多瑙河下游的工程:帝国边境地区的技术与国际合作》,作者 Luminita Gatejel(评论)

IF 0.8 3区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Technology and Culture Pub Date : 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1353/tech.2024.a920548
Stelu Şerban
{"title":"多瑙河下游的工程:帝国边境地区的技术与国际合作》,作者 Luminita Gatejel(评论)","authors":"Stelu Şerban","doi":"10.1353/tech.2024.a920548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Engineering the Lower Danube: Technology and International Cooperation in an Imperial Borderland</em> by Luminita Gatejel <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Stelu Şerban (bio) </li> </ul> <em>Engineering the Lower Danube: Technology and International Cooperation in an Imperial Borderland</em> By Luminita Gatejel. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2022. Pp. 341. <p>The history of river infrastructure is a space of confluence of several research fields, such as the history of international relations, environmental history, and science and technology studies (STS). Luminita Gatejel's book discusses the Lower Danube, from the Iron Gates to the mouth of the Black Sea, between 1770 and the end of the nineteenth century, combining these different approaches.</p> <p>From the perspective of geopolitical relations, the author brings to the fore the \"hydroimperialism\" (Sara Pritchard, <em>From Hydroimperialism to Hydrocapitalism</em>, 2012) of the empires then influential in this part of the Danube: the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Empire, and the Tsarist Empire. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the Tsarist Empire in the war concluded in 1774 resulted in the liberalization of trade on the Black Sea, so that after 1780 the Lower Danube was seen by Habsburg and Russian rulers as the main trade route between the Black Sea and Central Europe. However, the existence of natural obstacles, the most formidable being the Iron Gates and the Danube Delta, slowed down the use of this route.</p> <p>In the five chapters of the volume, the author addresses how access through these two great natural obstacles was improved throughout the nineteenth century. A series of geopolitical contexts and groups of bureaucrats, technocrats, and entrepreneurs, as well as crucial institutions such as the European Danube Commission (EDC), are analyzed. Gatejel emphasizes that the completion of these infrastructural projects took a long time because the actors involved in the project were confronted with a number of problems, which in addition to the natural barriers included political conflicts, which forced them to adjust their initial plans. The divergences between the states involved in the two projects, the alternative opinions of technocrats on different solutions, and also the influence of economic factors that led to the transformation of the Lower Danube into a cost-effective transport option are presented.</p> <p>Gatejel discusses first the case of the Iron Gates. The engineers of the Habsburg government, charged at the end of the eighteenth century with describing this area, signaled the dangers to navigation and proposed solutions for regulation. It was only in the mid-1830s, however, in the context of the liberalization of trade on the Danube following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, that the first large-scale project developed. The project was led by István Széchenyi, civilian commissioner of the Danube, and hydraulic engineer Pál Vásárhelyi and funded by the recently established Austrian Danube Steamboat Shipping Company. The other project, the navigability of the <strong>[End Page 394]</strong> Danube Delta, took shape after 1830. Experts from the Austrian government, as well as engineers sent by the British government, proposed alternative projects to ease the connection between the Danube and the Black Sea. Three main arms of the Danube Delta were proposed, as well as building a route between Cernavodă and Constanța, which would shortcut the delta. The latter was to be either a railway or a canal. Only after 1856, however—following another Russo-Turkish war, which ended indecisively—was the EDC established, under the umbrella of which the efficiency of the delta projects was considered. Following the model of the Rhine Commission, the EDC was based on the principles of international navigation law and was formed by the Habsburg, Tsarist, and Ottoman empires, as well as France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Sardinia, all states with interests in the Danube Delta. Gatejel shows that the pragmatism of the EDC, under the coordination of engineer Charles Hartley, resulted in regulating the entire Sulina arm, while the Iron Gates project was plagued by the competition between Austria and Hungary.</p> <p>Luminita Gatejel's book is remarkable for the richness of details through which the different stages of the two major projects on the Lower Danube are presented. Many of these are novel and useful for scholars in the field. But there are also glaring errors, for example in...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":49446,"journal":{"name":"Technology and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Engineering the Lower Danube: Technology and International Cooperation in an Imperial Borderland by Luminita Gatejel (review)\",\"authors\":\"Stelu Şerban\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/tech.2024.a920548\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Engineering the Lower Danube: Technology and International Cooperation in an Imperial Borderland</em> by Luminita Gatejel <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Stelu Şerban (bio) </li> </ul> <em>Engineering the Lower Danube: Technology and International Cooperation in an Imperial Borderland</em> By Luminita Gatejel. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2022. Pp. 341. <p>The history of river infrastructure is a space of confluence of several research fields, such as the history of international relations, environmental history, and science and technology studies (STS). Luminita Gatejel's book discusses the Lower Danube, from the Iron Gates to the mouth of the Black Sea, between 1770 and the end of the nineteenth century, combining these different approaches.</p> <p>From the perspective of geopolitical relations, the author brings to the fore the \\\"hydroimperialism\\\" (Sara Pritchard, <em>From Hydroimperialism to Hydrocapitalism</em>, 2012) of the empires then influential in this part of the Danube: the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Empire, and the Tsarist Empire. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the Tsarist Empire in the war concluded in 1774 resulted in the liberalization of trade on the Black Sea, so that after 1780 the Lower Danube was seen by Habsburg and Russian rulers as the main trade route between the Black Sea and Central Europe. However, the existence of natural obstacles, the most formidable being the Iron Gates and the Danube Delta, slowed down the use of this route.</p> <p>In the five chapters of the volume, the author addresses how access through these two great natural obstacles was improved throughout the nineteenth century. A series of geopolitical contexts and groups of bureaucrats, technocrats, and entrepreneurs, as well as crucial institutions such as the European Danube Commission (EDC), are analyzed. Gatejel emphasizes that the completion of these infrastructural projects took a long time because the actors involved in the project were confronted with a number of problems, which in addition to the natural barriers included political conflicts, which forced them to adjust their initial plans. The divergences between the states involved in the two projects, the alternative opinions of technocrats on different solutions, and also the influence of economic factors that led to the transformation of the Lower Danube into a cost-effective transport option are presented.</p> <p>Gatejel discusses first the case of the Iron Gates. The engineers of the Habsburg government, charged at the end of the eighteenth century with describing this area, signaled the dangers to navigation and proposed solutions for regulation. It was only in the mid-1830s, however, in the context of the liberalization of trade on the Danube following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, that the first large-scale project developed. The project was led by István Széchenyi, civilian commissioner of the Danube, and hydraulic engineer Pál Vásárhelyi and funded by the recently established Austrian Danube Steamboat Shipping Company. The other project, the navigability of the <strong>[End Page 394]</strong> Danube Delta, took shape after 1830. Experts from the Austrian government, as well as engineers sent by the British government, proposed alternative projects to ease the connection between the Danube and the Black Sea. Three main arms of the Danube Delta were proposed, as well as building a route between Cernavodă and Constanța, which would shortcut the delta. The latter was to be either a railway or a canal. Only after 1856, however—following another Russo-Turkish war, which ended indecisively—was the EDC established, under the umbrella of which the efficiency of the delta projects was considered. Following the model of the Rhine Commission, the EDC was based on the principles of international navigation law and was formed by the Habsburg, Tsarist, and Ottoman empires, as well as France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Sardinia, all states with interests in the Danube Delta. Gatejel shows that the pragmatism of the EDC, under the coordination of engineer Charles Hartley, resulted in regulating the entire Sulina arm, while the Iron Gates project was plagued by the competition between Austria and Hungary.</p> <p>Luminita Gatejel's book is remarkable for the richness of details through which the different stages of the two major projects on the Lower Danube are presented. Many of these are novel and useful for scholars in the field. But there are also glaring errors, for example in...</p> </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technology and Culture\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technology and Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2024.a920548\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology and Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2024.a920548","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

评论者: 多瑙河下游工程:Luminita Gatejel Stelu Şerban (bio) 《多瑙河下游的工程:帝国边境地区的技术与国际合作》:帝国边境地区的技术与国际合作 作者:Luminita Gatejel。布达佩斯:中欧大学出版社,2022 年。第 341 页。341.河流基础设施史是国际关系史、环境史和科技研究(STS)等多个研究领域的交汇点。Luminita Gatejel 的这本书结合这些不同的研究方法,讨论了 1770 年至 19 世纪末从铁门到黑海入海口的多瑙河下游。从地缘政治关系的角度来看,作者将当时在多瑙河这一地区具有影响力的帝国:奥斯曼帝国、哈布斯堡帝国和沙皇帝国的 "水帝国主义"(萨拉-普里查德,《从水帝国主义到水资本主义》,2012 年)凸显出来。在 1774 年结束的战争中,沙皇帝国打败了奥斯曼帝国,导致黑海贸易自由化,因此在 1780 年之后,哈布斯堡和俄罗斯统治者将多瑙河下游视为黑海和中欧之间的主要贸易路线。然而,自然障碍的存在(最可怕的障碍是铁门和多瑙河三角洲)延缓了这条路线的使用。在本卷的五个章节中,作者论述了在整个十九世纪,如何通过这两个巨大的天然屏障改善通道。作者分析了一系列地缘政治背景和官僚、技术官僚、企业家群体,以及欧洲多瑙河委员会(EDC)等重要机构。盖特杰尔强调,这些基础设施项目的完成需要很长时间,因为参与项目的各方都面临着许多问题,除了自然障碍外,还包括政治冲突,这迫使他们调整最初的计划。本文介绍了参与这两个项目的国家之间的分歧、技术专家对不同解决方案的不同意见以及经济因素的影响,这些因素导致多瑙河下游变成了一个具有成本效益的运输方案。盖特耶尔首先讨论了铁闸门的案例。十八世纪末,哈布斯堡政府的工程师们负责对这一地区进行描述,他们指出了航行的危险,并提出了调节方案。然而,直到 18 世纪 30 年代中期,在奥斯曼帝国战败后多瑙河贸易自由化的背景下,第一个大型项目才得以发展。该项目由多瑙河民事专员 István Széchenyi 和水利工程师 Pál Vásárhelyi 领导,并由新成立的奥地利多瑙河汽船航运公司提供资金。另一个项目是多瑙河三角洲的通航问题,该项目于 1830 年后成形。奥地利政府的专家以及英国政府派出的工程师提出了其他项目,以疏通多瑙河与黑海之间的联系。他们提出了多瑙河三角洲的三条主要支流,以及在切尔纳沃德和康斯坦察之间修建一条可缩短三角洲的路线。后者要么是铁路,要么是运河。然而,直到 1856 年俄土战争再次爆发后(战争以优柔寡断的方式结束),才成立了经济发展委员会,并在其框架下审议了三角洲项目的效率问题。按照莱茵河委员会的模式,欧洲三角洲开发委员会以国际航运法原则为基础,由哈布斯堡帝国、沙皇帝国、奥斯曼帝国以及法国、英国、普鲁士和撒丁岛等在多瑙河三角洲拥有利益的国家组成。盖特耶尔在书中指出,在工程师查尔斯-哈特利的协调下,欧洲水道开发公司以务实的态度治理了整个苏利纳河段,而铁闸门项目则因奥地利和匈牙利之间的竞争而备受困扰。Luminita Gatejel 在书中以丰富的细节展示了多瑙河下游两大工程的不同阶段。其中许多细节都很新颖,对该领域的学者很有帮助。但也有一些明显的错误,例如在...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Engineering the Lower Danube: Technology and International Cooperation in an Imperial Borderland by Luminita Gatejel (review)

Reviewed by:

  • Engineering the Lower Danube: Technology and International Cooperation in an Imperial Borderland by Luminita Gatejel
  • Stelu Şerban (bio)
Engineering the Lower Danube: Technology and International Cooperation in an Imperial Borderland By Luminita Gatejel. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2022. Pp. 341.

The history of river infrastructure is a space of confluence of several research fields, such as the history of international relations, environmental history, and science and technology studies (STS). Luminita Gatejel's book discusses the Lower Danube, from the Iron Gates to the mouth of the Black Sea, between 1770 and the end of the nineteenth century, combining these different approaches.

From the perspective of geopolitical relations, the author brings to the fore the "hydroimperialism" (Sara Pritchard, From Hydroimperialism to Hydrocapitalism, 2012) of the empires then influential in this part of the Danube: the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Empire, and the Tsarist Empire. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the Tsarist Empire in the war concluded in 1774 resulted in the liberalization of trade on the Black Sea, so that after 1780 the Lower Danube was seen by Habsburg and Russian rulers as the main trade route between the Black Sea and Central Europe. However, the existence of natural obstacles, the most formidable being the Iron Gates and the Danube Delta, slowed down the use of this route.

In the five chapters of the volume, the author addresses how access through these two great natural obstacles was improved throughout the nineteenth century. A series of geopolitical contexts and groups of bureaucrats, technocrats, and entrepreneurs, as well as crucial institutions such as the European Danube Commission (EDC), are analyzed. Gatejel emphasizes that the completion of these infrastructural projects took a long time because the actors involved in the project were confronted with a number of problems, which in addition to the natural barriers included political conflicts, which forced them to adjust their initial plans. The divergences between the states involved in the two projects, the alternative opinions of technocrats on different solutions, and also the influence of economic factors that led to the transformation of the Lower Danube into a cost-effective transport option are presented.

Gatejel discusses first the case of the Iron Gates. The engineers of the Habsburg government, charged at the end of the eighteenth century with describing this area, signaled the dangers to navigation and proposed solutions for regulation. It was only in the mid-1830s, however, in the context of the liberalization of trade on the Danube following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, that the first large-scale project developed. The project was led by István Széchenyi, civilian commissioner of the Danube, and hydraulic engineer Pál Vásárhelyi and funded by the recently established Austrian Danube Steamboat Shipping Company. The other project, the navigability of the [End Page 394] Danube Delta, took shape after 1830. Experts from the Austrian government, as well as engineers sent by the British government, proposed alternative projects to ease the connection between the Danube and the Black Sea. Three main arms of the Danube Delta were proposed, as well as building a route between Cernavodă and Constanța, which would shortcut the delta. The latter was to be either a railway or a canal. Only after 1856, however—following another Russo-Turkish war, which ended indecisively—was the EDC established, under the umbrella of which the efficiency of the delta projects was considered. Following the model of the Rhine Commission, the EDC was based on the principles of international navigation law and was formed by the Habsburg, Tsarist, and Ottoman empires, as well as France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Sardinia, all states with interests in the Danube Delta. Gatejel shows that the pragmatism of the EDC, under the coordination of engineer Charles Hartley, resulted in regulating the entire Sulina arm, while the Iron Gates project was plagued by the competition between Austria and Hungary.

Luminita Gatejel's book is remarkable for the richness of details through which the different stages of the two major projects on the Lower Danube are presented. Many of these are novel and useful for scholars in the field. But there are also glaring errors, for example in...

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Technology and Culture
Technology and Culture 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
14.30%
发文量
225
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Technology and Culture, the preeminent journal of the history of technology, draws on scholarship in diverse disciplines to publish insightful pieces intended for general readers as well as specialists. Subscribers include scientists, engineers, anthropologists, sociologists, economists, museum curators, archivists, scholars, librarians, educators, historians, and many others. In addition to scholarly essays, each issue features 30-40 book reviews and reviews of new museum exhibitions. To illuminate important debates and draw attention to specific topics, the journal occasionally publishes thematic issues. Technology and Culture is the official journal of the Society for the History of Technology (SHOT).
期刊最新文献
Hollywood's Embassies: How Movie Theaters Projected American Power Around the Globe by Ross Melnick (review) Communications in Turkey and the Ottoman Empire: A Critical History by Burçe Çelik (review) Media Ruins: Cambodian Postwar Media Reconstruction and the Geopolitics of Technology by Margaret Jack (review) Collective Wisdom: Collecting in the Early Modern Academy ed. by Anna Marie Roos and Vera Keller (review) Scientific Advice to the Nineteenth-Century British State by Roland Jackson (review)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1