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. 5 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. 6 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 the city of Surat following the 1707 decline of the Mughal Empire. Noticing an increasingly powerful influence of local governors, Shinsaku outlines how such Indian regionalism permitted the Dutch East India Company to negotiate its exceptional position within the commercial port. The third contribution, by Taga Yoshihiro, outlines how Vietnam's tax farming system originated from economic developments in the eighteenth century. Yoshihiro's reasoning indicates the existence of a sophisticated tax system – strongly influenced by the Chinese – well before the arrival of European explorers. Owaga Michihiro signals an Indian regionalism similar to that found by Shinsaku, evidenced by regional growth and societal transformations within the land revenue system of the Maratha confederacy. Lastly, Saito Teruko argues how eighteenth-century famines and war transformed a mature and monetary Burmese society into general impoverishment, suggesting this to be the reason for an exodus of farmers from upper to lower Burma, gradually transforming the latter into ‘the world's leading export base of rice’ (89).
These intriguing contributions provide a glimpse of how the concept of the ‘long eighteenth century’ can benefit historical research. They recognize active and dynamic – rather than often-assumed passive – Asian actors interacting with regional and local circumstances to significantly influence their own distinct historical development. Yoshihiro’s and Teruko's contributions, for instance, both exemplify how determined economic choices resulted in two different local scenarios, both for better and for worse, while also contradicting existing historical assumptions. In addition, the contributions introduce fascinating new sources to the historical repository, including handwritten Japanese governmental records, detailed Marathi documents and local Burmese notebooks (parabaik). An examination of these suggests European expansion to be merely one of many influential factors. For instance, Shinsaku and Michihiro both argue that the Mughal decline stimulated the emergence of Indian regionalism, disputing the Indian ‘Dark Age’ as well as its eventual connection to British nineteenth-century dominance. Similarly, the conventional Dutch East India Company records are re-examined from an alternative perspective in combination with the eighteenth-century framework. As Shinsaku indicates, the prominence of the Dutch East India Company within Surat resulted mainly from local circumstances and the deliberate choices of the Surat governors, rather than from the often-assumed forceful efforts of the Dutch East India Company.
Each of the individual articles contains intriguing research and insights. However, their adherence to the eighteenth-century framework remains uncertain at times. First, while the inclusion of new materials is of certain benefit, their use in this wider framework requires a greater degree of comprehensive representation. As Teruko notes: ‘the written deeds [para-baik] … are those that happened to survive, and they do not necessarily give a picture of the overall situation’ (76). Yoshihiro's contribution, meanwhile, mainly employs nineteenth-century sources, confessing to a lack of eighteenth-century sources. In both cases, the availability and accuracy of the sources poses a significant problem, as the inherent value of the framework lies in the reliability and availability of its sources. In this sense, conventional materials can be regarded as more reliable, as they are more abundant and benefit from detailed prior examination. However, their use via different perspectives also compromises a difficult process, requiring rigid understanding of both the circumstances and environments in which they were produced. The Dutch East India Company sources, as used by Shinsaku, cannot be considered as completely objective accounts, as they were often framed by and included alternative views that were beneficial to their authors. 7 The questionable feasibility of the research is also evidenced by the somewhat lacking conclusions within the contributions, which mostly close only with preliminary notes or minor summaries, admitting that the research is still a work in progress or emphasizing the need for additional research. While each contribution is fascinating in its own right, the notion of the ‘long eighteenth century’ relies on the representation and reliability of its supporting material, which at present does seem like a hurdle yet to be overcome. 8
This special issue attempts primarily to show the practical feasibility of realizing Van Leur's vision of the ‘long eighteenth century’ through contemporary research, while indicating its ability to rectify enduring Eurocentric and teleological historical assumptions and achieve a more comprehensive understanding of our global history. Despite much promise, the contributions appear unable to definitively establish the wider framework due to the aforementioned difficulties. Remarkable promise does, however, exist, as Shimada clearly portrays the scholarly advancements that have been made. The researchers have utilized exciting new sources and research approaches, gradually uncovering a deeper understanding of premodern Asian history. This special issue can therefore best be viewed as a stepping stone. For those involved in maritime and global history, it constitutes a fascinating read with inspiring topics and approaches. Through further efforts like this, a prominent eighteenth century could very well become a reality.