Talk:Maritime Southeast Asia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ssapplet.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

comment

I suggest that when referring to the islands alone as a geographical area the term Malay Archipelago (excluding peninsular bodies) be used,if adverting to its maritime culture the term Maritime Southeast Asia (including peninsular bodies) be used. -(unsigned comment) Hector 20:46, 27 June 2007 58.69.12.253

Citation needed for Singapore as Maritime SEA

There is some merit in Hector's points. No one would seriously dispute that Singapore is "Maritime Southeast Asia" if that term connotes a purely geographical meaning. On the other hand, if the term is to be used to connote sea-faring, maritime based cultures, then it is apt to cover a wider geographical areas as well, arguably encompassing coastal Vietnam (which has a strong sea-faring tradition), to the southern edges of the South China Sea, like China's Hainan Island).

But regardless of which meaning we adopt, Singapore arguably fits both. I see no need to distinguish between an Austronesian-type cultural sphere, and Singapore's non-Austronesian Sinitic majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.243.19 (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Maritime Southeast Asia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Maritime Southeast Asia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Simanjuntak2017":

• From History of Southeast Asia: Simanjuntak, Truman (2017). "The Western Route Migration: A Second Probable Neolithic Diffusion to Indonesia". In Piper, Hirofumi Matsumura and David Bulbeck, Philip J.; Matsumura, Hirofumi; Bulbeck, David (eds.). New Perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific Prehistory. terra australis. Vol. 45. ANU Press. ISBN 9781760460952.
• From Austronesian peoples: Simanjuntak T (2017). "The Western Route Migration: A Second Probable Neolithic Diffusion to Indonesia" (PDF). In Piper PJ, Matsumura H, Bulbeck D (eds.). New Perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific Prehistory. terra australis. Vol. 45. ANU Press. pp. 201–212. doi:10.22459/TA45.03.2017.11. ISBN 9781760460952. JSTOR j.ctt1pwtd26.18. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
• From Peopling of Southeast Asia: Simanjuntak T (2017). "The Western Route Migration: A Second Probable Neolithic Diffusion to Indonesia" (PDF). In Piper PJ, Matsumura H, Bulbeck D (eds.). New Perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific Prehistory. terra australis. Vol. 45. ANU Press. pp. 201–212. doi:10.22459/TA45.03.2017.11. ISBN 9781760460952. JSTOR j.ctt1pwtd26.18. Retrieved 4 April 2021.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Aren't ISEA and MSEA often given different definitions

Academic papers about Island (or insular) Southeast Asia appear to differentiate this region from Maritime Southeast Asia. For instance the review[1] roundly criticises an author for confusing "maritime" with "island", in discussing maritime Southeast Asia. A definition of Island Southeast Asia is found in this academic paper[2] : "Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) comprises the tropical islands lying in between mainland East Asia and Taiwan to the northwest and Australia and New Guinea to the southeast." My understanding is that Maritime Southeast Asia also contains the parts of the mainland that have a significant sea coast - so that includes countries like Vietnam.

This is an important distinction for both biology and archaeology/history, because there are differences between the spread of species, people, ideas/technology in mainland areas and on islands. This is particularly so in a region that is bisected by the Wallace line.

It appears to me that Island Southeast Asia is a geographic region that is part of, but also different from the larger geographic region Maritime Southeast Asia. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

All these terms are overlapping and vague, as with most terms that are vaguely geographical. However, we do separate pages along the lines you mention, between here and Malay archipelago for just the islands. This page for example includes Peninsular Malaysia, although it doesn't include coastal areas of Cambodia, Vietnam, and Myanmar that are mentioned in your great source. CMD (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If the terms are overlapping and vague, shouldn't the article make that clear? At the moment, it seems to be totally definite on the definitions. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, although it's more a general comment on all geographical areas rather than something specific to this topic. Perhaps your source could be used to note the mixed usage? CMD (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Point taken on potential changes to article. I will do a bit more trawling for sources that are specific in providing a definition, to support the many that give an implied definition. Britannica's article on East Indies[3] seems about right, but I instinctively resist using a competitor as a source.

This would be a good opportunity to include mention of the Wallace line, which is arguably the (?a) key geographic point about this region. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the distinction per your source is that this term is based on the distinctly human maritime trading area, the Wallace line seems less relevant here than topics such as the Maritime Silk Road and the Austronesian maritime trade network (both of which touch the areas of Cambodia, Vietnam, and Myanmar mentioned in your source). CMD (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to Bulbeck in the Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (which frustratingly I cannot access in full due to some glitch with Springer's site), the Wallace line is highly relevant to the early period of human colonisation of ISEA. This is for several reasons. Firstly the biogeographical boundary proves that accidental rafting is not a viable explanation of human settlement of islands the other side of the line. Accidental rafting was once a theory with some popularity. Secondly the dramatic drop in the number of species available makes subsistence on the smaller islands problematical. Not only is there a smaller range of prey species and edible plants, but those materials that are part of the maritime technology used to get there may not be available. Therefore if something breaks or wears out, unless a substitute is available, the new settlers have lost their maritime mobility. (Fortunately, Pandanus is found on both sides of the line – it is used for making mat sails.) Many of those who write in this field have mentioned the Wallace line- the most immediately accessible ref for me on that is The Oxford Handbook on Prehistoric Oceania, Chapter 2 The Peopling of Sahul and Near Oceania, pg 37; but also touched on in Jett's Ancient Ocean Crossings and mentioned in McGrail's Boats of the World.

Of the two articles you mention, I recently tagged some content of Austronesian maritime trade network with a failed verification template. There is a noticeable frequency of articles in this broad subject area that have failed verifications. One hallmark is to have three different references, none of which confirm the article content. It is, to say the least, frustrating. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. This discussion opened about the distinction between MSEA and ISEA, the Bulbeck source seems explicitly targeted at ISEA, not MSEA. CMD (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Bulbeck is the only source that I can find who gives an actual definition of either term. Everyone else presumes you know what they mean. Andaya's review of Shaffer implies that the two terms are different, but doesn't say what that difference is. (Incidentally, the review of Shaffer is as damning a review as I have ever seen, yet the work is used as a source in the article. Makes one wonder whether it should be considered an RS.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Bulbeck does assign significant importance to the Wallace line (more specifically the Huxley line I suppose, as Bulbeck mentions Palawan as an Eastern border). Unsure how much access you have, so noting here Bulbeck defines ISEA as "the triangle of islands lying between the Philippines, Aru (southern Moluccas), and Sumatra, excluding the Malay Peninsula". Adding too for the record the Andaya commentary on the broad meaning of MSEA: "From the outset the book's title and its actual content are at odds because of the tendency to confuse "maritime" with "island." Even Shaffer's view of maritime Southeast Asia is restricted. As the mainland, only the coast of Cambodia ("Funan") and (very briefly) central Vietnam are included, a view that minimizes the strong trading links between the islands and other mainland coastal areas such as Pegu...giving scant attention to the special place of Melaka in the 15th century and to the transition to Islam, which was so critical in the region's history". My reading of Andaya is that the maritime area is strongly defined by the maritime trade networks, perhaps worth distinguishing temporally from the Bulbeck dive into ISEA history. As for a frustration with references, alas I am afraid that remains quite common in en.wiki's coverage of this area's prehistory. CMD (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

As a (probably) trivial comment, being someone who trained as a biologist and now has an interest in the pre-history and early history of maritime technology, my terminological requirements for defining a geographic area are different from someone looking at the history of trade centred around 1500 CE. If you are discussing an era in which boats and ships are a sufficiently mature technology for significant trade and transportation, the distinction that I look for between mainland regions with a seacoast and islands becomes a lot less relevant.

I am still looking out for definitions of either terms (ISEA/MSEA) and may reach an RS-supported opinion on how to modify the article. At present I do not have a source that clearly says that definitions vary. I simply have (a) a source that states there is a difference (without saying what that is) (b) a source that gives a clear definition of one of the terms (c) a source that specifically states that they use ISEA and MSEA interchangeably (The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization, ch 8.4 Tracing maritime connections between Island Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean world.) (I guess that (c) is a case of there being a mature maritime technology for the level of contact discussed.) and finally (d) Encyclopedia Britannica's article (linked above) which defines Insular Southeast Asia in the way I would expect (as an alternative term for the East Indies). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Ad (a): the review of Andaya is a bit confusing, since apparently she would like to see maritime-oriented mainland polities (such as Pegu and Funan) included in a discussion of Maritime Southeast Asia, which feels at odds with my understanding of the term (speaking as a historical linguist who originates from SE Asian Studies).

Ad (b): another source that explicitly delineates ISEA is Peter Bellwood's First Islanders (Fig. 1.1 on page 2, I hope it is visible to you in the Google Books link), where the complete Malay Archipelago plus Taiwan are shaded (but not the Malay Peninsula). On page 1, Bellwood writes: The islands of Southeast Asia – Sumatra to the Moluccas, Taiwan to Timor. The inclusion of Taiwan is also made by Bob Blust (a close collaborator of Bellwood) in The Austronesian Languages (p. 1): The major western island groups include the great Indonesian, or Malay Archipelago, to its north the smaller and more compact Philippine Archipelago, and still further north at 22 to 25 degrees north latitude and some 150 kilometres from the coast of China, the island of Taiwan (Formosa). Together these island groups constitute insular (or island) Southeast Asia.. Apart from the insular (allow me the pun) inclusion of Taiwan, the disjunction of the Malay Archipelago and the Philippine Archipelago is unusual; more commonly "Malay Archipelago" comprises the Philippine Islands.

Ad (c): the author Tom Hoogervorst also writes in a book chapter coauthored with the geoanthropologist Nicole Boivin: We refer to this region interchangeably as Maritime Southeast Asia, Island Southeast Asia and Insular Southeast Asia. It is also known as 'Malesia'. I will also try to dig up more sources which explicitly mention both terms.

Although unrelated to this discussion, I am worried about a certain "Austro-puffery" here that labels a lot of different things "Austronesian" beyond what I and many other linguists or historians consider the proper range of the term when used non-linguistically (e.g., the settlement of Madagascar has nothing to do with the Austronesian expansion), and also an emphasis on tenuous fringe views (things such as "They established trade routes with Southern India and Sri Lanka as early as 1500 BC"). Also, there is another small faction of editors that fail to understand that the term "Javanese" in early Arabic and Portuguese sources was an umbrella term for the inhabitants of the western part of the Malay Archipelago, and falsely identify mentions of "Javanese" with the Javanese ethnic group in the modern narrow sense (this article is most symptomatic for it: Javanese contact with Australia). –Austronesier (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, Bellwood's First Islanders does give a precise definition of ISEA in the text, as well as the map mentioned above. It is:
"For the purposes of this book, Island Southeast Asia includes Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei and the Sarawak and Sabah provinces of East Malaysia (northern Borneo), and all of the islands of Indonesia to the west of New Guinea." (p. 11)
I infer from "for the purposes of this book" that Bellwood is aware of other definitions of the term. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I think Andaya's definition may be that Maritime Southeast Asia is:
(i) the mainland part of Southeast Asia that faces ISEA,
(ii) plus ISEA.
(That, to me, would fit with "maritime" = "having access to the sea" (like the maritime provinces of Canada) and islands obviously being islands, without resorting to formal definitions.) But whilst we've found some definitions of ISEA, I don't see any for Maritime Southeast Asia (which annoyingly has the same initials as Mainland Southeast Asia). Or am I missing the point?

Thanks for the pointer on First Islanders. For some reason I couldn't get that to come up on google books.

I presume that you have spotted that Hoogervorst is the author of the paper in The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization, as mentioned above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

On the unrelated point of talking up Austronesian influence – the trade route one is a good example – the sources cited by the editors concerned attribute much of the groundwork of trade to predecessor groups. Those editors just do not see that content when editing. If I understand the story of the banana correctly, its spread substantially predates any Austronesian existence. Not according to the version we see in some articles. Sources also give credit to some of the distinctive maritime technology being developed before the Austronesian expansion - and we know the editors concerned have read them because they cite them for other article content. I don't know if it is "reading what you want to see" in sources, or a deliberate misrepresentation – but that is probably not a productive way of thinking. I wonder if this would be easier if we could find other valid terminology. Should the stop-gap article Austronesian vessels be retitled something like Sailing vessels of Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific? (The article needs a lot of work). Anyway, that's me done for the day. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Quoting from another review[4] of Shaffer (mentioned below regarding the quality of Shaffer as a source), "Maritime Southeast Asia" is defined by Shaffer as:
"the Malay Peninsula, the Vietnamese coast, and the present-day states of Indonesia and the Philippines."
Despite my concerns about Shaffer as a source, this fits conceptually with my expectation of what this term would mean (an understanding modelled on the "Maritime Provinces" of Canada). The review does not question the definition provided by Shaffer, does this mean it is a reasonable position? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Maritime Southeast Asia to 1500 by Lynda Norene Shaffer

I have just found a second review of Shaffer (a source used in this article) which characterises this work with:
"Unfortunately the book is plagued by problems and factual errors"
[5]
The review has further, more general criticisms.

Given the review by Barbara Watson Andaya[6] already identified on this talk page, which is also extremely critical of Shaffer's book, should we question whether Shaffer is an RS that is suitable for used on Wikipedia? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Huxley, Wallace and Wallacea

Noting this edit[7], I agree we have the potential to disappear down a terminological rabbit hole. The history of all these lines is well described in "Too Many Lines"[8], which takes a partisan position, as you can tell from the title. Unfortunately it suggests, as a conclusion, that we should use the Huxley Line and the Lyddekker Line. The original article content was based on Bellwood's First Islanders (pg 12). The Wallace Line and Wallacea (and none of the other lines) are used in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania, which despite its title goes into how humans crossed Wallacea in the chapter jointly written by Sue O'Connor. It avoids mentioning the Lyddekker line by talking about the "Sahul shelf". So that is two of the leading archaeologists of the area taking slightly different descriptive approaches. Both, however, have maps that show the Wallace Line in the same position, differentiating it from the Huxley Line, and in agreement with the map in "Too Many Lines".

For the article, the purpose of mentioning the Huxley line is if a discussion of the spread of pre-neolithic humans into the area is included. The purpose of this post is that future content may require the introduction of the concept of the Huxley line, but we might use Sue O'Connnor's strategy of not naming yet another line, but dealing with it in a descriptive manner. I am possibly thinking too far ahead in the editing process and acknowledge that my view may be tilted by having sat through lectures on the subject in (pretty much) the same era as the "Too Many Lines" paper mentioned above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)