A workshop of the Global History Collaborative was held on Wednesday, October 22, 2014, at the Dickinson Hall in Princeton University. The workshop was held in a friendly atmosphere with participants freely expressing their views over lunch. Under the moderation of Professor Jeremy Adelman, the meeting began with presentations by Shimada Ryuto and Murakami Ei, each of whom briefly explained the contents of their respective papers, which had been distributed to the participants beforehand.

Shimada presented the gist of his paper titled “Maritime Asia Integrated into the World: A Case Study on the Japanese Copper Trade by the Dutch East India Company.” After briefly explaining how copper that was produced in Japan was traded by the Dutch East India Company during the 17^th and 18^th centuries, he proceeded to touch on several topics, including the changes over time in the destinations of the copper from Japan, the competition which the Dutch East India Company faced from the trading activities of the junks that were operated by Chinese merchants, and the impact which the Tokugawa Shogunate and Qing Dynasty’s policies restricting maritime trade had on the Dutch East India Company’s trading activities.

In his presentation “The Small Divergence within East Asia: Crisis in the 19^th Century in China and Japan,” Murakami explained why, when looked at from political, institutional, social, and other perspectives, China and Japan followed different paths from the latter half of the 19^th century. Underlying his discussion was his conviction that it is necessary not only to compare “Europe” and “non-Europe,” but also to compare different regions belonging to what has usually been regarded as “non-Europe.”

The two presentations were followed by a nearly one-hour session of questions and answers and discussion. Both presentations were advanced and very sophisticated, and most of the comments were favorable, highly appraising the presenters’ challenging attempts to locate the past of Japan and East Asia in the context of global history. The meeting, which was attended by more than 30 participants, was a great success. 

In the afternoon of the following day, Thursday, October 23, a symposium on “East Asia and Global History” was held in the same Dickinson Hall with Professor Michael Laffan, a researcher, who specializes in Southeast Asian history, serving as moderator, with more than twenty people attending. Three presenters, Messrs Federico Marcon, Benjamin Elman, and Sheldon Garon, took turns to furnish topics for discussion on themes related to East Asia and global history, and Haneda made comments on their presentations. The arguments made by the three presenters covered a broad array of themes, but they all pointed out the importance of the need to clarify the locus and significance of East Asian history in world history or global history, to establish the methodology of global history, and to deal with the neglect of Japanese history and the “presumption” that Japan’s history was singular. In his comments, Haneda drew attention to three specific points: the existence of subtle differences in meaning between the English and Japanese expressions for “world history” and “global history, ”the problems involved in the use of “China,” “Japan,” or any other geographical entity as a subject of historical discourse, and the problems involved in the use of the term “East Asia.” Various opinions were expressed from the floor, and a lively and fulfilling discussion took place, even though it could only last a little over 30 minutes.

After the two meetings, the three participants from Japan briefly reviewed the two days’ events, and shared their impressions. Their main conclusions can be summarized under the following three points:

1. The two-day event, which drew many participants, including students, turned out to be a success. It would be meaningful to continue to hold similar events in the future, because they are expected to be effective in disseminating abroad the research findings and views of Japanese researchers, and can facilitate meaningful international collaborative research.
2. The main participants in the two-day event who spoke up frequently were all faculty members of the Department of East Asian Studies, with the exception of Professor Adelman. This seems to suggest that in the United States, as in Japan, “global history” is not yet a focus of active discussion among historians who are regional specialists.
3. There is a far from negligible gap between the American (or English) term “global history” and the Japanese term “gurobaru hisutorî” with regard to the two questions of consciousness and research methodology. It is necessary, while promoting the exchange program, to remain deeply conscious of this discrepancy.