A ABERTURA OFICIAL DE MACAU COMO PORTO PARA O EXTERIOR – UM CONTRIBUTO PARA APURAMENTO DOS FACTOS
This article reexamines the so-called Official Opening of Macau as a Port for Foreign Trade, offering a contribution to the clarification of facts in Chinese historiography and in Sino-foreign history of the Ming and Qing dynasties. Starting from the observation that, among scholars and in modern so...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Review of Culture |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Articles |
| Published: |
Instituto Cultural de Macau
January 2002
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.icm.gov.mo/rc/viewer/pdfViewerParts/40001/2654 |
| Summary: | This article reexamines the so-called Official Opening of Macau as a Port for Foreign Trade, offering a contribution to the clarification of facts in Chinese historiography and in Sino-foreign history of the Ming and Qing dynasties. Starting from the observation that, among scholars and in modern sources, the attribution of the opening to 1535 (14th year of the reign of Jia Jing) and to a reading that benefits, above all, the Portuguese persists, the author proposes a critical evaluation of three central questions: (i) the date of the opening; (ii) the circumstances of the decision and the role of the administrative authority of the time (the transfer of the Superintendency of Merchant Ships to Haojing/Macau); and (iii) the beneficiaries of the opening (only Portuguese or merchants of all nationalities). The methodology combines a bibliographic review of canonical Chinese sources (Ming Shi, Ming Chao Shi Hua, Zhongguo Gudai Shi, Zhongguo Lishi Dashi Nianbiao) with reading of recent historiography and dictionaries of Macau and History of China's Foreign Relations, articulating primary data with historiographic interpretations. Among the main conclusions, the author argues that the date of 1535 is problematic and requires revision, and that the opening should be understood as a process of broader scope than an exclusive benefit to the Portuguese. The article, by dealing mainly with the double question of date and beneficiaries, points to the need for a historiographic reassessment based on primary sources and new readings. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1682-1106 |