We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2009
That view of the history of maritime South East Asia which fixed a rigid dividing line in 1511 or 1600, and regarded the assertion of European dominance in the area as marking the frontier between traditional and modern history, has long ago been discredited and discarded. It led to the treatment of the earlier history of Malaya and Indonesia as a mere prelude to the coming of the Europeans, or at least as an era without relevance to later events, to which special criteria must be applied. The later history was treated predominantly as the story of European activities and rivalries, and purely western criteria were applied even to indigenous themes. All this is now regarded as unscientific, and labelled ‘Europe-centric’. Few, if any, contemporary historians would challenge this judgment so far as the internal history of Malaya and Indonesia and their component parts are concerned, and, though there is still ample room for discussion as to its application in practice, this paper does not seek to re-open the debate. It is concerned not so much with the development of maritime South East Asian society, or with the history of individual states within what are now Malaysia and Indonesia, as with the relations of these states with each other.
1. See for instance Bastin, J. S., The Western Element in Modern Southeast Asian History (Kuala Lumpur 1960)Google Scholar, and Smail, John, “On the Possibility of an Autonomous History of Modern Southeast Asia”, Journal of Southeast Asian History, vol. 2. No. 2 (Singapore 07 1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Resink, G. J., “Onafhankelijke Vorsten, Rijken en Landen in Indonesië Tussen 1850 en 1910,” in Indonesia, IX (1956), pp. 265–296.Google Scholar
3. See for instance John Legge's approving quotation of Hall's dictum in this sense with reference to a period as early as the seventeenth century [Legge, J.D., Indonesia (Prentice-Hall 1964), p. 62Google Scholar, quoting Hall, D.G.E., History of South-East Asia (Macmillan 1955 edition), p. 251].Google Scholar
4. Tarling, Nicholas, Anglo-Dutch Rivalry in the Malay World, 1780–1824 (Queensland 1962)Google Scholar, and British Policy in the Malay Peninsula and Archipelago, 1824–1871 (JMBRAS, vol. XXX, Pt. 3, 1957)Google Scholar, Irwin, Graham, Nineteenth-Century Borneo: a Study in Diplomatic Rivalry (VKITLV, XV, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Cowan, C. D., Nineteenth-Century Malaya: the origins of British Political Control (OUP, 1961)Google Scholar, to name but a few.
5. Since most of the factual material incorporated in this paper is not, per se, new or controversial, I have thought it best in general not to cumber the text with supporting references. A brief reading list for non-specialist readers is suggested: Allen, G.C. and Donnithorne, A.G., Western Enterprise in Indonesia and Malaya, London 1957Google Scholar; Coedes, G., Les Etats Hindouisés d'Indochine et d'Indonésie, Paris 1964Google Scholar edition; de Graaf, H.J., Geschiedenis van Indonesië, 's-Gravenhage 1949Google Scholar; Hall, D.G.E., A History of South-East Asia, Macmillan, 1964Google Scholar edition; van Leur, J.C., Indonesian Trade and Society, The Hague 1955Google Scholar; Meilink-Roelofsz, M.A.P., Asian Trade and European Influence in the Indonesian Archipelago between 1500 and about 1630, The Hague 1962Google Scholar; Schrieke, B.J.O., Indonesian Sociological Studies, vol. 1, The Hague 1955Google Scholar; Vlekke, B.H M., Nusantara, The Hague 1959Google Scholar; Ken, Wong Lin, The Trade of Singapore, 1819–69, JMBRAS. XXXIII, Pt. 4, 1960.Google Scholar
6. I am obliged to Professor O.W. Wolters of Cornell University for his advice and criticism of this portion of the paper, and for allowing me access to an as yet unpublished paper of his own bearing on the subject.
