History Of Southeast Asia Research Articles

Current Trends in the Economic History of Southeast Asia

New winds are blowing in the writing of the economic history of Southeast Asia. The traditional Eurocentric perspective of the colonial economy is gradually giving way to a more Asian perspective stressing similarities and mutual links within the region itself. The issue of Western expansion now appears less vital than long-run economic developments in the Asian economies. Political power struggles in colonial relationships are squeezed aside and replaced by a more quantification and an increasing appreciation of dynamic change that does not readily fit into the model of Westernstyle modernization. The aim of this article is to discuss some positions and directions that have come to the fore in the economic history of Southeast Asia in recent years. Without claiming to offer a full coverage of the field, it is believed that trends thus identified may suggest, at least in part, the future course of Southeast Asian economic history.

Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Period; Twenty-Five Years On

The identity of “Southeast Asia” has been debated since the 1950s, when the region began to develop as an area of academic viability around which courses could be constructed, programmes built, and research published. Much less controversy has accompanied the growing use of “early modern”, a term which seems set to displace “precolonial” in periodizing Southeast Asian history. The phrase, of course, comes from scholarship on Europe, where it was popularized as a result of efforts to find shared “periods” that would facilitate the writing of a general history. It would be surprising if questions as to the applicability of “early modern” in Southeast Asia do not spark off some debate, especially in light of subaltern writings that reject the notion of modernity as a universal. For such historians the very invocation of the word implicitly sets a “modern Europe” against a “yet to be modernized non-Europe”. But whatever decision is made regarding terminology, scholarship on Southeast Asia is increasingly viewing a period that stretches from about the fifteenth to the early nineteenth century as rather different from those traditionally described as “classical” and “colonial/modern”. The term “early modern” itself is at present a convenient tool for historical reference, and only time will tell whether it will find general acceptance.

How unique was Srivijaya?

In BKI 151 (pp. 235-88) Jan Wisseman Christie published a substantial, admirable State-of-the-Art Review on 'State Formation in Early Maritime Southeast Asia'. In it she surveys the large volume of data on the region and the period produced by historians, archaeologists and anthropologists. Thanks to this article it has finally become possible, also for the non specialist, to form a general idea of this complex area. The author is to be complimented on this excellent publication. If I venture to make some comments here nevertheless, this is not with the intention of detracting from the merits of the article; these comments are meant rather to stimulate further discussion of some of the interesting issues raised in Dr. Wisseman's review. The section of the essay that interested me most is of course the one on State Formation and Social Science Models (pp. 237-43), as this is the field in which I have been working for quite some time. In this section Dr. Wisseman critically reviews a number of theories and models developed to distinguish the state from other forms of socio-political organization, such as chiefdoms and headmanships. She states that these more general models do not, however, provide 'a compelling description of any particular early state in maritime Southeast Asia' (1995:238). Such a description is said to be found rather in the works of regional specialists. The review of the works of scholars specializing in Southeast Asian history and anthropo logy that then follows shows, however, that they do not provide very con vincing models, either. Neither Wittfogel's 'hydraulic society', nor Geertz's 'theatre state' or Van Naerssen's 'simple hydraulic society model' appears to be suitable for accounting for early maritime states. This is a result of the rather special structure of these states. As they were not typically territorial, or dependent on the subjection of agriculturists, it is not surprising that hydraulic or territorially oriented models fall short. These states were not characterized by urbanization, either. Their most important characteristic seems to have been trade: the maritime states of the region dominated trade over large distances. As the most important of these early maritime states, Dr. Wisseman points to Sumatra-based Srivijaya (1995:264 72). Like the good historian she is, she emphasizes the unique nature of this state, saying:

Presidential Address: Five Voices From Southeast Asia's Past

In 1962 the association for asian studies met, as this year, in Boston, at its fourteenth annual meeting, when the Association was addressed by its President that year, Lauriston Sharp. In his search for “some of the continuities and discontinuities of human experience in Southeast Asia,” Sharp proposed that “we should first work back from the present and up the little streams, the short runs of Southeast Asian history and prehistory” (Sharp 1962:5). Following Sharp's metaphor of time as the river, we can find that the rocks and rivulets, the surges and pools and mighty dams of a very minor river in the northern part of what is now called Thailand have much to tell us of the rich and complex past of Southeast Asia. We are concerned here with a small and, most would argue, inconsequential river; but any river at its spate is capable of raising and pushing along the largest boulders. I would hope that this particular river might serve to wash clean and highlight anew the ground that Sharp so eloquently covered so many years ago.

The eighteenth century in Southeast Asian history

The eighteenth century in Southeast Asian history

The Cambridge history of Southeast Asia: v.1: From early times to c. 1800

The Cambridge history of Southeast Asia: v.1: From early times to c. 1800

Local Integration and Eurasian Analogies: Structuring Southeast Asian History, c. 1350—c. 1830

The historiography of precolonial Southeast Asia remains remarkably fragmented and inaccessible, even by the standards of that variegated region. We have a limited number of country monographs. But no systematic overview of Southeast Asian political or economic history has been attempted for all, or even part, of the period between the waning of the classical states in the fourteenth century and the onset of high colonialism in the early nineteenth. Scholarly surveys, like the magisterial and still standardmagnum opusof D. G. E. Hall, make discretion the better part of valor by providing separate country chapters without integrative theme or comment.

In Search of an Autonomous History of Southeast Asia

The history of Southeast Asian countries has been studied for almost four generations. History of Southeast Asia edited by Ishii Yoneo, volume four in the recently completed Southeast Asian Studies, indicates the current level of work in Japan on the subject, since eight of the contributors are leading Japanese scholars. From this book we are able to discern the frontier of Japanese research on the subject. The main focus of this review will be survey how far an autonomous Southeast Asian history has been established in Japan.In his introduction, Ishii clearly traces the trend from heterogeneous to autonomous historical studies in the search on Southeast Asia. While he does not refer to the effects of cultural background on the historical viewpoints of scholars, he dose argue that heterogeneous view of Southeast Asian history are formed not only from the nature of the source materials, but also from the individual scholar's personal values. In this regard, the paper by Nitta Eiji is suggestive in emphasizing the importance of settling the typological order of excavated pottery and other artifacts over a wider area, in order to exclude subjectivity from the study of the region's pre-history.One of the common themes in the study of Southeast Asian history is Indianization or Islamization. In this volume the former phenomenon is treated by Sakurai Yumio and the latter by Nakamura Mitsuo. Sakurai takes the agriculture of Kanchipuram in south India as the model for Indianized Southeast Asian agriculture and attempts to reveal the economic base of urban areas formed during the Angkor period by employing the theory of hydraulic cities proposed by B. Ph. Groslier. Nakamura elucidates the process of the expansion of Islam through the Southeast Asian archipelago. Neither of them pay much attention to any domestic motivation. Althought lacking sufficient evidence, Sakurai presumes that the agriculture of northeast Thailand at that time was similar to Kanchipuram simply because the area was Indianized. In the same way, Nakamura describes the expansion of Islam as if the Malay world had been shaped by Islamic power. This type of attitude is also to be seen in the article by Hamashita Takeshi. It depicts Southeast Asian countries during the period of the Ming and Qin dynasties as incorporated within the Chinese world order formed by the system of tribute paid to the Emperor. His way of thinking could be described as “Sinocentric.”Papers by Ikehata Setsuho and Ishii Yoneo on the spiritual world of Southeast Asian people also appear in this volume. Ikehata sheds light on the mechanism by which Catholicism shaped and modified the social order, while Ishii deals with Theravada Buddhism in a similar fashion. Both reveal the contradictory roles of these religions in ruling the people while at the same time offering them concepts of resistance to government. The logic of this paradox is to be found not in Catholic or Buddhist systems of thought per se but in the manner by which they were adopted locally. Both discussions display low regard for native Southeast Asian thought.Takaya Yoshikazu describes dynamically the relationship between ecology and history, as trade with the outside world changed the ecosystem, bringing about agricultural expansion. It is difficult to accept, however, his explanation that the ecosystem or factors external to society determine the impetus and direction of history. Basing his ideas on Anthony Reid's theory that Southeast Asia composed a single world system during the Age of Commerce, Oki Akira examines whether Southeast Asia might be regarded as a unified world, and tries to build up an effective paradigm within which to study Southeast Asian history. Although his is a creative approach, there are some problems, such as the fact that he accepts a priori the fact that Southeast Asia was indeed a unified world. The topics of trade relations and trading networks c

Research Methodology in Study of Southeast Asian History

Research Methodology in Study of Southeast Asian History

Craniofacial Features of Southeast Asians and Jomonese: A Reconsideration of Their Microevolution Since the Late Pleistocene.

Univariate and multivariate statistical procedures were applied to 24 measurements recorded in 944 crania from East and Southeast Asia and Oceania to assess the possible origins and affinities of these populations with special reference to the origin of Jomonese. The results show that Jomonese are much more like the prehistoric mainland Southeast Asians and recent aboriginal people in Borneo, the Dajaks, than like East Asians, Polynesians (Hawaiians), western Micronesians (Guamanians), Melanesians, and Australians. The orthodox view of Southeast Asian prehistory has held that the region was occupied by Australomelanesians before the southern expansion of Chinese between 2, 000 and 4, 000 years ago. The contradictory findings presented here form the basis of an alternative view that Southeast Asian craniofacial features resulted from local evolution, not admixture. The present findings favor the prehistoric Southeast Asians, with lesser admixture with East Asian invaders from the north, as the most likely source for not only the present-day Southeast Asians, but also prehistoric Jomonese, and the Pacific populations.

Pre-history of the Japan Society for Southeast Asian History

Pre-history of the Japan Society for Southeast Asian History

In Celebration of the 25th Anniversary of the Japan Society for Southeast Asian History

In Celebration of the 25th Anniversary of the Japan Society for Southeast Asian History

LATER PREHISTORY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND EARLIEST CONTACTS WITH INDIA] Ceramic technology in Thailand

LATER PREHISTORY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND EARLIEST CONTACTS WITH INDIA] Ceramic technology in Thailand

LATER PREHISTORY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND EARLIEST CONTACTS WITH INDIA] The relationship between early Southeast Asian and Indian glass

LATER PREHISTORY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND EARLIEST CONTACTS WITH INDIA] The relationship between early Southeast Asian and Indian glass

LATER PREHISTORY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND EARLIEST CONTACTS WITH INDIA] In search of Suvarnabhumi: early sailing networks in the Bay of Bengal

LATER PREHISTORY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND EARLIEST CONTACTS WITH INDIA] In search of Suvarnabhumi: early sailing networks in the Bay of Bengal

LATER PREHISTORY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND EARLIEST CONTACTS WITH INDIA] Recent research at Gua Sireh (Serian) and Lubang Angin (Gunung Mulu National Park), Sarawak

LATER PREHISTORY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND EARLIEST CONTACTS WITH INDIA] Recent research at Gua Sireh (Serian) and Lubang Angin (Gunung Mulu National Park), Sarawak

LATER PREHISTORY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND EARLIEST CONTACTS WITH INDIA] The late prehistoric period in west-central Thailand

LATER PREHISTORY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND EARLIEST CONTACTS WITH INDIA] The late prehistoric period in west-central Thailand

Allochthonous terrane processes in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia comprises a complex agglomeration of allochthonous terranes located at the zone of convergence between the Eurasian, Indo-Australian and Philippine Sea plates. The older continental ‘core’ comprises four principal terranes, South China, Indochina, Sibumasu and East Malaya, derived from Gondwana-Land and assembled between the Carboniferous and the late Triassic. Other terranes (Mount Victoria Land, Sikuleh, Natal, Semitau and S.W. Borneo) were added to this ‘core’ during the Jurassic and Cretaceous to form ‘Sundaland’. Eastern Southeast Asia (N. and E. Borneo, the Philippines and eastern Indonesia) comprises fragments rifted from the Australian and South China margins during the late Mesozoic and Cenozoic which, together with subduction complexes, island arcs and marginal seas, form a complex heterogeneous basement now largely covered by Cenozoic sediments. Strike-slip motions and complex rotations, due to subduction and rifting processes and the collisions of India with Eurasia and Australia with Southeast Asia, have further complicated the spatial distribution of these Southeast Asian terranes. A series of palinspastic maps showing the interpreted rift-drift-amalgamation-accretion history of Southeast Asia are presented.

Communications to the Editor

In response to a review of his At the Edge of Southeast Asian History in JAS v.48 no.3 (August 1989): 690-91, by Alfred W. McCoy

An ‘Age of Commerce’ in Southeast Asian History

Since the end of World War II the study of Southeast Asia has changed unrecognizably. The often bitter end of colonialism caused a sharp break with older scholarly traditions, and their tendency to see Southeast Asia as a receptacle for external influences—first Indian, Persian, Islamic or Chinese, later European. The greatest gain over the past forty years has probably been a much increased sensitivity to the cultural distinctiveness of Southeast Asia both as a whole and in its parts. If there has been a loss, on the other hand, it has been the failure of economic history to advance beyond the work of the generation of Furnivall, van Leur, Schrieke and Boeke. Perhaps because economic factors were difficult to disentangle from external factors they were seen by very few Southeast Asianists as the major challenge.