Differences and Reasons for the Records of the Eastern Ocean Line of the Chinese-Japanese Maritime Silk Road in the Tang Dynasty
Abstract
The Maritime Silk Road represents a significant area of interest within the broader Silk Road system, particularly focusing on the eastern oceanic routes that facilitated exchanges between China and Japan. This maritime corridor was crucial for the transfer of goods, culture, and ideas between the two civilizations. However, the records of this route are different between China and Japan. This paper discusses the records of this route in depth, compares and finds out the differences.From the perspective of historiographical theory, it becomes evident that these differences are not merely factual but are profoundly influenced by societal choices and identity recognition within each culture. Chinese and Japanese historiographical traditions have distinct norms and cultural characteristics that shape their recording and interpretation of historical events. By examining these differences, this study aims to shed light on the historiographical writing practices of both nations, offering insights into how each society views its past and its interactions with others. So as to provide new perspectives for the study of the East China Sea section of the Maritime Silk Road. It emphasizes the importance of considering cultural and societal contexts when interpreting historical records, thereby contributing to a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of Sino-Japanese maritime history.
References
- Ōmi no Mifune, Todaiwajo Toseiden ,(Beijing, zhong hua shu ju, 1976) 66~92
- Zan Ning, Song Gao Seng Zhuan ,trans.Fan Xiang Yong, (Beijing, zhong hua shu ju, 1987) 348-350
- Thomas Butler, Memory: History, Culture and Mind(UK :Oxford, 1989),97-113
- Sima Qian , shiji , (Beijing: zhong hua shu ju, 2013) 3961-4007
- Kojima, Noriyuki, Nihon shoki ,1 vols;2 vols(Tōkyō : Shogakkan, 1994), 111~155;285~329
- Peng Gang, “Historical Memory and Historical Writing: The "Transformation of Memory" in the Perspective of Historical Theory”, Journal of Historiography, no.2,(2014):1-12.