On February 9, 2015, Atsushi Ota (Hiroshima University), who is a member of this project (GHC), gave the following report at the regular seminar titled “critique de l’economie historique” (held approximately once every two weeks) hosted by the EHESS (École des hautes études en sciences sociales). The seminar was attended by a dozen or so scholars of economic history from within and outside the EHESS and featured lively discussion.

OTA Atsushi, “Piracy and Modernity in the Indian Ocean World: New Ideas on State and Sovereignty”

After first explaining the concept behind the collection of papers he is currently writing and editing titled Piracy in the Nineteenth-century World (tentative title), Atsushi Ota examined the emergence of a new sense of statehood as seen through the frequent occurrence of piracy and efforts to suppress piracy in the Malay waters around the turn of the 18th century (i.e. around 1800). Specifically, he first pointed out that the frequent use of violence and trade in the power struggle on the Malay Peninsula and neighboring areas was an important underlying cause of piracy in the Malay world. Next, after comparing the differing views on piracy among the Dutch East India Company, local influential persons, and British merchants, he explained that the views on piracy of both the European political authorities and national leaders in local regions changed along with the establishment of colonial rule and further described how the concepts of maritime national boundary and territory were progressively clarified through the efforts to suppress piracy.   

Various questions were raised by the audience regarding the existence (or lack) of privateers as well as pirates in the Malay waters, the influence (or lack) of technological advances in ships and weaponry on the activities of the pirates, and whether or not similarities could be seen between the Dutch East India Company and the Asian pirates as military groups engaged in business activities. To these questions, Ota provide the following responses. In the Malay world, the position of the state was not as absolute as that of European states, which justified the activities of privateers. There were cases in which pirate groups swore oaths of allegiance to more than one powerful individual, each with different claims to legitimacy. Although the Asian pirate sailing ships furnished with numerous oars were superior in terms of ship technology, European ships were far superior in terms of firearms and other weaponry. However, the increased activity of pirates at the end of the 18th century was related to the fact that the Asian pirates were able to get their hands on weapons through private British merchants. The Dutch East India Company basically called their rivals in terms of commerce “pirates,” which was similar to the customary practice in the Malay world. With the start of colonial rule, the Dutch justified their rule by designating the pirates as enemies. Similarities can be seen between this and the actions of the local leaders who, observing this change, began activities to suppress piracy. It was pointed out by members of the audience that, even in Europe, it was not only certain states that were able to monopolize claims to legitimacy and that numerous similarities could be seen between piracy and the efforts to suppress piracy in the Malay world and in the Mediterranean.

This time-honored seminar started by Fernand Braudel continues to be an event where many researchers who not only specialize in European history but who also have an interest in history around the world meet and engage in lively discussion from the standpoint of comparison. In the last hour of the three-hour seminar, wine, cheese, ham, and bread were provided, leading to further exchange of opinions and ideas. It was a seminar that provided many opportunities to learn about many different things. 

 (Atsuhi OTA)