Abstract
This issue of the International Journal of Maritime History marks the end of three full years since the journal’s publication was taken on by SAGE, and its editorial base moved to the University of Hull. In some respects, it is ‘business as usual’, as the issue comprises articles and research notes on a variety of subjects, as well as its customary reviews section. Yet some of the articles provoke some reflection on our sub-discipline and this journal’s place within it.
The article that stood out to me whilst browsing the contents list is Justin Fendos, Bonsung Koo and Wonjae Lee’s ‘The role of Chinese cabotage in Northeast-Asian hub-port development and container shipbuilding’. Maritime history, dealing as it does with connections between humans across the seas and oceans, is an inherently international subject. Ever since its foundation in 1989, the IJMH has reflected this, and a glance at the journal archive reveals articles on maritime matters in every inhabited continent on earth. Nevertheless, the main focus has tended to be on Europe, North America and Oceania, and other regions, many of them major international powers past and present, have been somewhat neglected. China is one such. The incursions of Europeans there have been fairly well covered, but the maritime activities of the Chinese themselves less so. Fendos, Koo and Lee’s article is one of a number of recent, welcome, signs that this is beginning to change.
With its focus on contemporary history, in contrast to the early modern orientation of most other articles in this issue, it also highlights another strength of maritime history: its diversity. Maritime history has never been, as some have alleged, the preserve of rivet-counters and ship-spotters, and has encompassed a wide range of the economic, political, cultural and social implications of the seas and our interaction with them. Romain Grancher’s article on fishermen’s taverns and R. L. France’s contribution on ‘sea serpents’ and what we now refer to as ‘ghost fishing’, sit alongside Frank Sinclair’s research note on shipowning and investment – classic business history – as reflections of this diversity.
In recent years, the IJMH has widened its scope to take in more naval history, something reflected in Benjamin Redding’s article. This is all to the good. For too long we have been apt to speak of naval history and maritime history (by which we have tended to mean civilian maritime history) as separate endeavours. However, as Richard Harding’s recent book, reviewed in this issue, serves to remind us, naval history has long since broadened its remit beyond battles, weapons and the technical instruction of naval officers, and those labelled ‘naval’ historians are often to be found working on many of the same issues, and using many of the same methodologies, as those who have carried the badge of civilian maritime history. The fact that the IJMH now carries more content dealing with naval matters belatedly reflects this convergence of interests. Perhaps now we need to find a new word to encompass both ‘sides’ of our sub-discipline.
Maritime history, along with the humanities as a whole, continues to evolve in terms of the sources used and the methods by which they are interrogated and interpreted. In particular, the ‘digital humanities’ offer opportunities to maritime historians that are as exciting as they are to anyone else. The digitisation of the Sound Toll Registers a few years ago was a major milestone in this regard, and Nathan Gallagher’s research note serves to illustrate how digitised historical sources such as this can be used in new and fruitful ways.
We hear periodic voices of doom and gloom about the future of maritime history, history in general and indeed the humanities as a whole. From the point of view of British academia, buffeted by radical changes in policy and funding over the last five years and having now to deal with the implications of the country’s vote to leave the European Union, it is easy to be pessimistic. In some respects, we certainly do have cause for concern. Yet maritime history has grown, diversified and thrived in the last few decades, and the articles in this issue, mainly from young scholars, show that it is far from running out of steam.
Martin Wilcox
Reviews Editor, IJMH
Report on the 7th IMEHA International Congress
The 7th IMEHA International Congress was held at Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, from 27 June to 1 July 2016. This was the first conference in the series to be held in the Southern Hemisphere and coincided with the 400th anniversary of the Dutch mariner Dirk Hartog’s landfall on the Western Australian coast on 25 October 1616. The Congress was a joint initiative by the IMEHA and the Australian Association for Maritime History (AAMH). The AAMH was founded in 1978 by Frank Broeze and publishes a successful journal, The Great Circle. The cities of Perth and Fremantle, located on the edge of the Indian Ocean, are an ideal location for a conference on maritime history, and provided delegates with many opportunities for networking and tourism.
A total of 144 delegates attended, 119, or 83 per cent, of whom were international participants. In Australia we are used to the challenges posed by the ‘Tyranny of Distance’ and so were delighted by this outcome. The conference programme included a visit to a private art gallery with an extensive collection of Dutch maritime art, and a tour of the naval base south of Perth. I would like to thank the organising committee and our sponsors for making the conference possible but special thanks go to our delegates for attending and presenting so many interesting and stimulating papers. Highlights of the conference included presentations on pearling in the Indian Ocean World, a secret plot by the Spanish to expel Britain from the Pacific region in 1796, and how the maritime world shaped modern China. I hope to see many of these papers appearing in the IJMH in due course.
The conference included the General Assembly of the IMEHA, which passed a number of important resolutions. First, the General Assembly agreed to drop the word ‘Economic’ from our name, so we are now the International Maritime History Association (IMHA). It was overwhelmingly agreed that this reflects the reality that we are a broad church of historians. Second, another major decision was to amalgamate the IMHA and the International Commission of Maritime History (ICMH), with the aim of consolidating our resources in maritime history. Dr Graydon Henning, President of the ICMH, spoke in favour of the amalgamation, which was supported by all ICMH members in good standing. Third, the bylaws were updated and revised to reflect these changes and to include specific provision for a standing committee to advise the Executive Board on all matters previously the concern of the ICMH. Finally, following an excellent presentation by Associate Professor Amélia Polonia, it was decided to hold the 8th IMHA International Congress at the University of Porto, Portugal, in 2020.
As is customary, the leadership baton was passed to a new Executive:
Professor Malcolm Tull, President Associate Professor Amélia Polonia, Vice-President Professor Constantin Ardeleanu, Vice-President Professor Maria Fusaro, Treasurer Professor Dr Ingo Heidbrink, Secretary
I would like to thank the outgoing members of the Executive, Professor Dr Lars Scholl, Dr René Taudal Poulsen and Dr Ruthy Gertwagen, for their valuable contributions over the past four years. I am honoured to be elected President and look forward to working with the new Executive and all our members over the next four years. A major task for all of us is to rise to Ingo Heidbrink’s challenge and ‘close the blue hole’ in historiography.