The Mobility Paradigm and Maritime History by Garth Wilson

Garth Wilson
Canada Science and Technology Museum

. . . for all the celebrations it had been the object of in prose and song, the
sea has never been friendly to man. At most it has been the
accomplice of
human restlessness …

-Joseph Conrad

The metaphoric place and power of seafaring is an established fact of western culture, one that is manifest in our use of language and our literary and aesthetic traditions. Of all the modes of transportation, seafaring has the deepest roots in our collective consciousness; among the various technological means by which people, goods and ideas are moved about, seafaring has a place of special importance. This is too often overlooked, but well worth remembering in light of the striking under representation of ships, sailors and seafaring in the transportation pistoriography of the past decade. Nowhere is this absence more apparent than in the evolution of the International Association for the History of Transport, Traffic and Mobility (T2M), which was marked by the cultural turn and, more broadly, by an attempt to develop mobility as an analytical paradigm.

Readers of the first T2M yearbook, dedicated to ‘the state of the art in the history of transport, traffic and mobility, will recall
with interest the leada rticle’s review of the past decade of transport and mobility history. It offers a cogent and insightful account of the programme2 of mobility history as it applies to roads, rail and aviation, and yet consciously avoids maritime transportation as if part of the discussion.3 This is not to say that there was a deliberate attempt to exclude scholars of maritime transportation from the debate; there was not. The absence of the subject in this case is simply consistent with the unfortunate under representation of maritime scholarship at past T2M conferences: those of us with such an interest remain a small and lonely modal minority.

This is all the more remarkable when one considers that T2M is formally registered in the Netherlands, and has, to date, held two of its seven annual meetings there; the Netherlands is, after all, a nation with both a profound connection to the sea and one of the richest maritime traditions (and traditions of maritime historical scholarship) in all of Europe.4 Maritime history has also been prominent in all of the previous state-of-the-field reviews published in the Journal of Transport History (JTH).s In the light of these earlier efforts, the absence of a maritime component in any analytical overview of the programme of mobility
history indicates that something has changed. This paper will attempt to address this anomaly, while also considering the current place and future prospects of maritime history in the evolving historiography of mobility.
Two explanations for maritime historians’ marginal part in the evolution of transport, traffic and mobility studies during the last decade invite immediate consideration. First, maritime historians have further developed their own distinct identity, as well as various forums for exchanging ideas and interests ( creating a kind of maritime exceptionalism among transport historians6). Second, western nations have become increasingly alienated from the experi­ence of life and work at sea in the last half century, despite a growing reliance on ever- expanding volumes of sea-borne traffic and trade. This alienation can be attributed to a profound change in seafaring culture and identity due to contain­erization (very short stays in ports no longer situated in immediate proximity to city centres); downward pressure on wages and work conditions caused by flag-of-convenience registry; a technologically driven dilution of professional identity; the decline of the commercial fisheries and, finally, the replacement of transoceanic passenger travel by commercial aviation.7 Nevertheless, seafaring remains resonant in
the West’s general culture, including popular culture, and this connection is important to the prospects of the mobility programme, about which more later.

The International Journal of Maritime History (IJMH), published semian­nually since 1989, can help us explore maritime exceptionalism. The IJMH is published in English, but it now includes abstracts in English, German, Spanish and French. Its founding editors were Lewis R. Fischer of Memorial University of Newfourfclland, and Helge W. Nordvik of the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration. Financial support was provided by each of the editors’ respective institutions, by the Holt Trust, and by the British Academy.8 The IJMH has grown remarkably; many numbers in recent years run about 500 pages. Although it is by no means the oldest of English-language maritime history journals-the revered Mariners Mirror dates to 1911, while the now-defunct American Neptune began publication in 1941-it is academi­cally the
most important. While the IJMH has, like many other academic jour­nals, suffered publication delays and difficulties, it has also enjoyed remark­able editorial continuity; one of its founding editors, Lewis Fischer, remains its editor-in-chief, and Memorial University remains its base of operations. The journal is, in many respects, a testimony to Prof. Fischer’s remarkable energy, vision and dedication.

In their inaugural editorial, Fischer and Nordvik delineated the new journal’s objectives. Citing the first dedicated session on
maritime history held at the Ninth International Congress of Economic History in Bern, Switzerland, in 1986 as the seminal event, Fischer and Nordvik founded the IJMH to foster better communication among maritime scholars and to promote a stronger collective identity in the form of the Maritime Economic History Group.9 The constituency they identified for the journal was “the growing number of maritime social and economic historians.”10 The editors sketched out an ambitious commitment to enriching and enlarging the context within which maritime history was studied. They intended the IJMH to foster research that contains an ‘international dimension’; to encourage a social and economic perspective; to ‘improve the quality of maritime writing’; and most important, to locate maritime history squarely ‘within the context of the broader questions being posed by historians in general, regardless of the particular topic they choose to s

This concern for context is clearly reminiscent of some of T2M’s formative ideals and the foundation of the mobility programme. In his fifty-year review of the content and direction of the JTH (2003), Gijs Mom described a growing trend towards “contextualization” in transport history as a sign of maturity.12 Though careful to distinguish it from a full-fledged history of mobility, Mom advises greater contextualization.The IJMH’s dedication to this may therefore
suggest that maritime historians are well positioned to explore the mobility paradigm. Although this is encouraging, the essential difficulty remains that the history of mobility project is expressly intermodal. While the JMH limits itself to waterborne mobility. This difference, together with the inception and growth of the IJMH, might even explain the relative decline in maritime content within the covers of the JTH, and the striking dearth of maritime scholars among the membership of T2M (formed in 2002).13 While this exceptionalism, under the banner of the IJMH, may impede the mobility programme among maritime scholars, it equally obstructs the symmetrical development and multimodal aspirations of T2M. As someone with an active interest in addressing this issue, my inclination is to look for signs that a common commitment to contextualization may lead to further multimodal research and thus to a nascent mobility programme, broadly defined, within the pages of the JJMH.

To pursue this question in a manner consistent with the 2009 review by Mom, Divall and Lyth, it is instructive to look at the articles, research notes, forums and roundtables front the last nine years (1999-2008) of the JJMH-the latter two, forums and roundtables, being particularly dynamic features of the journal. Here it should be noted, in passing, that the IJMH also contains one of the most comprehensive maritime book review sections of any journal. Unfortunately, however, it has never carried museum or online exhibit reviews, notwithstanding the substantial size ofthe international maritime museum community today; one regrettable weakness in an otherwise impressive scholarly enterprise.14

Having defined the content to be studied, the next question is how to measure whether or not-and to what extent-the articles, reports, forums and roundtables found in the IJMH in the last decade suggest movement towards, or sympathy for, the mobility history programme. Since none of the JMH editorials have, to date, directly addressed this question, or even noted its existence, it is obviously necessary to extrapolate essential values from the ideas and arguments presented by Mom, Divall and Lyth. These values can then serve as a criteria for determing the degree of compatibility or convergence. Fortunately. the clarity with which they defined the mobility programme in the first T2M yearbook makes the review of the IJMH content all the easier.

Five pillars were offered as the programme’s supports: active interdisciplinarity; the embrace of a ‘cultural turn’ enriched by the ‘discourse of consumption and modernity’ as well as some aspects of ‘material culture studies’; an attempt to transcend modal ‘ghettoization’ and associated political agendas; further consideration of the relationship between transport and communication in light of the new media (and the boundaries these media erase and evade); and, finally, the search for a set of common issues or questions, is To establish the relative weight and representation of the various approaches represented in the JJMH’s second decade, contributions to the journal were classified in historiographical, geographical, and chronological categories. Historiographical categories included economic, social, business, labour, political, naval, cultural, technological, methodological and ‘others’ (for example, environmental, urban and biographical studies). In borderline cases, a judgment was made as to the primary intention and a category assigned accordingly. Because of the inherent international aspects of maritime history, the geographical categories applied were based on the continents or oceans. Maritime historians frequently analyze regions of shared seaspace. In recent years, this has become the subject of oceanic history-or what might be called oceanic studies-and its place within maritime historiography is, in many respects, a conceptual force in support of the interdisciplinary and cultural aspirations of the mobility programme .16 Some recent edited collections serve to underline this prospect, although it is unclear whether oceanic studies may, in the end, further reinforce maritime exceptionalism.17 Finally, six chronological categories were employed: post World War II, twentieth century, nineteenth century, early modern, medieval and classical. The exceptional subdivision of the twentieth century here reflects recognition of T2M’s attempt to measure its scholars’ preoccupation with more recent matters of policy and planning, such as globalization and climate change.

What, then, is the picture of maritime history that emerges from the research published in the IJMH during its second decade? A total of 203 submissions were included in the time frame under review (137 articles, 32 research notes, nine forums and 25 roundtables). Yearly submissions reflect a steady growth in the journal, beyond the remarkable book review section. From 15 in 1999, the number rose to 21 in 2002, dropped off, then rose again to a nigh of 25 in 2006 and 2007, dropping back only slightly to 24 in 2008.

The largest single historiographical category is economic, with 83 items unsurprising given the origins of the journal. Next largest, but considerably, smaller, is political history, at 27. Labour studies number 20, social history 16, and ‘other’ 15. Cultural history has 11 items, business history and history of technology are tied at ten each, methodological studies come in at seven and, finally, four submissions are in naval history.

Turning to the geographic coverage, Europe is, far and away, the continent that ( receives the most attention, 125 items, or 61.5 percent).A very distant second is ‘Oceanic’ studies, at 28 submissions, most of which concern a seaspace shared by Europe. North America is next with 21, followed by Asia with 19. Australia, Oceania and Antarctica were covered by three pieces each ; Africa and South America by only two each.

In chronological categories, the nineteenth century received the greatest attention, at 77 submissions. Next is the early modem period, with 60, followed by the twentieth century with 56, of which 24 concern the post World War II period. Ten items concern the medieval period; two are broad studies covering three or more periods and extending into the later twentieth century. No submissions expressly concerned the classical period.

European topics clearly dominated the IJMH in its second decade, with no apparent diminishing trend. In terms of historiography the journal contains a relative majority of economic studies; if business history is included in this category, then it is just shy of 46 percent of the total. The relative number of economic history items remains steady and strong through the review period surging, in fact, in 2008. There is, then, no obvious turn away from the economic preoccupation that launched the journal. The centuries of European imperial and industrial expansion form the period of greatest representation, totaling some 67 per cent of the research content.

Although the journal’s founders identified economic and social historians as its main constituency, explicitly social-historical items are surprisingly scant­only 16 (or, if one argues for the inclusion of the ten labour history items, 26), one fewer than the total number of political history submissions.18 Even so, to label the IJMH as an intransigent venue of economic maritime historians would do a great injustice to the editors’ manifestly ecumenical and inclusive vision. To some extent, this is, in fact, well-reflected in the numbers. Combining the count of items concerning maritime technological and cultural studies (ten and 11 respectively) with methodological contributions (seven) and ‘other’ (15), the result is 43 items-35 per cent of the total contributions reviewed (compared to 46 per cent for the stalwart economic and business sections).

As usual, however, the numbers themselves tell only part of the story. Under technology, culture, historiography and ‘other studies’ are found a remarkable range of topics and approaches. In volume 11 ( 1999) there is a history of ‘Female Dock Workers in Finland, c. 1900- 1975′ -one of several examples of gender studies.19 The same volume contains an article exploring the use of models and plans (material culture: the stuff of museums) in the study of Dutch shipbuilding history.20 Volume 13 (2001) contains a contribution to the history of science that examines the experience of natural scientists at sea, and a notable cultural study of marine temperance in nineteenth-century America.21 The history of tourism, an important marker of transport history’s evolution towards mobility history, makes a notable appearance in volume 15 (2003) in a research note by David M. Williams, one of the doyens of maritime history and the author of the 1993 review of his field published in the JTH.22 David Williams’ retirement was the focus of an unusual festschrift-forum published in volume 17 (2005). This includes another tourism-oriented contribution calling for a fuller examination of leisure excursions as a factor in the development of the steamboat.23 Here it is worth adding that back in 1997 the IJMH published a substantial forum, led by John Walton, on seaside resorts. In his own contribution. ‘Seaside Resorts and Maritime History’, Walton addressed the prospects of tourism studies in maritime history directly.24 Language at sea is the focus of a research note in volume 18 (2006) on the history of English as the language of the modern mariner. 2S This volume also includes a roundtable reviewing Paul D’Arcy’s The People of the Sea: Environment, Identity and History in Oceania. As is standard practice with the IJMH
roundtables, the author is allowed to respond formally to the participants’comments. D’Arcy’s book is an important model of multidisciplinary, multi-century, oceanic studies. It is a promising construct with considerable potential to enrich our understanding of humanity’s relationship with the sea, and the IJMH’s roundtable is certainly an excellent means by which to examine the value, methodology and implications ofsuch studies from a range of perspectives. 26 Finally, volume 19 (2007) contains two items that are indicative of the impressive range of topics addressed in the IJMH. One is an examination of how aspects of modern fisheries science and catch analysis may be applied to historical research; the other is a look at the author Joseph Conrad’s education and skills as a navigator.21

While the IJMH appears to be predominantly a journal of economic research, it is in no way ideologically committed to this one aspect of maritime history. Like the JTH, its geographic concentration is undeniably European, but it is clearly open to submissions on maritime history in all continents and oceans, as the membership of its editorial board indicates. The journal’s interest in oceanic history is apparent in the works selected by its editors for roundtable review and also explicit in the editors’ critical reaction to the American Historical Reviews (AHR) June, 2006, forum, ‘Oceans of History’ .28 Here the sins identified in the IJMH editorial are all sins of omission scholars and scholarship overlooked in this presentation of the field to the AHR’s large and diverse audience. The dismay expressed may reflect some unspoken methodological differences, but there is also clear frustration among the editors that the sea remains peripheral to so much of the historical community, including, one might add, many of the transportation scholars who constitute the active core of T2M today. The IJMH is also open to research on more recent issues and events. With almost 28 per cent of the content published since 1999 relating
to the twentieth century, there is a clear commitment tO historical analysis with contemporary resonance and social relevance. While the last decade of the IJMH presents a picture of maritime history that is still recognizable as the subdiscipline it was forty years ago, it is also, as the editors themselves have said ‘a big tent’ which includes global perspectives, other disciplines and new approaches.29

How, then, does this relate, in practice or potentiality, to the mobility programme? The one obvious deficiency is inter-modality. In all the 203 submissions reviewed, only Tapio Bergholm’s research note on port traffic in twentieth-century Finland, can make any claim to that perspective.3o Unfortunately, as a descriptive and statistical research note, this single item offers little that suggests what form any larger maritime-oriented intermodal analysis might take. This absence may well reflect the process of self-definition and specialization that marked the development of maritime history in the latter part of the last century. As David Williams pointed out in his 1993 review, such specialization in historical studies was widespread at the time.31 Maritime history’s growing independence from general transportation studies and its reduced representation in the JTH over the past two decades ( and its striking underrepresentationin T2M today) may simply be a testimony to the success of the IJMH and its founding organization-indeed, the launch of the JJMH may well have inadvertently facilitated this
development. By focusing primarily on humankind’s relationship with the sea over time, the IJMH has found space to expand its tent without including non-maritime modes of transport.32 The pressing question for us is whether or not maritime history as represented by the IJMH can embrace intermodality further, without also erasing an identity so closely tied to the sea?
While there is no obvious reason why it cannot, this will remain unproven until scholars of our maritime past, whatever their interest and methodological inclination, begin to address this prospect actively. By the same token, those committed to the mobility paradigm would do great service if they led by example here and made greater efforts to include maritime transport, traffic and mobility in their own attempts at intermodal research and analysis.

If there is reason for optimism, it resides in the IJMH’s concern for context. In this, one can perceive something of the
“restlessness” Joseph Conrad attributed to humanity’s historical relationship with the sea. Even for landlocked scholars, contemplation of maritime activity, the inherent internationalism of seafaring, and the mariner’s cultural transcendence of the nation state, serve to inspire a search for larger horizons and new connections. Indeed, the whole oceanic studies movement is largely defined by these concerns. But there is also another, darker, force for change in the field that may ultimately lead to a greater convergence with the mobility programme. This is the general alienation of the western world from maritime transportation, a phenomenon that relates to two important elements in the mobility programme as defined: the search for a common set of questions and the cultural turn.

With the West’s gradual alienation from the sea, fewer people can claim a personal relationship with seafaring life, labour, commerce, or culture. Symbolized by the now ubiquitous ship-borne container,seaborne mobility has become the modal equivalent of a black box: a means of transportation that is efficient, operative and essential, but also common, nondescript and opaque. There are exceptions, including cruiseship vacations, ferries and recreational boating. Yet even these appear to be subject to similar forces. Cruise ships, for example, strive to diminish the kinesthetic experience of being at sea, and busy, well-established ferry routes are being replaced by ever longer bridges and tunnels. Because of the intimacy with the sea that pleasure boating offers, it retains much of its original romantic and human appeal and is certainly worthy of further study, but its cultural, social and economic impact is limited, relative to the influence of the automobile or the bicycle. Here it is worth noting that the effects of this alienationhave been especialy apparent in western maritime museums, which have in recent decades faced a serious struggle against declining attendance and social relevance.33 The narrative continuum of our maritime heritage appears to have been broken.

In his editorial for the fiftieth anniversary edition of the JTH, Peter Lyth explicitly noted the general shift in transportation
scholarship from supply to demand, producer to consumer, maker to user.34 Add to this shift the instrumentalism that has influenced public funding in the humanities, at universities and museums alike, and maritime historians and curators are faced with the pressing need to discover a new paradigm that produces insights that are more readily understood and offer greater social value. The signs of decline in the established practice are already apparent. Indeed, in volume 19 (2007) of the IJMH the many troubling issues confronting maritime history in the UK, where the sub-­discipline has flourished, are frankly delineated in a substantial review essay.35 That this problem was not unique to Great Britain was already apparent from the previous year’s JJMH editorial. Picking up on a position articulated by Frank Broeze in 1995, the editors admit that

“Maritime historians need to be trained to ask broader, more comparative questions that address issues of interest to the wider historical profession. A perusal of dozens of recent maritime history theses from universities around the world suggests that we are failing abysmally. What we are suggesting here is that instead of spending our time merely bemoaning the lack of positions for our post- graduates, maritime historians give more thought to how to produce young scholars with the tools to convince skeptics of the centrality o four sub-discipline to national and international history.36”

Maritime historians should indeed be open and active in their search for new questions-a goal which, together with an earnest concern for professional opportunities for emerging scholars, they share with those interested in the mobility programme. If not exactly a common agenda, this is, at least, a good place to begin.37
A final point in favour of further convergence between maritime history and the mobility programme concerns the inherent potential of the cultural turn. Seafaring continues to resonate strongly in our collective imagination. The culture of humanity’s relationship with the sea, in both material and intangible forms, is an area where intellectual endeavor and public engagement could grow in mutually rewarding ways. Witness, for example, the energy and excitement resulting from various recent discoveries in the world of underwater archaeology, as well as the perennial attraction of ‘Tall Ships’. However much the foundational narratives of historic, national, maritime endeavour (political, economic, social) may have lost their relevance in the de-industrialized West, we remain enchanted by the cultural memory of these achievements, as our language, literature, cinema and popular commercial arts attest.Just as the cultural turn, enriched by the ‘discourse of consumption and modernity’ and by aspects of ‘material culture studies’, has been identified as a pillar of the mobility project, the cultural turn may equally provide maritime historians with a means by which to revitalize their subdiscipline. Here, as elsewhere, both sides share common values: a commitment to context, an international outlook, an ecumenical openness to other disciplines and approaches, and a search for questions and issues with greater social resonance. Contemporary maritime scholarship and the mobility programme are, in many respects, fellow travelers with much in common. They simply need to make a greater effort to meet one another, so as to begin what promises to be a mutually enriching conversation.
1 Joseph Conrad, The Mirror of the Sea, (New York and London: Harper & Brothers, 1906), 227.

2 Gijs Mom. Colin Divall, and Peter Lyth, ‘Towards a Paradigm Shift? A Decade of Transport and Mobility History’, in Mom, Divall and Lyth, Mobility in History,: The S.tdte ofthe Art in the History of Transport, Traffic and Mobility (Neuchltel: Editions Alphil-Presses universitaires suisses, (2009), 37-38.

3 Ibid., 23, footnote 25.

4 A point tacitly acknowledged in Gijs Mom’s fiftieth anniversary review of the Journal ofTransport History and arising directly from David Williams’ overview of maritime history published in the same journal ten years earlier. See Mom, ‘What kind of Transport History did we get? Half a century of Journal of Transport History and the future of the field’. Journal of Transport History, 24:2 (September 2003), 123 n. 14, and David Williams, ‘The Progress of Maritime History, 1953-93’, Journal of Transport History, 14:2 (September 1993), 126-41.

5 See footnote 4. According to the calculations provided by Mom in his fiftieth anniversary review, water transport was second only to rail among the articles published in the Journal of Transport History during its first half-century. Mom, ‘What kind of transport history did we get’, Journal of l Transport History, 24 :2 (September, 2003), 128.

6 The term is used here in the specific context ofT2M and without any suggestion of superiority or deliberate exclusion. In fact, David Williams, in his 1993 review of the field published in the Journal of Transport History, explicitly states that while establishing its own identity, ‘maritime history has not followed a separatist path; rather it has participated in, and been subject to, the mainstream developments which have been the features of historical study over the past half a century. Moreover the tenor of much maritime research has been to recognize the wider perspective in terms ofa varied historical approach and the spatial dimension. Nevertheless, when T2M was conceived ten years later, maritime modes oftransportation remained largely unrepresented in the project, notwithstanding the very close connection between T1M and the Journal of Transport History. Williams, ‘The Progress ofMaritime History•, Journal. ofTransport History, Third Series, 14:2 (September 1993). 137-138.

7 Major tunnel and bridge projects that exploit the efficiencies of flow through rail and road traffic have had a similar effect on busy ferry routes in a number of places in the last few decades, with more such projects regularly being considered.
8 Lewis R. Fischerand Helge W. Nordvik, ·The Context ofMaritime History: The New International Journal of Maritime History’ ,International Journal ofMaritime History, 1:1 (June, 1989), vii.
9 Ibid. vi. Fischer and Nordvik note here that by the second year ofthe publication of the Maritime Economic History Group Newsletter, which also arose from the Bern conference and proceeded the founding of the journal, there were some 800 historians from more than 60 nations among its reader­ship. This bears further reflection; ifonly ten percent of that number were to participate actively in T1M, it would transform the association.

lO Ibid. vii.

11 Ibid., vii-ix.

12 Mom, ‘What kind ofTransport History did we get?’, 132-133.

l3 T2M held its first conference in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, in the fall of 2002 and Gijs Mom,
then Deputy Editor of the Journal ofTransport History, also became the new association’s founding president. In 2004 Mom became editor-in-chief of the Journal of Transport History. For more on the origins ofT2M, see Mom, Divall and Lyth ‘Towards a Paradigm Shift’, Mobility in History, 15.

14, (last visited July 27 2010).
15 Mom, Divall and Lyth, ‘Towards a Paradigm Shift’, 38.

16 See the ·AHR Forum: Oceans of History’. American Historical Review, Ill :3 (June 2006), 717-780. In her introduction, Kliren Wigen notes how the ‘perspective of the sea’ is influencing not only the study of history, but also of music, literature and public policy: Wigen ‘AHR Forum: Oceans of History’, 717 n. 7. The editors of the International Journal of Maritime History devoted an editorial to a critical review of this AHR forum, though their main concern was not the subject, per se, but the limits and omissions of the contributions assembled: ‘Editorial’,International Journal of Maritime History, 18:2 (December, 2006), xiii-xiv.

17 See Jerry H. Bently. Renate Bridenthal. and Karen Wigen (eds.). Seascapes: Maritime Histories, Littoral Cultures, and Transoceanic Exchanges (Honolulu: University of Hawai’I Press. 2007); Bernhard Klein and Gesa Mackenthun (eds.), Sea Changes: Historicizing the Ocean (New York and London: Routledge, 2004).

18 If we add the total ofeconomic and business history contributions to the total of social and labor history items, then the broad economic and social history total is 119. representing almost 59 per­cent of the published research in the International Journal ofMaritime History during the last nine years.

19 Tapio Bergholm and Kari Teras, ‘Female Dock Workers in Finland, c. 1900-1975: Gender and Change on the Finnish Waterfront’. International Journal ofMaritime History, XI :2 (December 1999), 107-120. In Vol. XX:2 (December 2008), 259-324, the forum, running 65 pages with contributiutions from four scholars, addressed the topic ‘Women and the Sea in the Pacific’.

20 A.A. Lemmen;,’ Symptoms ofProgress: Tools for the Assessment ofTechnological Development’, International Journal ofMaritime History, XI :2 (December 1999). 121-142. (please add first name).

21 Ian Wilkins, ‘Scientists at Sea : British Seagoing Naturalists in Australian Waters in the Nineteenth Century’, International Journal ofMaritime History, XIIl: l (June 2001 ), 95-114; Steven H. Park; “Three Sheets to the Wind:” Marine Ternperence in Antebellum Nineteenth- Century America. International Journal ofMaritime History. XIII: (June 2001), 137-150.

22 David M. Williams. ‘”The Extent of Transport Services” Integration: SS Ceylon and the First “Round the World° Cmise, 1881- 1882,’International Journal of Maritime History. XV :2 (December 2003). 135-146; See also David. M. Williams, ‘The Progress of maritime history, 1953­93’ ,Journal of Transport History. Third Series, 14:2 (September, 1993), 126-141.

23 JohnAnnstrong, ‘The New History of the Steamboat’ ,International Journal ofMaritime History, XVII :2 (December, 2005), 241-247. Tourism appears as a topic once more in International Journal of Maritime History during the period under review: Baa.rd Kolltveit, ‘”Deckchair Explorers:” The Origin and Development of Organised Tourist Voyages to Northern and Southern Polar Regions’, International Journal of Maritime
History, xvm:2 (December, 2006), 351-370.

24 John Walton, ‘Forum: Seaside Resorts in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries’, International Journal of Maritime History, IX:(June 1997), 125-211.

25 Elizatbeth Molt, ‘No Double-Dutch at Sea: How English Became the Maritime Lingua Franca’, International Journal of Maritime History. XVII :2 (December 2006), 245-256 .

26 Robert Aldrich, Alastair Couper, Ben Finney, James G. Greenlee, Anne Perez Hattori, Jane Samson, George Bryan Souza and Toon van Meijl, Reviews of Paul D’Arey, The People of the Sea: Envirormment, Identity and History in Oceania. Paut D’Arey, ‘A Roundtable Response’, XVIII :2 (December 2006), 371-428.

27 Rene T. Poulsen and Poul Holm, ‘What Can Fisheries Historians Learn from Marine Science? The Concept of Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE)’, International Journal ofMaritime History, XIX :2 (December 2007), 89-112; Willem F.J. Morzer Bn1yns, ‘Conrad’s Navigation: Joseph Conrad as a Professional Sailor’, International Journal of Mariti1ne History. XIX: 2 (December 2007), 201-222; In Vol. m, No. 2 (December, 1991) of International Journal of Maritime History. the editors announced the inauguration of a new series entitled ‘Research in Maritime History’,overseen by the editors of International Journal of Maritime History and published by the International Maritime Economic History Association. The series is distributed free of charge to all subscribers to International Journal of Maritime History. These monographs cover a wide range of topics. Here it is worth noting No. 21, (2001) edited by Paul Holm, Tim D. Smith and David J. Starkey. and entitled The Exploited Seas: New Directions for Marine Environmental History. For a full list of titles (which can be taken as further evidence of the broad interests of the International Journal ofMaritime History editorial board), see: http :// (Last visited July 27 2010).

28 Karen Wigen, ‘Oceans of History’, AHR 111: 3 (June 2006), 717-780. For the editorial response of International Journal ofMaritime History, see ‘Editors’ Note,’ International Journal of Maritime History, XVIII:2 (December 2006), xiii-xiv.

29 Ibid., xiii. For an account ofthe emergence’ of maritime history and the very use of the term, see Williams, ‘The Progress of Maritime History.’ 127-128; A recent overview that includes important continental elements of the story can be found in Gelina Harlaftis and Carmel Vassallo, ‘Maritime History since Braudel’, New Directions in Mediterranean Maritime History-Research in Maritime History, 28 (International Maritime Economic History Association: St. John, 2004), 1-19.

30 Tapio Bergholm, ‘Port Traffic and Structural Change in the Finnish Economy and Transport Network in the Twentieth Century’, International Journal of Maritime History, XIX: 1 (June 2007), 225-238.

31 Williams, ‘The Progress of Maritime History’. 128.

32 ‘Editors’ Note. International Journal ofMaritime History, XVIII :2 (December 2006), xiii.
33 Stuart Davies. “”There May be Trouble Ahead”: Maritime Museums in an Uncertain World’. Proceedings ofthe IX International Congress ofMaritime Museums (Greenwich: National Maritime Museum and National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, 1995); Garth Wilson, ‘Editorial’, Material History Review-Ships Seafaring and Small Craft Special Issue, 48 (Fall 1998). 1-12.

34 Peter Lyth, ‘Editorial: The Journal of Transport History at fifty and the shape of things to come,Journal of Transport History, 24 :2 (September 2003) unpaginated.

35 Lewis Johnman and Hugh Murphy, ‘Maritime and Business History in Britain: Past, Present and Future?’ ,International Journal of Maritime History, XIX:1 (June 2007), 239-270.

36 Lewis R. Fischer. David J. Starkey, and Malcom Tull, ‘Editors’ Note’, International Journal of Maritime History, XVIII : 1 (June 2006), xiv.
37 For a counter to the outlook of Johnman and Murphy, see Glen O’Hara, “The Sea is Swinging into View”: Modern British Maritime History in a Globalised World’, English Historical Review, CXXIV:510 (October 2009).1109-1134; Notable here is the argument that British maritime history offers important insights into globalization, a contemporary issue that has also been operative in the development of the mobility paradigm.