[ Interarea Sessions, Table of Contents ]
[ Panels by World Area Main Menu ]
[ View the Timetable of Panels ]
The State and Maritime Trade in Pre-modern East Asia
Organizer: Gakusho Nakajima, Kyushu University, Japan
Chair: Linda Walton, Portland State University
Discussant: Richard von Glahn, University of California, Los Angeles
This panel will address the attitudes of states towards maritime trade in pre-modern East Asia (ca. 10th-18th centuries) and their historical contexts. The policies of the imperial Chinese court and of the Japanese central government will be examined. We can observe at least three different attitudes of the political authorities towards the maritime trade in East Asia during this period. In one, the states were rather tolerant, concerned mainly with obtaining revenue from the maritime trade under its supervision (e.g., the Song period). In the second, the states controlled maritime trade strictly (e.g., the sakoku policy of Tokugawa Japan and Canton system of Qing). In the third, the states monopolized maritime trade completely (tributary trade in some period of Ming). What historical contexts made different states take such different attitudes? Are there any specific aspects of Northeast Asian political powers vis-à-vis maritime trade? Chaffee’s paper examines the interrelationship between tribute and trade among merchants and envoys from the South Seas (Nanhai) during the early Song period. Nakajima’s paper investigates the controversies over the revival of Sino-Japanese tributary trade during the late-Ming and early-Qing period. Haneda’s paper tries to demonstrate, from the context of world history, characteristics of the state’s attitude towards the maritime trade in Northeast Asia. Blusse and von Glahn will give their comments based on their own fields of research (the South China Sea trade and Chinese history).
Maritime Tribute and Maritime Trade in the Early Song
John W. Chaffee, State University of New York, Binghamton
Tribute and trade were central elements in the relationship between Chinese dynasties and their neighbors throughout the imperial period. Although these were very different activities with fundamentally different goals, they overlapped in ways that could be substantial, since tribute missions involved the exchange of valuable goods, a kind of trade. This paper deals with maritime tribute and maritime trade in the early Song (c. 960-1020). The combination of a pro-trade dynasty that was eager for diplomatic contacts and a Asian maritime economy that was in its early stages of expansion created a unique configuration of tribute and trade in this period. The paper will focus upon the 56 tribute missions that came to China from the Nanhai (Southern Seas) between 960 and 1022. Although they came from a wide array of states and cultures, all arrived first in Guangzhou and proceeded on to Kaifeng for their imperial audiences. The Arabs were especially prominent in these missions, especially since among them were a number of envoys identified as ship-owners and/or envoys who, over time, represented two or more states. In the notable case of one Pu Ximi (Abu Hamid, fl. 976-993) we have biographical information and a memorial that he wrote which shed light on the intersection between tribute and trade. In treating these activities, the paper will analyze the role that the tribute missions had in the growth of Song maritime trade, and will also address the question of why tribute missions fell off dramatically after 1022 (there were only 30 missions between 1022 and 1127) even while maritime commerce expanding rapidly.
Controversies Concerning the Revival of Sino-Japanese Tributary Trade during the Japanese Invasion of Korea
Gakusho Nakajima, Kyushu University, Japan
After the tributary trade between Ming China and Japan was discontinued in 1550, the enormous profits from the Sino-Japanese silk-silver trade fell into the hands of smugglers/pirates, and then were virtually monopolized by Portuguese traders in the late 16th century. One of the main purposes of Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s invasion of Korea was the reopening of Sino-Japanese official trade by putting military pressure to the Ming. In 1593, Hideyoshi claimed the revival of official mutual trade to the Ming court as one of the necessary terms of reconciliation of the Korean war. Within the Ming, the question of the propriety of recognition of Hideyoshi’s claim elicited heated controversy. During these controversies, various opinions were expressed about the discrepancy between the political legitimacy of tribute trade, and economic profits gained by the maritime trade. In many discourses, Chinese world order embodied in tribute trade system was emphasized, but some expressed more flexible views, in which Sino-Japanese tribute trade was reconsidered in the context of the expansion of private trade in the “Age of Commerce” of East Asia, including not only overseas trade along the southeast coast, but also inland trade with Mongols along the northwest border. This paper reassesses the meanings of these controversies, by comparing several representative discourses, and locating them in the historical context of the transformation of Chinese world order brought about by the expansion of maritime trade in East Asia.
State Control of Maritime Trade and Interpreters in Northeast Asia in Eighteenth Century: From a Comparative Perspective
Masashi Haneda, University of Tokyo, Japan
Interpreters are one of the indispensable elements in pre-modern Asian port cities and omnipresent at the scene of cross-cultural contacts there. However, their status, role and relationship with the local government seem to be quite different, depending on time and region. This paper will point out three different attitudes of three different states towards foreigners and maritime trade by focusing on interpreters of European languages and their activities. Cases of Nagasaki (Japan), Guangzhou (China) and Bandar Abbas (Persia) in the eighteenth century will be examined and compared. Difference of the interpreters’ status, role and activities corresponded with difference of the state’s attitude vis-à-vis maritime trade and foreign merchants. Tokugawa Japan had the strongest intention of controlling maritime trade and made a clear distinction between foreigners and local people (Japanese). Qing Imperial court’s control seemed to be not as strong as that of Tokugawa Japan. Nevertheless, compared with the case of Persia where the government had no systematic organization of interpreters and, as a result, its influence on maritime trade was restricted, we certainly notice a common characteristic of the two Northeast Asian states: their government’s direct control of maritime trade or at least their strong intention to do so. At the last part of the paper, we will reanalyze Tokugawa Japan’s policy over maritime trade and its consequences in a perspective of comparative history.
Batavia 1619-1810: Balancing the Emporium and the Port City
Leonard Blussé, Leiden University
In 1619 the Dutch East India Company (VOC) established its new headquarters in Asia, Batavia, on the ruins of the former port principality Jayakarta also known as the emporium of Sunda Kalapa. During the two hundred years of its existence the VOC was continually tinkering with the port’s function as headquarters to the region’s largest maritime trading company that jealously guarded its own trade monopolies and import and export duties and at the same time welcoming with all kinds of special amenities the Asian shipping which was so important for the livelihood of Batavia’s inhabitants and those living miles around in the neighboring coastal cities and the hinterland. Over the years a set of highly detailed port regulations was put into practice through a process of trial and error. The aim of this paper is to throw some new light on the little known subject of port regulations in Asian ports during the early modern period. Over the years a set of highly detailed port regulations was put into practice through a process of trial and error. The aim of this paper is to throw some new light on the little known subject of port regulations in Asian ports during the early modern period.