Where is Southeast Asia in the "East and West"-World?

“Re-reading history: the fact that Asia and the West exist in contemporaneous time has led many to assume that the same forces of history apply and thus the validity of the same discourses. While there are some points of universal validity, many perspectives obviously need to be re-framed. But it would appear that this is not obvious after all” ~Tay Kheng Soon~

When East and West stand for two words defining accumulation of unseen forces and concepts; we tend to forget that the earth is a huge, round, evolving mass – and reduce the whole meaning of cardinal directions into one big chunk of imaginary conception. An imaginary line drew upon the globe, from which applies a total simplification of earth historicity and civilization of men. Then, add to it a word “globalization”, and what Tay Kheng Soon says occurred as something that define and determine all the mislead perspectives as implication of minimum criticality. What about another part then, and where are they exactly? As one of Southeast Asian species thus I asked myself: where is Southeast Asia?

Zheng He Map of the World

Let us not to forget that the term “Southeast Asia” is a very young term used since late 19^th century. Then, for political and economic reasons, it’s been used to define what we have today – all the countries collided in ASEAN and several other countries like East Timor and the seven sister countries; or territories part of other countries like Hongkong. The origin of people itself often been forgotten in regards to the significance of today nation-hood. Stands between two great powers in Asia – China and India; Southeast Asia practically unseen in that world of East and West. Why? Because it is then be considered as one part of the Big East, and then– a part of eastern part of the East. It is in fact a part of, and which forms the East. But just as I think that it is too simple to call East and West, it is almost ridiculous to put Southeast Asia in one bowl of understanding as East Asia. An implication of which, it is almost stupid to apply East Asian urbanism or even worst, put the same constraints on the study of urbanism in Southeast Asia.

Why is it important to define Southeast Asia’s position in this project?

It is not that I’m trying to form or give another definition of Southeast Asia. I am not trying to whether classified or simply specify the boundaries of the project. This is not about the boundaries. The main point which becomes a stressed standpoint for me is that the land and the people existence are beyond the boundaries we created. Beyond the imaginary lines, beyond the history line, and totally beyond the nation-hood we formed; there are people and there is the land – to where they attached, dwell and develop. When a state being built on one point in the timeline and the history start to be written inside a frame of nation-hood, the development might also being placed on certain boundaries and time, and given some exact starting points – but it doesn’t mean that the people and their development also start anew. Therefore culture – or urban culture in this case, must not be considered as some soft tissues that existed only from those starting points. 
I believe that urban culture in particular, must not be considered only attached  to people inside a history frame of state or nation-hood; instead it has to be deemed as soft tissues of today’s urban life that attached more to the history of people and their life, which rooted and at the same time deep influenced by their primal existence as civilization. Despite the fact that multi-degrees flow of transformation happened and world development had changed layers of either hard and soft tissues of urban life; it is almost impossible even only to read the transformation by given only specified time inside that very closure of nation-hood. Thus when it comes to cities inside global world – or worst - global cities, we must be careful not to be trapped inside ‘global’ contemporary frame.

With that in mind, Southeast Asia: its position, its relation with great neighboring powers, its people and their development becomes very important – with taking into account their origin and their main cause of influenced tendencies. In this regards, I have to mention – as would anyone who does research upon this region; that up until today there are still many debates and  discourses on the origin of people and the primal civilization in Southeast Asia due to lack of recognizable local written text. This fact has been one of the obstacles in theorizing contemporary tendencies in Southeast Asia. In addition, many recognizable texts are foreign travel journals or history telling with deviated names and perspective – the ignorance of which, might had made some biased perspectives or point of view on the context. But actually beyond all the confusion and many discourses on the subject, there are some facts and red line that scientifically proved and logically acceptable, fit to many aspects of today’s condition in the region. This very line is what made it possible for us to see that this region we called Southeast Asia could be put on the same historicity, and one angle of understanding. That is why, it is essential in this project for me to define version of perception about Southeast Asia.

Putting Southeast Asia outside the states frame, I regard Southeast Asia as part of the earth comprised of sea and islands (together as one) eastern to India and Northern to Australia. It stretched from mainland South China, through Indochina and Sunda islands[1], to the western Pacific (Oceania). I agree with Solheim (2000) who included today’s south China (mainland) and Taiwan, as well as Hongkong, and all islands around. All Nusantara’s[2] islands are included in the region, thus also the land of today’s Bandung as a specific site of comparison in this project. This is only a way to put Southeast Asia into a logically easier understanding – about the land, the people, their ancient civilization and culture. Only then we could see more clearly a transformation link, specifically in the context of social culture and social space within globalized world we live today, by closely relate it to the people.

Naga: Great Sea-dwellers and Mainland Traders from the Paradise of Earth

“Think of a people living on boats or on houses built on piles in bays and estuaries. The type of people that still exist today all over Southeast Asia. Some of them like the Badjau, and "Sea Gypsies" are semi-nomadic in lifestyle. The Nusantao that began migrating north through the Philippines to China sometime before 5000 BC were just such a people" ~Paul Kekai Manansala~

Orang laut (lit. sea people) like Badjau and Samal in the Philippines are still existed - Austronesian speaking - sea dwellers in Southeast Asia. Their existence is one of some traces of ancient civilization in Southeast Asia. Solheim[3] called them “Nusantao”, semi-nomadic people who survived the big flood on the end of Pleistocene, some of whom migrated to the northern hemisphere through the Philippines to mainland Asia. Most of them were once sea gypsies and skillful maritime traders of clove and cinnamon. It is not by coincidence that Solheim used the term Nusantao (comes from “nusa” – means island, and “tau” – means people), while the term Nusantara[4] used by Indonesian to call the country since the glory of Majapahit empire era. The same logic applied to both names, as Southeast Asia has more sea, with chunks of islands abound; and so the sea dwellers are considered as people of the spread islands.

“I now define Nusantao as natives of Southeast Asia, and their descendants, a maritime oriented culture from their beginnings, those beginnings probably in southeastern Island Southeast Asia a bit before 5000 B.C. A majority of the people with this culture, at any one time, spoke a Malayo-Polynesian language but there was no doubt a varying sized minority of them, from time to time, who did not speak a related language”

(Solheim 1975a:158). 

“At any one time there were also many other Malayo-Polynesian speakers living in the interior of the larger islands who were not maritime oriented. … The Nusantao and the non-maritime Malayo-Polynesian speakers no doubt were constantly mixing genetically, culturally, and linguistically”

(Solheim 2000).

In line with HUGO (Human Genome Organization)’s founding, Christy Turner and Tsunehiko Hanihara, Solheim believes that the Nusantao-s are Austronesian speakers who transmitted the language and culture into insular Southeast Asia and the Pacific islands along the eastern coast of Southeast Asian mainland, rather than through the island of Taiwan. The transmission of which, according to Solheim is brought by maritime trading network.

“If rice came to Taiwan it would have been Oryza sativa japonica, the type of rice grown in China at this time. I have shown that it is likely that the earliest rice in Taiwan and the Philippines was javanica and not japonica and that this rice not only came from Indonesia, but continued through the Philippines and Taiwan to Japan where it amounts to 7% of the rice grown today in Japan” (Solheim 1993b).

“Early Nusantao Maritime Trading Network, after advancing from south to north through the Philippines, reached southern Taiwan and coastal southeastern China sometime shortly before5000 B.C. … these people were very adaptable to new conditions. With their knowledge both of the ocean and of landbased economic activities such as hunting, gathering, and horticulture,they quickly incorporated the new cultural elements they came into contact with” (Solheim 2000) 

"In his Antiquities of the Jews, he said the voyages which began from the Red Sea port of Ezion-geber were destined for the island of Chryse far to the east in the Indian Ocean. ... Where then was the island of Chryse mentioned by Josephus? Greek geographers usually placed it east of the Ganges river mouth. Medieval writings placed it near where the Indian Ocean met the Pacific Ocean. In modern times, Chryse has been equated by scholars with the land known in Indian literature as Suvarnadvipa. Both Chryse and Suvarnadvipa mean “Gold Island.” The latter was also located in Indian writings well to the east of India in the “Southern Ocean” and is identified by most scholars with the Malay Archipelago (“the East Indies”).... Josephus’ theory of voyages to Southeast Asia was supported indirectly about a half-century later by Philo of Byblos who translated the History of Phoenicia by Sanchuniathon.
~Paul Kekai Manansala~ 

Beatus map around 13th century - locates the
"Earthly Paradise" in Southeast Asia.
[notice that the map has South at the top]

This trading network mentioned by Solheim is a maritime trading network, a trail of which had been seen through pottery culture and art patterns across the world. Later after the great migration and intercultural-change, it stretched as far as westward to Africa then eastward to India, northward to China, and far eastward to Polynesia and Equatorial mainland America. When global economy developed around 2000 BC to 1AD, travel reports and written journals mentioned them as main spice suppliers and gold traders from the rich land in the far east. It was then known as Chryse to the Greek, Svarnadvipa to the Indian, Sanfotsi and Toupo to the Chinese, as well as Zabag and Waqwaq to the Arabs. All of which are names that means "land of gold", given to the particular early known region flourished with gold. Europeans early knowledge about this region were very limited, wallowed around legends and myth of the spice Eden in the East; brought by muslim traders. The ventures of Europeans on the 6^th century AD that eager to find Southeast Asia were halted several centuries because of limited knowledge on monsoon secret. When the maritime spice route finally opened to the Europeans after the fall of caliphate’s monopoly, legend of abundant gold in the “Earthly Paradise” tempted and boosted expeditions; thus came the Portuguese to Goa and Malacca – followed by their many fellow Europeans like the British and the Dutch East Indian Company.    

The maritime trading network also spread the unexhausted diversity in Southeast Asia, since the Nusantao-s are very open to any culture and way of life, intermarriages and cultural exchanges during the migration and trade. Besides, the early pre-historic human species found in the region has confirmed that great diversity already existed even before the northward migration. Great differences also occurred between maritime-oriented Nusantao-s, mainland Southeast Asian from bigger islands, and their descendants. It is very logic, that animism and megalith-religion mainly become dominant faith in a semi-nomadic people of Southeast Asia and later to their descendants. Their tolerant manner is also derived from rapid amalgamation and high adaptation ability towards new land. Since they have almost no ties to the land and regarded sea as place to live, there are no needs to record exact place and time, as well as written journals. This could be a possible logic of why is it so difficult to find written local notes. 

Chinezed or Indianized?

“It is believed today that the Indian cultural penetration in Southeast Asia was simply driven by trade, …. supported by abundant findings of Indian goods (rouletted pottery, glass beads, etc) in Austronesian settlements, proving that strong commercial contacts were established long before the appearance of the first Hindu kingdoms [in Southeast Asia]” ~Paul M. Munoz~

Munoz considers the theory of gold in the Hindu mythology that symbolizes the creation and the power of rulers; a reason for Indians to import their gold. Indonesia and Burma said to be the most attractive region. That is how Sanskrit names had been given to these countries like Svarnabhumi (land of gold), Svarnadvipa (island of gold), and Karpuradvipa (island of camphor). But he also noted that there is historical proof that in some cases gold trade was abandoned for spices. Furthermore there is also proof that gold have been brought to the Indian market by Austronesian sailors. On this account, considering also the quest for trade by Indians – stories brought by local sailors and Indian traders found its way to the ears of local rulers in Southeast Asia.

Hindu concepts of life and religion seemed to be an excellent way to legitimate their power and to change their status from an elected chieftain [note that chieftaincy in ancient Southeast Asian mandalas is a regularly challenged position and not a hereditary status] to the more interesting status of divine king.  Indian culture thus provided an institutional framework to already existing but locally limited indigenous political entities[5]. The result of this was the changing status of many local mandalas into thriving early kingdoms in Southeast Asia during 1^st century AD. One of which is Salakanagara in West Java – Indonesia, which I consider as one of focal points in the historicity of this project. New leaders in these kingdoms used the title of Raja or Maharaja, are the ones who selected Indian cultures in line to their needs, and made diffusion with local culture possible – included religion, literature as well as art. The interchanged culture results in a large diversity of Hindu cults in Southeast Asia.

“an example of elements in total contradiction with Indian usage is that… According to the old Austronesian customs, dynastic rules of kingship transmission along a lineage (like primogeniture) were not implemented. … local religious cults remained strong and assumed new forms, while local myths and rites were integrated in the Great Sanskrit literature, thus resulting in a great cultural diversity in the Southeast Asian kingdom.”

~Paul M. Munoz~

On the other hand,  Chinese cultural influence in Southeast Asia can be seen through two lines. First, the great migration of Nusantao to the north as mentioned above. Second, it was the maritime trading network between later development of both insular and mainland Southeast Asia, to upper mainland China. But during the economic boom on around 1^st century AD, maritime and land trade to the Chinese was controlled by Funan (located around Vietnam now) mandala which located in insular Southeast Asia, as gate to the Chinese market. Thus when early kingdoms developed in Southeast Asia during 1^st to 3^rd century AD, only Indian culture freely penetrated and assimilated with the local culture; and when Funan mandala losing its power on around 5^th century, direct contact with China didn’t result in such intense cultural interchange.

In contrast with theories that put Southeast Asia in great influences of either one of two great power in Asia: India and China, and considering the way both culture made its way to the region, it is understandable that neither one of the two cultures really dominated the later development of religion and culture in Southeast Asia. Geographical separation, like Munoz mentioned quoting LW. Mabbett – is a great obstacle. The sea was a great constraint which made only limited migration and contacts from both region. Even with Indian culture influence, early Southeast Asian kingdoms presenting over time less and less Indian character.

It is then arguably possible to connect this logic with later coming influences from the Arabs and Europeans colonization in the region. Not even one of those coming culture and interchange (either forced by colonization or not) really survived and dominate the culture in today’s Southeast Asia. The results of these are ‘eclectic’ mixed aspects with ancient customs and culture.

In Indonesia, it is clear that Indian influences assimilated more to the local culture. Salakanagara for example, is an early kingdom which changed its status from the mandala by penetration of Hindu to the local cult of JatiSunda. It is only possible for Dewawarman who is a merchant from India, to be Raja of Salakanagara by marriage to the local chieftain’s daughter.

A View Beyond Historicity

So where is Southeast Asia? It might be located in the far East to the Arabs, African or Phoenicians, it might be located on the south or near east to the Chinese or Indians, It might even be in the center as “Paradise on earth” with 4 overflowing major rivers to the Europeans. It is on the West to the American and Oceanian in the Pacific. Southeast Asian are gold traders to the Indians and Phoenicians, spice suppliers for the African, natural disaster immigrants to the south Chinese, seafarers and explorers to the equatorial American. This long period of maritime exploration and trading network is a great force in Southeast Asian history. Their original culture, tradition, religion and customs which gradually deviates through time, are most of all rooted on this line of stories.  

I would like to propose this story only to be regard as one angle of re-reading the history of Southeast Asia. As Tay Kheng Soon said, many perspectives obviously need to be re-framed. Not only our perspectives of the history line, but also on how the angle of history being applied on today’s study and research. I provide here only a reading related to the origin of people and its development until before the Europeans expansion. I would rather diminish the word East and West, and instead refer to the people itself. Notice the difference in the world map I selected, that also has different perspective on orientation, it refers only to the land and the people encountered.

This angle of story would become a base on the development of the project history line. It is a base to understand the transformation happened, in the culture and people’s view of space. I put the later development on more specific context of globalization and postcolonial issues. 

Agnes Stephania Astrapia
Barcelona, 2011

---

[1] See Glossary (B2)

[2] See Glossary (B1) 

[3] See more about Wilhem G. Solheim II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Solheim

[4] See Glossary (B1)

[5] Munoz, Paul. M, “Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula”. Singapore: 2006. P.58.