{"title":"Book Review: The ‘Long Eighteenth Century’ in Maritime Asian History by Shimada Ryūto, ed.","authors":"Thidrek Vossen","doi":"10.1177/08438714231194530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Within the historiography of global maritime history, the eighteenth century as an axis of research has often been regarded as a controversial concept. First introduced by the Dutch historian J. C. Van Leur in 1934, the axis rejected the conventional, positivist, Eurocentric focus of contemporary research, which primarily focused on the neighbouring centuries while reducing the eighteenth century to insignificance. In opposition, Van Leur coined the term the ‘long eighteenth century’, aiming to emphasize inter-Asian agency while limiting the assumed European influence. Shimada Ryuto has brought together a group of researchers with the aim of revitalizing and proving the feasibility of this concept. As editor of Acta Asiatica, he supports Van Leur’s proposal by stating how the eighteenth century as an analytical frame has a unique ability to convey the vibrant, transformative and predominantly Asian nature of this century, stimulating a much-needed reconsideration of past historical assumptions. The main goal of this special issue of Acta Asiatica is therefore described by Shimada as building ‘a new temporal axis for research’ (iii–iv), utilizing practical contributions that are capable of establishing a theoretical framework. As a new perspective within historical research, the eighteenth century is regarded as the Asian linchpin between conventional premodern and modern centuries. Equipped with diverging topics and methodologies, the contributions outline each author’s own research project, tied together through the eighteenth-century narrative. First, Peng Hao disputes the Japanese Sakoku policy (national seclusion, 鎖国) through a detailed analysis of the eighteenth-century commercial relations between Chinese and Japanese merchants in Nagasaki. This policy was adjusted to meet and accommodate local socio-economic circumstances. Subsequently, Kato Shinsaku examines","PeriodicalId":43870,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Maritime History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Maritime History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08438714231194530","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Within the historiography of global maritime history, the eighteenth century as an axis of research has often been regarded as a controversial concept. First introduced by the Dutch historian J. C. Van Leur in 1934, the axis rejected the conventional, positivist, Eurocentric focus of contemporary research, which primarily focused on the neighbouring centuries while reducing the eighteenth century to insignificance. In opposition, Van Leur coined the term the ‘long eighteenth century’, aiming to emphasize inter-Asian agency while limiting the assumed European influence. Shimada Ryuto has brought together a group of researchers with the aim of revitalizing and proving the feasibility of this concept. As editor of Acta Asiatica, he supports Van Leur’s proposal by stating how the eighteenth century as an analytical frame has a unique ability to convey the vibrant, transformative and predominantly Asian nature of this century, stimulating a much-needed reconsideration of past historical assumptions. The main goal of this special issue of Acta Asiatica is therefore described by Shimada as building ‘a new temporal axis for research’ (iii–iv), utilizing practical contributions that are capable of establishing a theoretical framework. As a new perspective within historical research, the eighteenth century is regarded as the Asian linchpin between conventional premodern and modern centuries. Equipped with diverging topics and methodologies, the contributions outline each author’s own research project, tied together through the eighteenth-century narrative. First, Peng Hao disputes the Japanese Sakoku policy (national seclusion, 鎖国) through a detailed analysis of the eighteenth-century commercial relations between Chinese and Japanese merchants in Nagasaki. This policy was adjusted to meet and accommodate local socio-economic circumstances. Subsequently, Kato Shinsaku examines
在全球海事史的史学中,以18世纪为研究轴心经常被认为是一个有争议的概念。荷兰历史学家j.c. Van Leur在1934年首次提出了这一轴线,它拒绝了当代研究中传统的、实证主义的、以欧洲为中心的焦点,这种焦点主要集中在邻近的几个世纪,而把18世纪贬低为微不足道的。与此相反,Van Leur创造了“漫长的18世纪”一词,旨在强调亚洲间的代理,同时限制假定的欧洲影响。岛田龙人召集了一组研究人员,目的是振兴和证明这一概念的可行性。作为《亚洲学报》(Acta Asiatica)的编辑,他支持范leur的建议,指出18世纪作为一个分析框架,如何具有独特的能力来传达本世纪充满活力、变革和以亚洲为主的本质,从而激发人们对过去历史假设的重新思考。因此,岛田将这期《亚洲学报》特刊的主要目标描述为建立“一个新的研究时间轴”(iii-iv),利用能够建立理论框架的实际贡献。作为历史研究的一个新视角,18世纪被认为是亚洲传统前现代和现代之间的关键时期。这些著作采用了不同的主题和方法,概述了每个作者自己的研究项目,通过18世纪的叙述联系在一起。首先,彭浩通过对18世纪长崎中日商人商业关系的详细分析,对日本的闭关锁国政策提出了质疑。这项政策经过调整,以满足和适应当地的社会经济情况。随后,加藤新作检查