be the dominant source of fish as the Medieval period progressed.
Ah, yeah. I meant to convey (I may have failed) that this was a moving target over the Middle Ages into the Early Modern period, but of course attaching stats to any of this is distinctly spongy; I'm very open to interpretations along a broad spectrum.
Whilst this is an interesting article, I believe that the following is not accurate:
"Thus, in the Medieval era, confined basically to the Continent and fishing mostly in rivers, Europeans largely did not encounter sharks."
Whilst the maritime fishing industry in England was relatively small and the consumption of sea fish confined to coastal communities prior to c. 1000 AD, it did expand afterwards with 60,000 herrings being rendered from certain communities by 1086. As well as that, the locus of maritime trade shifted from the Mediterranean to the North Sea, starting from the 7th century with the emergence of an economy based upon gold bullion and the development of early coinage in England. I believe that the shift of fishing activity and trade to the North Sea is likely more important in explaining the lack of written sources relating to shark attacks. Whilst the Mediterranean has 47 species of shark, including the Great White Shark, the North Sea only has 5 species of shark, with 2 of those, the Greenland shark and Basking shark, being seasonal visitors. The other three are relatively small in comparison to some of the species found in the Mediterranean, with the Starry Smooth Hound shark growing to a maximum of around 140cm long. I do not believe that there have been any documented attacks on humans by any of the species in the North Sea. I therefore think that the lack of documentation of shark attacks in Medieval Europe is more due to the species of sharks in the North Sea than anything else.
This seems like saying the same thing? In the confinement of Europe, fish were mostly drawn from rivers, but one of the exceptions was the North Sea, even if that set-up was still influenced by the quarantine, and this reality was why sharks were largely not encountered. The reason for not spelling this out was simply to try to keep the word count down.
Whilst it is largely saying the same thing, my contention was more about the claim about most fish coming from rivers. Whilst a large amount of fish may have initially been sourced from rivers, from my understanding there was a large expansion of maritime fishing during the Medieval period, with maritime fishing becoming increasingly important overtime. I believe that from the 13th century onward, catches were increasingly dominated by cod, and isotopic analysis of cod bones found in mittens in London show that in the 13th and 14th centuries, nearly half of the cod consumed in London had been caught in waters around Iceland and the North Atlantic. I may be wrong, and I admit that I am likely not as well-read on the history of maritime fishing to be nitpicking as much as I am, but, as mentioned, my understanding is that maritime fishing increasingly came to be the dominant source of fish as the Medieval period progressed.
Ah, yeah. I meant to convey (I may have failed) that this was a moving target over the Middle Ages into the Early Modern period, but of course attaching stats to any of this is distinctly spongy; I'm very open to interpretations along a broad spectrum.