Question

Read the following passage carefully.

In recent years, the push to reframe medieval studies under the rubric of the "Global Middle Ages" has provoked profound methodological shifts. Proponents argue that the traditional, Eurocentric periodization obscures the vibrant networks of exchange that connected Afro-Eurasia long before the early modern era. Among the most ambitious applications of this new paradigm is Elena Rostova’s recent study of ninth-century Baltic Sea trade networks. Rostova meticulously documents the flow of Abbasid silver dirhams, Scandinavian amber, and Byzantine silk through the emporia of Northern Europe, marshaling an impressive array of numismatic and archaeological data to argue that the Baltic was not a peripheral backwater, but rather a vital node in a nascent, integrated "global" world-system.

There is much to admire in Rostova’s empirical rigor. Her exhaustive cataloging of hoard deposits firmly dispels the lingering historiographical myth of Scandinavian economic isolation. Furthermore, her willingness to cross traditional disciplinary boundaries, synthesizing paleobotanical evidence with textual accounts from Islamic geographers, sets a commendable standard for future archaeological monographs. By illuminating the sheer volume of transcontinental material exchange, Rostova undeniably broadens our understanding of early medieval economic complexity.

Yet, when Rostova moves from empirical synthesis to theoretical assertion, her overarching conclusions invite scrutiny. To characterize the ninth-century Baltic trade as evidence of an integrated "world-system"—a term freighted with modern capitalist assumptions regarding structural dependency and core-periphery dynamics—is to stretch the theoretical framework beyond what the evidence can bear. The presence of Abbasid silver in Swedish soil certainly proves contact and exchange, but it does not necessarily indicate the kind of systemic economic integration, mutual dependence, or synchronized price fluctuations that define a true world-system.

Moreover, by forcing the Baltic evidence into a globalizing theoretical mold, Rostova paradoxically obscures the local, culturally specific logic that drove much of this exchange. The accumulation of silver for prestige and localized political patronage was governed by indigenous social imperatives rather than the abstract market forces she implies. Thus, while her book serves as an invaluable repository of economic data and a welcome corrective to regional insularity, its ultimate theoretical scaffolding appears more fashionable than structurally sound.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the author’s attitude toward Rostova’s assertion that the Baltic trade constituted an integrated "world-system"?