succeeds in building an integrated narrative rather than a repetitive one. Africa occupies an essential place in the book. After all, ‘one major achievement of Atlantic history is that it brings African history into the historiographical mainstream’ (p. 32). Another of its most salient features, repeatedly emphasised by its practitioners, is that Atlantic history goes beyond national and imperial boundaries. Some scholars disagree, arguing that it is little more than imperial or colonial history under a new brand. And, truth be told, sometimes it is. But Burnard’s book shows that there is plenty of research out there that is undeserving of that criticism, research that sheds light on an array of transnational and trans-imperial developments, which can also be seen from a local vantage point. Furthermore, it would be a mistake to consider the book merely a survey. By guiding us through the most relevant literature on Atlantic history, Burnard reveals how the constituent parts of the oceanic world evolved in conversation with each other and, in the process, his narrative makes a compelling case for the perduring historiographical relevance of the Atlantic paradigm. Atlantic history, particularly the transnational or circum-Atlantic type (following David Armitage’s taxonomy), demands that the historian master several languages and visit archives and libraries in different countries and continents. Its international quality also raises the question of its geographical reach, which is another source of debate. Does it make sense to see the ocean as a self-contained unit of analysis? Should we be talking about global rather than Atlantic history? Burnard sees both as different and yet complementary until they finally merged. The economic globalisation (measured in international price convergence) that slowly began to materialise from the 1820s as a consequence of technical innovations signalled the coalescence of Atlantic history into global history. But Burnard warns that ‘we should not see the Atlantic World as the beginnings of a global economy, but rather a cultural manifestation in which values from one part of the Atlantic moved to another’ (p. 301). Although Burnard’s writing is, for the most part, clear and engaging, on spots he shows a tendency to construct long, intricate sentences that do little to facilitate comprehension. Moreover, the book would have benefited from a more thorough copy-editing as several typos and errors mar the text. The book includes further reading lists at the end of each chapter. It also has carefully presented maps and images and an excellent analytical index. Editorial and minor editing problems aside, the book is a valuable synthesis of the most significant literature on Atlantic History that offers an informative, integrated narrative to both students and researchers, including maritime historians.

中文翻译：

---

书评：有争议的和危险的海洋：北大西洋渔民、他们的妻子、工会和排斥政治

成功地构建了一个完整的叙述而不是重复的叙述。非洲在本书中占有重要地位。毕竟，“大西洋历史的一项主要成就是将非洲历史带入了史学主流”（第 32 页）。其从业者反复强调的另一个最显着的特征是大西洋历史超越了国家和帝国的界限。一些学者不同意，认为这只不过是一个新品牌下的帝国或殖民历史。而且，说实话，有时确实如此。但是伯纳德的书表明，有很多研究不值得批评，这些研究揭示了一系列跨国和跨帝国的发展，这也可以从当地的有利位置看到。此外，认为这本书只是一份调查是错误的。通过引导我们阅读有关大西洋历史的最相关文献，伯纳德揭示了海洋世界的组成部分如何在相互对话中演变，在此过程中，他的叙述为大西洋范式的持久史学相关性提供了令人信服的案例。大西洋历史，尤其是跨国或环大西洋类型（遵循大卫·阿米蒂奇的分类法），要求历史学家掌握多种语言并访问不同国家和大陆的档案和图书馆。它的国际质量也引起了其地理范围的问题，这是另一个争论的来源。将海洋视为一个独立的分析单元是否有意义？我们应该谈论全球历史而不是大西洋历史吗？伯纳德认为两者既不同又互补，直到他们最终合并。作为技术创新的结果，从 1820 年代开始缓慢实现的经济全球化（以国际价格趋同来衡量）标志着大西洋历史与全球历史的融合。但伯纳德警告说，“我们不应将大西洋世界视为全球经济的开端，而应将其视为一种文化表现形式，其中大西洋的一个部分的价值观转移到另一部分”（第 301 页）。尽管伯纳德的写作在大多数情况下清晰且引人入胜，但在某些地方，他表现出构建长而复杂的句子的倾向，这些句子对理解几乎没有帮助。而且，这本书会受益于更彻底的复制编辑，因为有几个错别字和错误会破坏文本。本书在每一章的末尾都包含进一步的阅读清单。它还精心呈现了地图和图像以及出色的分析索引。撇开编辑和小编辑问题不谈，这本书是对大西洋历史最重要文献的宝贵综合，为学生和研究人员（包括海洋历史学家）提供了信息丰富的综合叙述。