뉴스레터

Editor's Note: On August 27, 2015, the "International Workshop on Maritime History in East Asia" was held at the NAHF, as part of preparation for promoting Korean history in global academic circles. At this particular workshop, experts of maritime history gathered together and examined the status and accomplishments of maritime history research in Korea and the rest of East Asia. Professor Yamauchi Shinji, one of the workshop participants, gave an interview to NAHF Research Fellow Woo, Sung-Min, discussing the trend of research related to maritime history.

Q. Woo Sung-min Maritime history has emerged lately as a popular topic of discourse in Korean academic circles. In Japan, the focus of research has been on 'maritime regional history' rather than 'maritime history' as it has been in Korea, where studies of maritime history and studies of maritime regional history are complementary. In Japanese history circles, what is the distinction, if any, between maritime history and maritime regional history in terms of dealing with 'exchange'?

A. Yamauchi Shinji While there is no distinction between the Japanese terms for 'maritime history' and 'maritime regional history' in English because both are translated as 'maritime history,' the term 'maritime history' is rarely used in Japanese academic circles. It is the term 'maritime regional history' that is predominantly used instead. The difference between the two is that the scope of 'maritime history' is limited to the seas and their shores, whereas 'maritime regional history,' while acknowledging the key roles of the seas in history, examines the vast inland regions, as well as the seas and their shores, from historical perspectives.

Accordingly, the realm of 'maritime regional history' includes even the inner continent of Central Eurasia, which is studied in connection with the maritime regions of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Ocean. In my opinion, the term and concept of 'maritime regional history' are more appealing, and have more potential, than those of 'maritime history.'

Q. Woo Sung-min In Chinese academic circles, there is also a similar trend; topics like borders, maritime regions, China's exchange and interaction with its neighboring countries have been studied vigorously in recent years in an effort to put the history of China's relations with its neighboring countries in the perspective of world history. In particular, Imagine Foreign Land: Reading the Records of Korean Delegation Trips to Yenjing (想象异域:读李朝朝鲜汉文燕行文献札记) by Professor Ge Zhaoguang (葛兆光) is drawing attention from not only Chinese but also international academic circles. How is this new research trend in China being viewed in Japanese academic circles?

A. Yamauchi Shinji China's recent publication of a series of research findings on 'maritime history,' including underwater archaeology, and its continued efforts to publish collections of materials related to the history of regional relations between China and its neighboring countries, including Joseon, Ryukyu, and Vietnam, are very much welcome in Japanese history circles. But if, by any chance, the motivation behind those initiatives was to help China expand its supremacy into different regions, including the seas, then that would certainly be a cause of concern. This is all the more reason that Korean and Japanese researchers need to be more proactive in exchange and conversation with Chinese researchers.

Q. Woo Sung-min Chinese scholars are proposing new academic concepts, insisting that the ones developed by Western scholars cannot be the absolute standards for East Asia. While this may be seen as a challenge to Euro-centric history, some fear that it could also be another form of Sinocentrism.

A. Yamauchi Shinji The fact is, and there is no denying it, that the existing narrative of world history or historiography has been much too Eurocentric. As a result, Asian history has been wildly yet convincingly misrepresented. However, asserting Asiacentric or Sinocentric history in opposition to the Eurocentric representation of history or historiography is not necessarily the same as representing history in a new way that makes sense to more people. Countering the existing Eurocentric representation of history runs the risk of ending up with a Sinocentric view that misrepresents history. Then here is a more fundamental question. Why should history be always depicted with a certain country, region, or people at its center? Is it a problem for history to have an ambiguous center, or no center at all, for that matter? Can't it be that such history perhaps offers a better look into the lives of common people, like maritime traders or seamen, rather than rulers or overlords? It is very important to restore history in a way that resembles reality by representing a wide range of people from rulers to commoners.

Q. Woo Sung-min In your presentation of "On Maritime Regions in East Asia" at the East Asian maritime history workshop, you compared the maritime regions of East Asia and Southeast Asia, identifying 'control' and 'openness' as the words that characterized the respective regions. On what basis did you do that? Wasn't it an influence from the Chinese concept of world order known as "tianchao lizhi (天朝禮治)" ?

A. Yamauchi Shinji That view is held by many Japanese researchers of Chinese history, notably Hamashita Takeshi (浜下武志), a former professor at the University of Tokyo. I suppose that it is inevitable for them to get influenced by Sinocentrism when they study, almost exclusively, Chinese historical records. Then the question to ask is: Is there any evidence of that found in historical records related to Southeast Asia as well? Further studies will be needed to answer that question.

Q. Woo Sung-min I found it intriguing when you mentioned how the Japanese kings were closed off, explaining that face-to-face encounters between the king and Chinese merchants were hardly, if ever, allowed in Japan, whereas merchants in Korea (Goryeo) and China (Song) were allowed to participate in various state rituals. Why do you think that Japanese kings were so closed off?

A. Yamauchi Shinji The fact that encounters between the king and merchants were allowed in both Song and Goryeo shows the openness of that time. In Japan, however, merchants were never allowed to meet the king, and they were even turned away sometimes. That Japan was different from its neighboring countries in this respect may have something big to do with Japan's unique geographic condition. But this a topic that has never been studied before, even by researchers of Japanese history, and, therefore, requires further studies.

Q. Woo Sung-min Existing studies of the history of trade maintain that smuggling and private trade did not emerge until state-led, public trade was fully and independently developed first. But you disagreed, and insisted on the need of comparative research in the context of world history.

A. Yamauchi Shinji Understanding political history from the perspective of economic history, and vice versa, is widely accepted in academic circles. But I don't believe in such a dichotomy between politics and economy. To gain a more objective understanding of the portion of history that has been understood in the Chinese way of thinking through historical records from the Song-Yuan periods, it is necessary to examine historical records in Southeast Asia and other regions. Examining the extant historical records of neighboring countries from the perspective of world history has two benefits. It can not only help overcome the limitations that arise when historical research is focused too much on the history of one's own country, but also make it possible to establish theories different from the existing ones.

Q. Woo Sung-min Your paper on 'The Environment and Culture of the Maritime World' contains a section called 'Navigation faith in maritime regions in premodern East Asia' which analyzes the contents of ancient and medieval Japanese historical records concerning maritime boundaries. Was there any rule of law in ancient Japan that provided for maritime boundaries in East Asia?

A. Yamauchi Shinji Ritsuryou, the law of ancient Japan, does not have any rule concerning borders and boundaries on the seas. Neither does the law of Tang on which Ritsuryo was modelled. That is because it didn't occur to the ruling class at that time, whether in the Tang Empire or in Japan, to expand into the seas, and specifically demarcate, the sphere of their influence. Naturally, no such expansion occurred, nor was there any political thought supporting such an idea. The idea of demarcating the sphere of a country's influence, whether on sea or land, did not emerge until the birth of modern states. Therefore, there was no point in me trying to find a pre-modern historical record that proves such perception of maritime boundaries. But, as I pointed out in my paper on navigation faith, I suppose that perhaps they felt vaguely the existence of a boundary between 'our world' and the 'world of others' in the maritime regions. It is inferred from a record written during the Heian period that the Rutsuryou State in Japan thought vaguely of the sea between Tsushima Island and the Korean Peninsula as the boundary. I think that perhaps Japan's rather unique condition as an island country surrounded by the seas made it easier for Japan to recognize boundaries on the seas.

Q. Woo Sung-min I understand that you have carried out in-depth research in a wide range of areas, from the Silk Road to maritime studies, diplomacy, trade, and exchange. Was it intended to be the like of China's "One Belt, One Road (一带一路)" project that would allow you to understand Japanese history from a macroscopic and diachronic point of view?

A. Yamauchi Shinji In my historical research, I started with ancient Japanese history. At first, I had the intention of examining Japan in the Nara period (during 8th century). After reviewing the Tang Dynasty's perception of the international order as reflected in the forms of its diplomatic documents of the time, and then the status of Japan in that order, I came to the conclusion that China in the Tang period had not regarded Japan in the Nara period as important at all. This conclusion came as a great shock to me because I had assumed that China and Japan had been conscious of each other and maintaining a close relationship since long before (the 8th century). Only then did I realize the joy of coming up with a new way of looking at history that hadn't occurred to me before by thinking about history from a broader perspective. Afterwards, I changed my research topic to the trade between Japan and Song during the 10th to 13th centuries, focusing on trade or cultural exchange as well as diplomacy. Again, for this research, I attempted to revisit the subject of trade between Japan and Song in the context of a broader space and time encompassing the Korean Peninsula, Southeast Asia, India, and even Western Asia. Recently, I realize deeply that understanding 'East Asian history' more deeply and relativizing it also requires such a broad perspective.