Abstract
The art of recalling the past has developed very differently in Europe and East Asia. Whereas, since the time of Herodotus and Thucydides, Western historiography has been centered on histories written by individuals for individuals, since ancient times East Asian historiography has developed a historical culture pivoting on public historiography. The task of historiography in East Asia was traditionally a state-run project. The ‘official history’ produced by that compilation, along with materials collected for the purpose, constituted the core of East Asian historiography. Historiography was the primary cultural undertaking in East Asia. This is in contrast to the cultures of Europe, India, and Islam, where the concentration of cultural power has not been fixed in history. The purpose of writing history in East Asia was based on the Chinese philosophical premise that historical facts constituted the only certain and immutable reality, because people could not alter that which had already happened. This belief took history as its axis in East Asian civilization. History set itself apart from political affairs, standing above administration, and deemed itself as the grounds for all human judgment. Therefore, the tradition required historiographical objectivity, which was fostered in China before the Christian era. With the introduction of Western culture to East Asia, history became re-institutionalized from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, from the governmental section to the newly established university. In the West, the ‘professionalization’ of historical research resulted in the establishment of history as an independent university academic field. This was a great achievement for what had until then been an institutionally neglected discipline. In East Asia, however, the introduction of modern Western historical research heralded the end of the prestigious traditional East Asian historiography, which had aimed at comprehensive description of the entire world. Since then, East Asian historiography has evolved largely along the lines of ‘modern’ historiography in the same basic methodological and theoretical terms as the rest of the world.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have