Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Takashi Kawato
(Chiba Keizai University)
Send message to Convenor
- Discussant:
-
Elisabetta Colla
(School of Arts and HumanitiesLisbon University)
- Stream:
- History
- Location:
- Bloco 1, Piso 0, Sala 0.05
- Sessions:
- Friday 1 September, -
Time zone: Europe/Lisbon
Short Abstract:
This panel aims to develop a new historical perspective on the era of from the 16th to 17th centuries and explains mutual exchanges of political, economic, and social aspects between Japan and maritime Asia, and review the periodization in the learning of "Japanese history" as national history.
Long Abstract:
This panel aims to develop a new historical perspective on the era from the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries, which was divided according to traditional periodization into the medieval and early-modern periods. Therefore, this panel will explain the mutual exchange of political, economic, and social aspects between Japan and maritime Asia from the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries, and then discuss reviewing the traditional periodization in the learning of "Japanese history" as national history.
Until the 1960s, the period following WWII, there was controversy regarding this periodization and cadastral surveillances by the Toyotomi regime (Taiko Kenchi 太閤検地) was regarded as the period of transit from the medieval to the early-modern period. This view has been established until now not only in research but also in education, textbooks on Japanese history, and even in the course classification of universities.
Formerly, it was considered that the medieval was the era of the shoen system荘園制 and the early-modern was that of the feudal system. However, this panel believes that this distinction needs to be revised now because it was formulated for Japanese national history in isolation and not considering surrounding regions like maritime Asia.
Specifically, this panel will mainly explain material and human interactions, such as the activities of Portuguese merchants and monetary circulations, in Japan and maritime Asia. It will also verify how these interactive aspects can be depicted in the textbook of "Japanese history" education. For instance, a critical discussion is made on whether the fact that a huge number of Europeans visited Japan in the sixteenth century can be reasonably considered an epoch in "Japanese history."
In this manner, this panel considers the period from the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries as one unit and then discusses this period as a bridge between the medieval and early-modern periods. Finally, the panel aims to be able to create a new form of periodization and draw up meaningful suggestions to contribute to future research.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 1 September, 2017, -Paper short abstract:
Chinese coins as medieval currency was circulating until the 1660s, but the tri-metallic monetary system as early-modern currency was established in the 1560s. This presentation explains aspects of the transition of the monetary system of Japan from the 16th to the 17th century as a "gray area".
Paper long abstract:
This presentation explains the transition of the monetary system of Japan from the sixteenth to the seventeenth century in order to consider the distinction between the medieval and early-modern periods.
It is understood that the medieval currency of Japan was remarkably different from that of the early-modern period. In the twelfth century, an enormous number of copper coins minted in China were transported into Japan, and Japanese people came to use them as the only domestic currency. On the other hand, in the seventeenth century, the Edo shogunate officially minted gold, silver, and copper coins as currency. Therefore, the phrase "medieval currency" is considered to refer to the Chinese coins in circulation, and "early-modern currency" refers to the tri-metallic monetary system called Sanka seido.
In the sixteenth century, the Japanese market was suffering from a shortage of coins, because an influx of Chinese coins had stopped after the end of the fifteenth century, and increasing demand for currency, because regional markets were developing all over Japan with the rise of regional domains. Consequently, after the 1560s, gold and silver were used as currency for high-value payments, and even rice was sometimes used instead of coins. Therefore, it could be concluded that the early-modern tri-metallic monetary system was established in this era.
However, Chinese coins were circulating after the latter half of the sixteenth century as currency. In the early seventeenth century, several daimyos in western Japan counterfeited Chinese coins to maintain the circulation of currency in their domains and exported them to Southeast Asia on occasion. Chinese coins circulated until the 1660s after the shogunate minted coins (Kan'ei coins) officially, which could mean the medieval currency had lasted until then.
Accordingly, it is impossible and meaningless to distinguish rigidly between the medieval and the early-modern periods at a certain point in time. It is probably meaningful to consider the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as a "gray area," a period of transition from the medieval to the early-modern periods, and to discuss specific aspects of this era itself.
Paper short abstract:
This presentation focuses on medieval/early modern periodization in Japanese high school history textbooks. In Japan, World History and Japanese History are minutely separated, and the periodization between them is discordant. I propose a tentative plan of periodization to solve this problem.
Paper long abstract:
My presentation discusses a tentative plan of medieval/early modern periodization, which is based on recent studies, especially on maritime Asia, in Japanese high school history textbooks.
Japanese school education is based on a 'Course of Study' set by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Both Japanese History and World History, which deals with the history of the world except Japan, are high school history subjects. The 'Course of Study' describes the basic contents of each subject.
The chapter 'World History' in it considers the duration from the Song to Yuan dynasties as one period and that from the Ming to Qing dynasties as another period in Asian history, which seems to be based on researches by Chinese studies scholars. It coincides with the images drawn by many researchers of maritime Asia. The 'Age of Commerce' dawned in maritime Asia, overcoming the crisis of the fourteenth century, and European merchants entered as new players in the sixteenth century.
On the other hand, in 'Japanese History', the early modern period starts with the coming of Europeans to Japan. This is based on the old-fashioned idea that the age of rival loads end because Europeans brought sciences and techniques, for example, guns, and the Shoen system was dissolved by Toyotomi Hideyoshi's land survey.
We can find two problems in this periodization from the viewpoint of history education.
One, epoch from medieval to early modern and one from early modern to modern (Matthew Perry's visit to Japan) are from 'Western Impacts', and it gives a strong 'Eurocentrism' without consciousness. Second, many researches imply that medieval/early modern periodization should be reconsidered. Furthermore, it creates difficulties in understanding the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century history correctly. While it is described as one period in 'World History' textbooks, the dynamism of maritime Asia, described as the 'Age of Commerce', must be divided in 'Japanese History' textbooks.
In the near future, Japanese History and World History will be united under a new subject. Hence, it is necessary to unite the images given by these subjects to students.
Paper short abstract:
This presentation focuses on the first contact by the European to the Japanese archipelago in the middle of the sixteenth century. This topic is not just major inside and outside Japan, but complicated. It will develop newer perspective for maritime Asian regional and global history.
Paper long abstract:
The first contact by the European, which was probably the Portuguese merchant, to the Japanese archipelago in the middle of the sixteenth century attracts many researchers inside and outside Japan.
A Portuguese captain, António Galvão (1490-1557) described his image of the approach of the Portuguese merchants to Japanese waters. Three Portuguese saw an island in thirty two degrees during their drifting. Galvão explained that the island was one of "os Japões," or the Japanese archipelago. The year of their navigation was 1542.
On the other hand, a Japanese zen monk, Bunshi Genshō (1555-1620) recorded a similar but different story. A great ship was discovered at a village of Southern Tanegashima. An elderly person of the village communicated with the Chinese captain in writing, and understood that the crew included "Sei-nanban," which means probably Portuguese, merchants. The year of their conversation was 1543.
Despite of many other sources related to this topic, they have to be cut in this small presentation to simplify the argument. How should we consider these similar but different texts? Some researchers discuss that they express the same navigation, stressing similarities.
However can we ignore some differences among two texts? They are extremely essential, for instance the year of arrival, the place. Besides them, Galvão did not mention their landing the island in the thirty two degrees. The main topic of Bunshi's record is gun introduction. The text includes their landing Tanegashima and stay. In a word, it will be more appropriate to understand that these two navigations are completely different. I would like to reconsider the concrete image of the first encounter between the Portuguese and the Japanese with these texts and issues, because it is a landmark to think about the change from medieval period to early modern.