Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of History as a Discipline at Fudan University

From September 12 to 14, the International Forum celebrating the 100th anniversary of Fudan University’s History Discipline was held successfully. Co-hosted by the Department of History, the Institute of Chinese Historical Geography, the Institute of Literature and History, and the Department of Cultural Heritage and Museology of Fudan University, this forum was part of the celebration for the 100th anniversary of Fudan’s History Discipline.

With the theme “The Web of Humanity: China and the World in History,” it invited scholars from over a dozen universities and research institutions, including Harvard University, Sun Yat-sen University, Beijing Normal University, Peking University, Sichuan University, the University of Tokyo, National Taiwan University, Ochanomizu University, KU Leuven, the University of Hamburg, the Institute of History and Philology of Taiwan’s “Academia Sinica,” the University of California, Berkeley, Northeast Normal University, and Fudan University.

September 12: Opening Ceremony and Thematic Reports

On the morning of September 12, the forum officially opened. Professor Qiu Luming, Dean of the Department of History at Fudan University, presided over the opening ceremony. Jin Li, Member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and President of Fudan University, attended and delivered a speech.

Morning Session: “Space in History”

The forum kicked off with thematic reports focused on “Space in History,” featuring speeches by Professor Peter K. Bol from Harvard University, Professor Chen Chunsheng from Sun Yat-sen University, and Professor Zhou Shangyi from Beijing Normal University.

• Professor Peter K. Bol delivered a presentation titled Geographical Patterns in Chinese History. He first highly recognized the China Historical Geographic Information System (CHGIS), a collaborative project with Fudan University. He then elaborated on five key aspects: “Comparison between Physical Geography and Administrative Geography,” “Comparison between the Prefecture-County System and the Feudal System,” “Comparison between China (the ‘Central Kingdom’) and ‘Barbarians’ (Tribal Peoples),” “Internal China: North-South Differences,” and “Self-Perception of the Elite Class: Differences between National Elites and Local Elites.” Finally, he revealed the profound paradigmatic shift from administrative geographies to cultural geographies through changes in the style of geographical records.
• Professor Chen Chunsheng started with the relationship between G. William Skinner and Hakka studies and pointed out that commodity flow does not necessarily follow Skinner’s hierarchical market system, and markets may form connections based on ethnic groups. Professor Chen emphasized that the definition of a “region” should be linked to human activities and perceptions, and border areas between regions form a region of their own. Additionally, modern academia and network technology exert a significant impact on regional identity.
• Professor Zhou Shangyi gave a report titled Understanding History through Geographical Scenes. Her research aimed to demonstrate the great value of geographical scenes in understanding history and elaborated on the connotation of “geographical scenes.” Using research cases by three scholars—Hou Renzhi, Carl Sauer, and Yi-Fu Tuan—and analyzing three specific cases in Jieyang, Beijing, and Zhuhai, she summarized and prospected the possibility of conducting geographical scene analysis using the phenomenological approach to landscapes.

Afternoon Session: “The Silk Road and Sino-Western Exchange” & “Ethnic Integration in Chinese History”

In the afternoon, Professor Rong Xinjiang from Peking University and Professor Huo Wei from Sichuan University delivered reports on “The Silk Road and Sino-Western Exchange,” while Professor Yao Dali from Fudan University and Professor Egaawa Eiji from the University of Tokyo focused on “Ethnic Integration in Chinese History.”

• Professor Rong Xinjiang systematically expounded on the profound impact of the Silk Road on ancient China over nearly 2,000 years from the Han Dynasty to the Ming and Qing Dynasties. He pointed out that Zhang Qian’s mission to the Western Regions broke the relative isolation of early China, expanding Sino-foreign exchanges from commodity trade to politics, religion, culture, and other fields.
• Professor Huo Wei outlined the historical landscape of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau Silk Road during the Han and Tang Dynasties, starting from the geographical characteristics of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Based on archaeological artifacts such as silk, tea, gold and silver vessels, and bronze mirrors, he summarized three main routes of the Plateau Silk Road: the Northwest Route (leading to Central Asia, West Asia, and South Asia), the Southwest Route (leading to Nepal and India in South Asia), and the Southeast Route (leading to Myanmar and northeastern India).
• Professor Yao Dali discussed the question “Did the Xia Dynasty Really Exist?” by examining the origin of Proto-Chinese and the evolution from the Longshan Culture to the Shang Dynasty. He pointed out that the Sino-Tibetan language family began to diverge around 3900 BCE in central North China. The Shang people may not have initially been Proto-Chinese speakers; instead, they conquered and were later assimilated by an existing group of Proto-Chinese speakers during their expansion. Professor Yao emphasized that the key is not to confirm the existence of the “Xia Dynasty,” but to re-examine pre-Shang history and understand the origin of Chinese civilization.
• Professor Egaawa Eiji delivered a speech titled Rethinking the History of the Sixteen Kingdoms and Northern Dynasties: From the Perspective of Late Antiquity. He argued that many institutions of the Sui and Tang Dynasties did not directly inherit those of the Qin and Han Dynasties, but mainly originated from the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties—among which the historical transformations of the Sixteen Kingdoms and Northern Dynasties were particularly crucial to the formation of the East Asian world. Using the perspective of “Late Antiquity,” he revealed the diversity of this period through changes in imperial titles. As a result, the Tang Dynasty broke away from the single China-centered worldview and became a “dualistic empire” of China.

September 13: Thematic Reports

Morning Session: “The Shaping of the Classical Age”

On the morning of September 13, Professor Gan Huaizhen from National Taiwan University, Professor Zhang Wei from Fudan University, and Professor Peng Xiaoyu from Peking University delivered speeches on the theme “The Shaping of the Classical Age.”

• Professor Gan Huaizhen reviewed previous academic discussions and understandings of the concept of “Tianxia” (All-under-Heaven), re-examined its underlying principles, and argued that the formation of early states was related to religious motivations. During the Hellenistic period, China was also part of the religious movements across Eurasia. Marked by the establishment of suburban sacrifices in the Han Dynasty, state religion took shape. Confucianism created the “Tianxia” order: the deities worshipped by emperors were merely spiritual tablets, whose essence remained unknown—and this order persisted for 2,000 years. Therefore, Confucianism is a public religion.
• Professor Zhang Wei traced the etymology of the term “classical” and explored its multiple meanings, which extended from praise in literature and art to other fields. He noted that the chronological framework of “Archaic—Classical—Hellenistic” took shape in the 19th century amid the development of archaeology, literary studies, and art history. “Classical Greece” was not “discovered” but an “invented” intellectual construct. Facing the current trend of “decentralization” in classical studies, Professor Zhang argued that we should maintain the tension between the paradigmatic nature and historicity of the “classical,” preserve the link between ancient and modern cultures, and continue to shape and reevaluate “Classical Greece”.
• Professor Peng Xiaoyu gave a speech titled Interaction between Grassroots Society and the Imperial Central Government: The Roman Local Order Constructed by Latin Fathers. Taking “departure” as an entry point, he discussed how Jerome and Augustine—who came from humble backgrounds—gradually felt “sorrowful” about the dark realities of the highly privileged Roman society and their own predicament in Italy. They thus chose to leave: returning to the provinces and devoting themselves to monastic life. However, they did not withdraw passively; instead, they actively “intervened” in local politics.

 Afternoon Session: “Global History from the Perspective of Jiangnan in the Ming and Qing Dynasties”

In the afternoon, Professor Li Bozhong from Peking University, Professor Kishimoto Mio from Ochanomizu University, Professor Nicolas Standaert from KU Leuven, and Professor Ge Zhaoguang from Fudan University discussed the focus topic “Global History from the Perspective of Jiangnan in the Ming and Qing Dynasties.”

• Professor Li Bozhong first introduced the characteristics and importance of trade, then pointed out that human interaction in history has taken various forms—only trade interactions have been basically continuous and peaceful. Humans have continuously created various networks for communication to maintain cooperation and manage conflicts; despite numerous setbacks, the ultimate result has been the expansion of human life.
• Professor Kishimoto Mio explored the significance of 1571 as a turning point in world history. That year marked the founding of Manila and the beginning of the trans-Pacific galleon trade, symbolizing the formation of a regular maritime trade network connecting Asia, Europe, the Americas, and Africa—thus initiating global trade. Professor Kishimoto emphasized that the trade boom around 1571 gave rise to commercial military forces. This was an era driven by silver, where the integration and disintegration of states coexisted.
• Professor Nicolas Standaert examined the cultural connections between the Jiangnan region and Europe during the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties from three perspectives: private book catalogs, letters, and translated court gazettes. All three sources represent the “in-between” state when the self encounters the other, and also reflect the reality of cultural exchanges.
• Professor Ge Zhaoguang reflected on the significance of Jiangnan in the Ming and Qing Dynasties from a global historical perspective, emphasizing its unique value as an intersection of local, national, regional, and world history. This is manifested in four aspects: first, exploring traces of overseas exchanges in the grassroots society, clan organizations, folk beliefs, and documentary materials of Jiangnan; second, understanding Jiangnan’s role in globalization to respond to issues such as the “Great Divergence” and the “World-System”; third, exploring the connection points between local history, Chinese history, and world history, and examining Jiangnan’s role in this process; fourth, re-examining the formation of modern China in a global context—the Ming and Qing Dynasties were a critical stage of territorial expansion, ethnic integration, and national identity construction.

September 14: Thematic Reports

Morning Session: “The Evolution of Chinese Thought from Ancient to Modern Times”

On the morning of September 14, Professor Michael Friedrich from the University of Hamburg, Professor Wang Fan-sen from the Institute of History and Philology of Taiwan’s “Academia Sinica,” and Professor Ye Wenxin from the University of California, Berkeley delivered speeches on the theme “The Evolution of Chinese Thought from Ancient to Modern Times.”

• Professor Michael Friedrich gave a presentation titled A Re-examination of the Classic-Skepticism Trend in the Song Dynasty, focusing on whether the classic-skepticism trend in the Song Dynasty could be equated with “skepticism.” He argued that the skeptical attitude in Song Dynasty classic-scholarship was limited and incomplete. This reflected the spirit of the Song Dynasty—emphasizing common sense or general principles and maintaining curiosity about the external world.
• Professor Wang Fan-sen delivered a speech titled The “New Antiquity” in Modern China: The Imagination of a “World as a Web”. He discussed how a generation of scholars born around 1850 underwent changes in their imagination and understanding of ancient times, creating a “New Antiquity” intertwined with the world.
• Professor Ye Wenxin examined the development and characteristics of North American Sinology from the perspective of maritime civilization and continental civilization. Her speech first reviewed the previous research approaches of North American Sinology: the “Western Impact Model” adopted a top-down perspective, emphasizing how the collision between Eastern and Western civilizations promoted the transformation of modern China; the social history perspective, drawing on Weberian mechanisms, focused on internal social dynamics, emphasizing bottom-up and inside-out driving forces.

Afternoon Session: “China and the World Since the Early Modern Period”

In the afternoon, Professor Luo Zhitian from Sichuan University, Professor Han Dongyu from Northeast Normal University, Professor Qian Chengdan from Peking University, and Professor Li Jianming from Fudan University delivered reports on the theme “China and the World Since the Early Modern Period.”

• Professor Luo Zhitian started with the multiple meanings of the term “world,” arguing that the “world” faced by modern Chinese people was a “partial world” dominated by the West, characterized by virtuality and exclusivity. Against the backdrop of global competition among nations, the ideological transformation of modern China not only required “entering the world” spatially but also forced it to “enter modernity” temporally.
• Professor Han Dongyu gave a speech titled From “Dao (the Way) Emerging from Two Sources” to “Dao Unifying All”: Facts and Possibilities. He emphasized that the paradigmatic shift of “Dao” has always run through the internal changes of Chinese history. Since the reform and opening-up, China has achieved remarkable success in modernization; how to continuously consolidate and enhance the discourse advantage of the Chinese model, and strengthen its legitimacy and academic rationality, has become an urgent task.
• Professor Qian Chengdan systematically examined the historical process of Britain from the perspective of the interaction between history and politics, analyzing the modernity of the British monarchy and the reasons for its survival. By reviewing the historical development of Britain, he pointed out that the fundamental reason for the British monarchy’s survival to this day lies in its flexibility and adaptability.
• Professor Li Jianming focused on the status of the “American Revolution” in modern revolutions, emphasizing that it was not only the first revolution to successfully break away from monarchy but also became an important model for subsequent revolutions. Contemporary social changes often take the form of non-violent mass political movements, which echoes the revolutionary form advocated by the American revolutionaries. Whether future social transformations will return more to this model remains worthy of attention.

 Conclusion

Guided by the innovation of knowledge, theory, and methods, this forum re-examined the interaction between “China” and the “world” throughout history. It aimed to break down the barriers between Chinese history and world history, focus on cross-regional connections, and address the challenges posed by new technologies to historical research. From September 12 to 14, Chinese and foreign scholars delivered 21 reports around 7 major themes.

(Compiled and written by Lei Lei, Wu Danhua, et al.)