Brunei: From the Age of Commerce to the 21st Century by Marie-Sybille de Vienne

Abstract

Reviewed by: Brunei: From the Age of Commerce to the 21st Century by Marie-Sybille de Vienne Johannes L. Kurz Brunei: From the Age of Commerce to the 21st Century Marie-Sybille de Vienne Singapore: NUS Press, 2015. xvii, 345 pp. This extremely detailed and informative volume on the sultanate of Brunei will for some time remain the reference work for anyone interested in its modern history, state and economy. A translation of the French original (Brunei: de la thalassocratie à la rente, 2012), the English version organized in four large parts, starts with an introduction entitled Prologue (pp. 1–10), followed by part two 'From Thalassocracy to Rentier State' (13–128) that includes a survey of Brunei's history from 40,000 BCE to 1984, the year Brunei achieved independence from Great Britain. Part 3 'Independence and after, 1984–2014' (pp. 129–200) covers the first three decades of independent rule, while in part 4 'Adat Istiadat and Societal Management' (pp. 201–81) de Vienne provides insights into Bruneian society and the development of the state ideology MIB (Melayu Islam Beraja). In the conclusion (pp. 285–7), de Vienne asks if the development of the state is sustainable in the future, given the problems the state is presently facing. The main part of the text is followed by appendices (pp. 289–330) that include weights, measures, and currencies, a 'lexicon' with Malay terms and their translation, as well as an extensive and extremely useful bibliography arranged topically. An index (pp. 331–45) completes the work. De Vienne, as an economic historian, has a very firm grasp on numbers and statistics, the likes of which have so far rarely been presented in any work on Brunei. The rigorous treatment of the sources in the chapters of the book dealing with the modern history of Brunei is regrettably not followed in the preceding account of the early history of Brunei. In her introduction de Vienne refers to the elusive nature of the history of Brunei 'until the end of the 18th century', a history only to be presented as 'a series of hypotheses' (p. 20). The depiction of Brunei's early history, for lack of original sources, by necessity has to be based to a certain degree on assumptions. The earliest local text, a genealogy of the royal house, was compiled in 1807 and, based on oral traditions, is not a historical record in the strict sense of the word. In the absence of local sources, de Vienne turns to pre-modern Chinese sources to spin a history of Brunei that goes back to the late Tang dynasty (618–907). De Vienne credits me with 'citing' (p. 8) the toponyms 'Boni and Foni'. Far from citing, I perused earlier research articles as well as original Chinese sources. Moreover, I pointed out more than just the one alternative to transcribing Boni into Chinese. De Vienne cites a personal communication with Michel Ferlus to conclude that both Boni and Foni refer to Brunei. The reference to an article by Ferlus does not say anything about the pronunciation of either Boni or Foni. Foni is represented [End Page 137] with an incorrect character (勃泥 instead of 佛泥). Why Boni and Foni transcribe Brunei de Vienne does not explain further. In the 'Introduction: Sources and Methodology' (p. 17), the Manshu 蠻書 (ca. 860) is credited as the first source that mentioned the 'toponym' Boni. Boni in the Manshu clearly refers to an ethnic group, not a 'country', as it lacks the qualifier guo 國 (country, state). On p. 20 the title of the book edited by Liu Xinsheng is misrepresented as 'Zhong guo yu Wen Lai guanxi shi ke jiang bian 中国与文莱关系史科江编'. The correct title is Zhongguo yu Wenlai guanxi shiliao huibian 中国与文莱关系史料汇编. The insertion of Poli into the history of Brunei was not Liu Xinsheng's idea, but goes back to Robert Nicholl. Since the publication of de Vienne's book the identification of Poli with an ancient Brunei has been demonstrated to be very questionable (Kurz, 'Pre-modern Chinese Sources in the National History: The Case of Poli', Bijdragen tot de taal-, land-en volkenkunde 169/2–3 (2013): 213–43). De Vienne (p. 25) wrongly identifies the Liang...