Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:40:09.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Victor Lieberman
Victor Lieberman
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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 standard magnum opus of D. G. E. Hall, make discretion the better part of valor by providing separate country chapters without integrative theme or comment.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , July 1993 , pp. 475 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Research for this paper was assisted by grants from the Social Science Research Council, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Economic History Associaton. I wish to thank Merle Ricklefs, John Whitmore, Keith Taylor, Barbara Watson Andaya, Craig Reynolds, Rhoads Murphey, Juan Cole, C. S. Chang, Ernie Young, Albert Feuerwerker, Paul Forage, Valerie Kivelson, Ian Brown, Michael Cullinane, Anne Waters, and Jean-Charles Robin for their comments on earlier drafts, although they bear no responsibility for deficiencies in the current manuscript.

1 See Hall, , A History of South-East Asia, 4th edn (London, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Cady, John F., Southeast Asia: Its Historical Development (New York, 1964)Google Scholar. Their virtues notwithstanding, such popular introductions as Williams, Lea E., Southeast Asia: A History (New York, 1976)Google Scholar and Osborne, Milton, Southeast Asia: An Illustrated Introductory History (Sydney, 1988)Google Scholar reduce a thousand years to a few pages, and even these tend to be geographically segmented. By far the most integrated and original early modern study is Reid's, AnthonySoutheast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450–1680, vol. 1 (New Haven, 1988)Google Scholar. This offers an essentially synchronic socio-cultural overview, but defers until a second volume political and economic history. One also awaits the Cambridge History of Southeast Asia.

2 Hence the relatively large number of pre-1350 regional surveys, including Coedes, G., The Indianized States of Southeast Asia (Honolulu, 1968);Google ScholarWheatley, Paul, Nagara and Commandery (Chicago, 1983)Google Scholar; Hall, Kenneth, Maritime Trade and State Development in Early Southeast Asia (Honolulu, 1985);Google ScholarHigham, Charles, The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia (Cambridge, 1989);Google ScholarWolters, O. W., History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives (Singapore, 1982);Google ScholarHagesteijn, Renee, Circles of Kings (Dordrecht, 1989);Google ScholarExplorations in Early Southeast Asian History, Hall, Kenneth and Whitmore, John, eds (Ann Arbor, 1976);Google ScholarEarly South East Asia, Smith, R. B. and Watson, W., eds (New York, 1979).Google Scholar Apart from Reid, Age of Commerce, the only regional study focused on the period c. 1350–c. 1800 of which I am aware is Slavery, Bondage, and Dependency in Southeast Asia, Reid, Anthony, ed. (New York, 1983)Google Scholar.

3 See Reid, Anthony, ‘The Origins of Southeast Asian Poverty,’ in Scholarship and Society in Southeast Asia, Wilmott, W. E., ed. (Christchurch, N.Z., 1979), 33–49;Google ScholarIto, Takeshi and Reid, Anthony, ‘From Harbour Autocracies to “Feudal” Diffusion in Seventeenth Century Indonesia: The Case of Aceh’, in Feudalism: Comparative Studies, Leach, Edmund et al. , eds (Sydney, 1985), 197–213;Google ScholarReid, , ‘“Age of Commerce” in Southeast Asian History,’ Modern Asian Studies (MAS) 24, 1 (1990): 1–30;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, ‘The Seventeenth-Century Crisis in Southeast Asia,’ MAS 24, 4 (1990): 639–59Google Scholar; idem, ‘The System of Trade and Shipping in Maritime South and Southeast Asia,’ in The European Discovery of the World and Its Economic Effects on Pre-Industrial Society, 1500–1800, Pohl, Hans, ed. (Stuttgart, 1990), 73–96;Google ScholarKathirithamby-Wells, J., ‘Royal Authority and the Orang Kaya in the Western Archipelago, Circa 1500–1800,’ Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (JSEAS) 17, 2 (1986): 256–67;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, ‘Forces of Regional and State Integration in the Western Archipelago,’ JSEAS 18, 1 (1987): 24–44;Google ScholarLieberman, , Burmese Administrative Cycles: Anarchy and Conquest, c. 1580–1760 (Princetion, 1984), 1–14, 280–92;Google Scholaridem, ‘Reinterpreting Burmese History,’ Comparative Studies in Society and History (CSSH) 29, 1 (1987): 162–94;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, ‘Wallerstein's System and the International Context of Early Modern Southeast Asian History,’ Journal of Asian History 24, 1 (1990): 70–90.Google Scholar

4 ‘Indianized’ states refers to those polities whose codified religious, literary, and political traditions derived primarily from India in the first and early second millennia c.e. This Indianized zone (which after c. 1400 included both Buddhist and Islamic countries) is juxtaposed to more modest Sinicized Southeast Asia, i.e. Vietnam, and to Hispanized Southeast Asia, i.e., the northern and central Philippines.Google Scholar

5 For articulate, region-wide statements of this approach, see Reid in n. 3 supra, especially ‘Origins of Poverty,’ 44ff.; ‘Age of Commerce,’ 24–5; and ‘Seventeenth-Century Crisis,’ 641, 645–6, 656–7 (‘If we could [explain the 17th century transition], it would help explain the relative poverty and powerlessness of Southeast Asian states during the subsequent three hundred years,’ p. 641). Ibid., 646 refers to a ‘revival of some states, notably Vietnam, Burma, and Siam, only in the mid-nineteenth century,’ but characterizes these revivals as both late and ineffectual. The following studies also argue for a 17th-century watershed, albeit in more local contexts: Ann Kumar, ‘Developments in Four Societies over the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries,’ in The Development of Indonesion Society, Harry Aveling, ed. (Sydney, 1979), 1–44; George V. Smith, The Dutch in Seventeenth Century Thailand (De Kalb, Ill., 1977), 73; Alain Forest, ‘Le Siam dans le Mouvement de la Navigation et du Commerce à la Fin du XVIIème Siècle,’ The Journal of Sophia Asian Studies, 7 (1989): 42–81; B. Schrieke, Indonesian Sociological Studies, 2 vols (The Hague, 1955, 1957), I, 49–79.

6 See Thanh-Nha, Nguyen, Tableau économique du Vietnam aux XVII et XVIII siècles (Paris, 1970), 1–182, 229–33Google Scholar; Lieberman, Victor, ‘Secular Trends in Burmese Economic History, c. 1350–1830, and their Implications for State Formation,’ MAS 25, 1 (1991): 1–31;Google ScholarAung-Thwin, Michael, Irrigation in the Heartland of Burma (DeKalb, 1990);Google ScholarCarey, Peter, ‘Waiting for the Just King: The Agrarian World of South-Central Java from Giyanti (1755) to the Java War (1825–30),’ MAS 20, 1 (1986): 59–137.Google Scholar

7 See Lieberman, Victor, Eurasian Variants: A Comparative History of Early Modern Southeast Asia, forthcoming.Google Scholar

8 Arakan, Manipur, Sagaing, Pinya, Martaban, Prome, Toungoo, Mogaung (Mohnyin), Momeik, Kenghung, Kengtung, Lan Na (Chiengmai), Lopburi, Suphanburi (the latter two would coalesce in Ayudhya in 1351), Phayao, Nan, Sukhothai, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Angkor, Lan Sang (Laos), Champa, and Dai Viet (Vietnam). Cf. late 13th century map at Wyatt, David, Thailand: A Short History (New Haven, 1984), 40;Google Scholar 14–15th century map at Harvey, G. E., History of Burma (rpt, London, 1967), 72Google Scholar and Sandhu, Kernial Singh and Wheatley, Paul, Melaka, Sandhu, and Wheatley, , eds, 2 vols (Kuala Lumpur, 1983), I, 24–9.Google Scholar Although fluctuating allegiances rendered a precise count at any moment somewhat arbitrary, the consolidation described by Sandhu and Wheatley omits Arakan and Manipur, and exaggerates considerably the degree to which the Tai-speaking interior in the late 14th century was subject to lowland control.

9 I prefer ‘Burma’ to the more recent and perhaps ephemeral designation ‘Myanmar.’ Similarly ‘Thailand’ referring to the empire whose capitals were based at Ayudhya (1351–1767) and Thonburi/Bangkok (1767–present), is more widely recognized than the antique ‘Siam.’Google Scholar

10 On pre-1250 economic expansion and associated movements towards political integration, see supra n. 2, plus Hermann Kulke, ‘The Early and the Imperial Kingdom in Southeast Asian History’, in Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries, David Marr and A. C. Milner, eds (Singapore, 1986), 1–22; John Whitmore, ‘Elephants Can Actually Swim’, ibid., 129–31; Claude Jacques, ‘Sources on Economic Activities in Khmer and Cham Lands,’ ibid., 327–33; Michael Aung-Thwin, Pagan: The Origins of Modern Burma (Honolulu, 1985); David Chandler, A History of Cambodia (Boulder, 1983), chs 2–4; Keith W. Taylor, The Birth of Vietnam (Berkeley, 1983).

11 See Harvey, , History, ch. 3;Google ScholarWyatt, , Thailand, chs 3, 4.Google ScholarCoedes, , Indianized States, chs 8, 9 was probably the first to call attention to the 13th/14th century watershed.Google Scholar

12 Lieberman, , ‘The Transfer of the Burmese Capital from Pegu to Ava,’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (JRAS) 1980, 1: 64–83.Google Scholar

13 This bald resume simplifies an extraordinarily complex series of wars, annexations, and retreats, which were neither uniform in their territorial implications, nor perfectly coordinated across the region. Note, for example, that whereas Ayudhya began to expand not long after its founding in 1351, the Toungoo Empire in Burma—a country beset by more severe coastal–interior polarities than Thailand—did not achieve its first major conquests until the late 15th century. Note, too, that late 14th-century Ayudhya and the late 16th-century Toungoo Empire temporarily controlled areas not recovered by their successors. Furthermore, the claim that north–south wars invariably antedated east–west imperial contests ignores the fact that north–south warfare in the Irrawaddy lowlands remained an important sub-theme long after 1555. On wars and territorial changes in the Indianized mainland, see Lieberman, Administrative Cycles, chs 1, 4, 5;Google ScholarKoenig, William, The Burmese Polity, 1752–1819 (Ann Arbor, 1990), ch. 1;Google ScholarKasetsiri, Charnvit, The Rise of Ayudhya (Kuala Lumpur, 1976);Google ScholarChandler, , Cambodia, chs 5–7;Google Scholar and Wyatt's marvellously lucid Thailand, chs 4–6.Google Scholar

14 On Vietnamese internal divisions and external expansion, see Woodside, , Vietnam, 246–61;Google ScholarKhoi, Le Thanh, Histoire du Vietnam dès Origines à 1858 (Paris, 1987), chs 5–6.Google Scholar

15 Lamb, Alastair, Asian Frontiers (London, 1968), 181, suggests that, failing European intervention, Cambodia would have been totally absorbed, and a Thai– Vietnamese frontier would have stabilized west of the Mekong.Google Scholar

16 On post-1400 Vietnamese ideals and realities, see John Whitmore, ‘The Development of Le Government in Fifteenth Century Vietnam (Cornell Univ. PhD diss., 1968), chs 4–6; idem, ‘A New View of the World’ (unpublished MS); idem, ‘Social Organization and Confucian Thought in Vietnam,’ JSEAS 15, 2 (1984): 296–306; idem, ‘Chung-hsing and Cheng-t'ung: Historiography of and on Sixteenth Century Vietnam’ (unpublished MS); Esta Ungar, ‘Vietnamese Leadership and Order’ (Cornell Univ. PhD diss., 1983); Le Thanh Khoi, Histoire, 225–45, 256–70, 345–58; Woodside, Vietnam, chs 1–4; idem, ‘Medieval Vietnam and Cambodia: A Comparative Comment,’ JSEAS 15, 2 (1984): 315–19.

17 Vietnamese administrative evolution, see previous note plus Huy, Nguyen Ngoc and Van Tai, Ta, The Le Code: Law in Traditional Vietnam, 3 vols (Athens, Ohio, 1987), 1, 12–31, 57–70;Google ScholarWhitmore, John, Vietnam, Ho Quy Ly, and the Ming (1371–1421) (New Haven, 1985);Google ScholarTaylor, K. W., ‘The Literati Revival in Seventeenth-Century Vietnam,’ JSEAS 18, 1 (1987): 1–23;Google ScholarWolters, O. W., ‘Assertions of Cultural Well-being in Fourteenth-Century Vietnam,’ JSEAS 10, 2 (1979): 435–50 and 11, 1 (1980): 74–90 (see esp. p. 84 referring to the 14th century watershed).Google Scholar On Burma, see Lieberman, , Administrative Cycles, chs 1, 3;Google ScholarKoenig, , Polity, chs 3–6.Google Scholar On Cambodian, Lan Na, and Thai (Ayudhyan/Bangkok) changes, see Rabibhadana, Akin, The Organization of Thai Society in the Early Bangkok Period, 1782–1873 (Ithaca, 1970), chs 2, 4, 7;Google ScholarTambiah, S. J., World Conqueror and World Renouncer (Cambridge, 1976), chs 7, 8;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWales, H. G. Quaritch, Ancient Siamese Government and Administration (rpt., New York, 1965);Google ScholarIshii, Yoneo, ‘Religious Patterns and Economic Change in Siam in the 16th and 17th Centuries,’ forthcoming in Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Era, Reid, Anthony, ed. (Ithaca)Google Scholar; Wyatt, , Thailand, chs 4–6;Google ScholarLailert, Busakorn, ‘The Ban Phlu Luang Dynasty, 1688–1767’ (Univ. of London PhD diss., 1972), esp. chs 4–6;Google ScholarTerwiel, B. J., Through Travellers' Eyes (Bangkok, 1989), 238–45, 251–4;Google ScholarLysa, Hong, Thailand in the Nineteenth Century (Singapore, 1984), chs 3, 4;Google ScholarWenk, Klaus, The Restoration of Thailand under Rama I, 1782–1809 (Tucson, 1968), ch 3;Google ScholarLeclère, A., Recherches sur le Droit Public des Cambodgiens (Paris, 1894), 186–92, esp. p. 189, n. 1.Google Scholar

18 Tambiah, Stanley J., ‘The Galactic Polity: The Structure of Traditional Kingdoms in Southeast Asia,’ Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 293 (1977): 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Lieberman, ‘Reinterpreting Burmese History,’ 181–2; idem, ‘Was the Seventeenth Century a Watershed in Burmese History?’ forthcoming in Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Era.

20 Whitmore, ‘New View of the World,’ 11–20, 59–71; idem, Ho Quy Ly, 16, 72–6; Le Thanh Khoi, Histoire, 242–45, 266–70, 315, 362–6; Woodside, Vietnam, 167–8, 241–61; Chandler, Cambodia, 123–33.

21 On continued ethnic heterogeneity in the Chaophraya basin, see Terwiel, Travellers' Eyes, 253–4; John Crawfurd, Journal of an Embassy to the Courts of Siam and Cochin China (rpt, Singapore, 1987), 448–52; Gehan Wijeyewardene, ‘The Frontiers of Thailand ’, in National Identity and its Defenders, Craig J. Reynolds, ed. (Clayton, Victoria, 1991), 157–90, citing Thongchai Winichakul's arguments against proto-nationalism; and Wyatt, Thailand, 145–6. On the emergence, especially before c. 1770, of distinct Siamese (Thai), Lao, and Tai Yuan identities, however, see ibid., 75–6, 84–5, 89, 99–100; M. L. Manich, History of Laos (Bangkok, 1967), 118–20; Chronique de Xieng Mai, Camille Noton, tr. (Paris, 1932), 41–65. On more selective vassal acculturation to Ayudhya/Bangkok norms, see Chandler, Cambodia, 80, 88, 97, 114–18; Frank Huffman, ‘Thai and Cambodian: A Case of Syntactic Borrowing?’ Jl. of the American Oriental Society 93, 4 (1973): 488–509; A. Teeuw and D. K. Wyatt, The Story of Patani (The Hague, 1970), 270.

22 John Whitmore, ‘Independent Vietnam: Indigenous Politics and Culture’ (unpublished MS), 13, 28–9; idem, ‘Elephants Can Swim,’ 117–37; K. W. Taylor, ‘Authority and Legitimacy in 11th Century Vietnam,’ in Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries, 139–76. See, too, R. B. Smith, ‘The Cycle of Confucianization in Vietnam,’ in Aspects of Vietnamese Histoiy, Walter Vella, ed. (Honolulu, 1973), 9; O. W. Wolters, Two Essays on Dai Viet in the Fourteenth Century (New Haven, 1988).

23 See supra nn. 19, 21, plus Akin, , Thai Society, 40–53;Google ScholarWyatt, David, ‘The “Subtle Revolution” of King Rama I of Siam,’ in Moral Order and the Question of Change, Wyatt, and Woodside, Alexander, eds (New Haven, 1982), 9–52.Google Scholar

24 See supra nn. 16, 20, plus Yu, Insun, ‘Law and Family in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Vietnam’ (Univ. of Michigan PhD diss., 1978), chs 1, 6, 7, esp. p,. 192, emphasizing regional and class discrepancies.Google Scholar

25 Koenig, , Polity, chs 3, 4;Google ScholarWenk, , Restoration of Thailand, chs 1–3;Google ScholarKhoi, Le Thanh, Histoire, 345–62;Google ScholarNgoc, Nguyen and Van Tai, Ya, Le Code, I, 29–31.Google Scholar

26 Reid, ‘Age of Commerce in Southeast Asian History,’ 9; idem, ‘Trade and Shipping,’ 76–7; C. H. Wake, ‘The Changing Pattern of Europe's Pepper and Spice Imports, ca. 1400–1700,’ Journal of European Economic History 8 (1979): 361–403; Kristoff Glamann, Dutch–Asiatic Trade 1620–1740 (Copenhagen, 1958), chs 4, 5. Cf. Phillip D. Curtin, Cross-Cultural Trade in World History (Cambridge, 1985), 119–35; Carlo M. Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution, 2nd ed. (New York, 1980), 3–5, 216–19, 248–50. ‘Spices’ here refers to clove, nutmeg, and mace.

27 Bayly, C. A., The Imperial Meridian (London, 1989), 25–6;Google ScholarSubrahmanyam, Sanjay, The Political Economy of Commerce: Southern India, 1500–1650 (Cambridge, 1990): 97–8, 108–17, 162–6, 200–17, 309–11, 362;CrossRefGoogle ScholarReid, ‘Trade and Shipping,’ 80;Google ScholarIndia and the Indian Ocean 1500–1800, Gupta, Ashin Das and Pearson, M. N., eds (Calcutta, 1987), 46–93, 240–56.Google Scholar

28 Lieberman, , ‘Europeans, Trade, and the Unification of Burma, c. 1540–1620,’ Oriens Extremus 27, 2 (1980); 204–8.Google Scholar

29 Leonard Blussé, Strange Company: Chinese Settlers, Mestizo Women and the Dutch in VOC Batavia (Dordrecht, 1988), 97–155; idem, ‘Chinese Commercial Networks and State Formation in Southeast Asia 1600–1800,’ forthcoming in Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Era; Tien Ju-kang, ‘Cheng Ho's Voyages and the Distribution of Pepper in China,’ JRAS 1981, 2: 186–97; Robert L. Innes, ‘The Door Ajar: Japan's Foreign Trade in the Seventeenth Century’ (Univ. of Michigan PhD diss., 1980), 51–66; J. V. Mills, ‘Chinese Navigators in Insulinde about 1500 A.D.,’ Archipel 18 (1979): 69–93.

30 On 17th century difficulties, see Lieberman, ‘Seventeenth Century Watershed’; Reid, ‘Seventeenth Century Crisis,’ 639–59.Google ScholarCf. de Vries, Jan, The Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis, 1600–1750 (Cambridge, 1976);CrossRefGoogle ScholarAtwell, William, ‘Some Observations on the “Seventeenth Century Crisis” in China and Japan,’ Journal of Asian Studies (JAS), 45, 2 (1986): 223–44;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and articles on 17th-century transitions by Atwell, Richards, John F., and Steensgaard, Niels in MAS 24, 4 (1990): 625–97.Google Scholar

31 On British trade, particularly notable from the 1750s, see Furber, Holden, Rival Empires of Trade in the Orient (Minneapolis, 1976), ch. 6, esp. 279 ff., 296–7;Google ScholarAndaya, Barbara Watson and Andaya, Leonard, A History of Malaysia (London, 1982), 99–101;Google ScholarMarshall, P. J. in India and the Indian Ocean, esp. 294–300;Google ScholarBassett, D. K., ‘British Commercial and Strategic Interests in the Malay Peninsula During the Late Eighteenth Century,’ in Malayan and Indonesian Studies, Bastin, J. and Roolvink, R., eds (London, 1964)Google Scholar; Lieberman, ‘Seventeenth Century Watershed’.

32 On trade movements c. 1670–c. 1830, see previous note, plus India and the Indian Ocean, chs 5–6; Blussé references in n. 29; Naquin, Susan and Rawski, Evelyn S., Chinese Society in the Eighteenth Century (New Haven, 1987), 31–2;Google ScholarWallerstein, Immanuel, ‘The Incorporation of the Indian Subcontinent into the Capitalist World-Economy,’ Paper delivered at the Seminar on the Indian Ocean, New Delhi, 02 20–3, 1985, p. 11;Google ScholarSubrahmanyam, , Political Economy, 363–70;Google Scholar'Viraphol, Sarasin, Tribute and Profit: Sino-Siamese Trade 1652–1853 (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), chs 3–5, 7, 9;CrossRefGoogle ScholarThanh-Nha, Nguyen, Tableau économique, 183–233.Google Scholar

33 See Lieberman, ‘Secular Trends’, 14–15;Google ScholarViraphol, Tribute and Profit, 180–209, 223;Google ScholarBlussé, Strange Company, 100–2;Google ScholarCrawfurd, Siam and Cochin China, 223, 511–14;Google ScholarWhitmore, John, ‘Vietnam and the Monetary Flow of Eastern Asia, 13–18th Centuries,’ in Precious Metals in the Later Medieval and Early Modern Worlds, Richards, J. F., ed. (Durham, N.C., 1983), 385–9;Google ScholarWoodside, Vietnam, 261–76.Google Scholar However, note that Alexander Woodside, ‘Central Vietnam's Trading World in the Eighteenth Century as Seen in Le Quy Don's “Frontier Chronicles”’ (unpublished MS), calls attention to the decline of the great Vietnamese port of Hoi An c. 1750–1775, even while emphasizing the general vitality of the South China Sea economy.

34 On the political utility of trade revenue, see Lieberman, Administrative Cycles, 23–32, 59–60, 117–30, 158–9, 211–12;Google ScholarThe Royal Orders of Burma A.D. 1598–1885 (ROB), Tun, Than, ed. (Kyoto, 1983–1988), V, 805; VI, 670, 681;Google ScholarViraphol, Tribute and Profit, chs 2, 6–10;Google ScholarWyatt, Thailand, 86–9, 104–12, 126–7;Google ScholarLysa, Hong, Nineteenth Century, chs 1–4;Google ScholarPombejra, Dhiravat na, ‘Crown Trade and Court Politics in Ayutthaya During the Reign of King Narai (1656–1688),’ in The Southeast Asian Port and Polity, Kathirithamby-Wells, J. and Villiers, John, eds (Singapore, 1990), 126–42;Google ScholarSmith, , Dutch in Thailand, 72–109;Google ScholarWhitmore, , ‘Monetary Flow,’ 380–7;Google ScholarLamb, Alastair, The Mandarin Road to Old Hue (London, 1970), 19–21;Google ScholarPhuong-Nghi, Dang, Les Institutions Publiques du Viet-Nam au XVIII Siécle (Paris, 1969), 108–10;Google ScholarThanh-Nha, Nguyen, Tableau économique, 122–3, 186–7, 225;Google ScholarWoodside, , Vietnam, 262–8.Google Scholar

35 On Burma, where Indians and Armenians were generally more active than Chinese, see Lieberman, , Administrative Cycles, 118–21, 157–61;Google ScholarHla, Toe, ‘Money Lending and Contractual Thet-kayits’ (Northern Illinois Univ. PhD diss., 1987), 98–9;Google ScholarCrawfurd, John, Journal of an Embassy from the Governor-General of India to the Court of Ava (London, 1834), II, 57.Google Scholar On Thailand, see Lysa, Hong, Nineteenth Century, chs 3, 4;Google ScholarViraphol, Tribute and Profit, ch. 8;Google ScholarSmith, George, ‘Princes, Nobles, and Traders,’ Contributions to Asian Studies 15 (1980): 6–14;Google ScholarSkinner, G. William, Chinese Society in Thailand (Ithaca, 1957), 1–28, 91–100;Google ScholarTerwiel, Travellers' Eyes, 68–95, 241–54.Google ScholarOn Vietnam, see Innes, ‘Door Ajar’, 63–6;Google ScholarThanh-Nha, Nguyen, Tableau économique, 53–79, 107, 64–201, 225–7;Google ScholarWhitmore, ‘Monetary Flow,’ 379–82;Google ScholarWoodside, Vietnam, 247, 27off.;Google ScholarDampier, William, Voyages and Discoveries (rpt, London, 1931), 34.Google Scholar

36 See previous note, plus Smith, R. B., ‘Politics and Society in Viet-Nam during the Early Nguyen Period,’ JRAS 1974: 164–6;Google ScholarIndia and the Indian Ocean, 66–7;Google ScholarViraphol, Tribute and Profit, 22;Google ScholarDhiravat, , ‘Crown Trade,’ 127.Google Scholar

37 ‘Unification of Burma,’ 203–26; idem, ‘Seventeenth Century Watershed,’ nn. 31, 32. On firearms, cf. Chandler, Cambodia, 85; Simon de La Loubère, The Kingdom of Siam (rpt, Singapore, 1987), 90–2, giving a modest assessment of Thai weapons in the 1680s; Prince Damrong, ‘Our Wars with the Burmese,’ Journal of the Burma Research Society (JBRS) 40, 2a (1958): 343 The Battle for Junk Ceylon, C. Skinner, ed. (Dordrecht, 1985), 12–17; Dampier, Voyages, 52–5; Crawfurd, Siam and Cochin China, 494; Thomas Hodgkin, Vietnam: The Revolutionary Path (London, 1981), 70, 90–1, 96.

38 Kasetsiri, Rise of Ayudhya, 79–86, 111–14;Google ScholarWyatt, Thailand, 86–9, 104–12, 124. See, too, the important revisionist essay by Dhiravat na Pombejra, ‘Ayutthaya at the End of the Seventeenth Century: Was There a Shift to Isolation?’ forthcoming in Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Era.Google Scholar

39 Viraphol, Tribute and Profit, 18–19, 152, 181;Google ScholarIn Search of Southeast Asia: A Modern History, Steinberg, David J., ed. (rev. edn, Honolulu, 1987), 53;Google ScholarIngram, James C., Economic Change in Thailand 1850–1970 (Stanford, 1971), 27.Google Scholar See, too, Cushman, Jennifer, ‘Fields from the Sea: Chinese Junk Trade with Siam’ (Cornell Univ. PhD diss., 1975), esp. chs 4, 5.Google Scholar

40 Lysa, Hong, Nineteenth Century, 77, See, too, chs 3, 4 passim.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., 84; Wyatt, Thailand, ch. 6.

42 Chandler, Cambodia, 77–80, 85–7, 94–102.Google Scholar

43 Lieberman, ‘Seventeenth Century Watershed,’ and ‘Secular Trends,’ 14–17.Google Scholar

44 On Vietnamese maritime involvement and firearms imports, see supra nn. 32–37, plus Woodside, Vietnam, 16–18, 246–51, 261–76;Google ScholarCadière, L., ‘Le mur de Dong-hoi, étude sur I'établissement des Nguyen en Cochinchine,’ Bulletin de l'Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient (BEFEO) 6, 1–2 (1906).Google Scholar

45 Cf. Subrahmanyam, Political Economy, 364–5;Google ScholarViraphol, Tribute and Profit, 249.Google Scholar

46 On pre-1350 agricultural development see supra n. 10. On agricultural organization and reclamation c. 1350–1830, for Burma see Lieberman, ‘Secular Trends’, 3–12; Aung-Thwin, Irrigation in the HeartlandGoogle Scholar, For Thailand, see Thailand: A Rice-Growing Society, Ishii, Yoneo, ed. (Honolulu, 1975)Google Scholar, essays by Watabe, Ishii, and Tanabe; Ingram, Economic Change, 7–16;Google ScholarTerwiel, Travellers' Eyes, 256–7;Google ScholarWatabe, Tadayo, ‘The Glutinous Rice Zone in Thailand–Patterns of Change in Cultivated Rice,’ in Southeast Asia: Nature, Society and Development (Honolulu, 1976). 96–113.Google Scholar For Vietnam, see Whitmore, Ho Quy Ly, 38, 50, 71–5, 86; Nguyen Thanh Nha, Tableau économique, 39–73, 229;Google ScholarKhoi, Le Thanh, Histoire, 242–5, 266–73;Google ScholarGourou, Pierre, Les Paysans du Delta Tonkinois (Paris, 1936), 111–37;Google ScholarHodgkin, Vietnam, 51–2, 66, 68, 75, 112–13;Google ScholarCotter, Michael G., ‘Towards a Social History of the Vietnamese Southward Movement,’ JSEAH 9, 1 (1968): 12–24.Google Scholar

47 On possible European-Southeast Asian Climatic correlations, see Lamb, H. H., Climate, History, and the Modern World (London, 1982), chs 1–13, esp. p. 227CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lieberman, Administrative Cycles, 176–7, 191;Google ScholarDunn, Richard S., The Age of Religious Wars 1559–1715 (New York, 1979), 105, 265, 271Google Scholar; Reid, ‘Seventeenth Century Crisis,’ 654–6, citing 17th-century Javanese tree-ring evidence.Google ScholarCf. Galloway, Patrick, ‘Long-Term Fluctuations in Climate and Population in the Preindustrial Era,’ Population and Development Review 12, 1 (1986): 1–24;CrossRefGoogle ScholarEddy, John, ‘Climate and the Role of the Sun,’ Journal of Interdisciplinary History 10 (1980): 725–47;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBraudel, Fernand, The Structures of Everyday Life, Reynolds, Sian, tr. (New York, 1981), 32 ff., 49–51, 77–8;Google ScholarSkinner, G. William, ‘The Structure of Chinese History,’ JAS 44, 2 (1985): 271–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Before generalizing, one should also note that the same desiccation harmful to interior Southeast Asia could have alleviated flooding in the mainland deltas.

48 The classical exposition of integrated Eurasian disease patterns appears in McNeill, William H., Plagues and Peoples (Garden City, 1976);Google Scholar see esp. chs 3–5. Material in Bayly, Imperial Meridian, 25;Google ScholarJannetta, Ann Bowman, Epidemics and Mortality in Early Modern Japan (Princeton, 1987), ch. 4 can be made to fit a McNeillian mode;CrossRefGoogle Scholar while more recently Goldstone, Jack A., Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (Berkely, 1991)Google Scholar has invoked changes in disease mortality, hence in demographic pressure, to explain synchrony in state breakdown in Western Europe, the Ottoman Empire, and China. For Southeast Asia, we have speculative references to the introduction of malaria to Pagan and Angkor in the 14th century [Murphey, Rhoads, ‘The Ruin of Ancient Ceylon,’ JAS 16, 2 (1957): 181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar], of bubonic plague to Java and Bali in the 11th century, of smallpox to Bali in the 15th century [Lovric, Barbara, ‘Bali: Myth, Magic, and Morbidity,’ in Death and Disease in Southeast Asia, Owen, Norman G., ed. (Singapore, 1987), ch. 6Google Scholar], and of smallpox to Thailand by the 14th century [Terwiel, B. J., ‘Asiatic Cholera in Siam,’ Death and Disease, ch. 7.] See, too, the disease survey in Reid Age of Commerce, 57–61;Google Scholar and Fenner, Frank, ‘Smallpox in Southeast Asia,’ Crossroads 3, 2–3 (1987): 34–48.Google ScholarAndaya, Barbara Watson, personal communication, June 1991, points out that in Sumatra and other areas ‘there is little doubt that the more isolated interior groups were more susceptible than the coastal inhabitants’ to smallpox and other epidemics. So, too, Reid, ‘Low Population Growth and Its Causes in Pre-Colonial Southeast Asia,’ Death and Disease, ch. 2, suggests that the spread of Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity among formerly animist peoples reduced venereal disease and abortion. Yet no source offers even elementary statistical evidence to confirm for Southeast Asia McNeill's basic thesis that noval endemicity underlay early modern Eurasian population growth.Google Scholar

49 See the arguments by Jones, E. L., Growth Recurring: Economic Change in World History (Oxford, 1988), 77–8, 154, citing examples of Japanese and Chinese peasants;Google Scholar by Yamamura, Kozo in Japan Before Tokugawa, Hall, John Whitney et al. , eds (Princeton, 1981), ch. 11;Google Scholar and by Brenner, Robert, who exaggerates (in my view) the uniqueness of English productive innovations, The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe, Chirot, Daniel, ed. (Berkely, 1989), ch. 2.Google Scholar On changing SE Asian social structures, see infra, nn. 72–4.

50 Ingram, Economic Change, 8–9, 24 suggests a maximum potential export of 1–1·5 million piculs out of a total rice crop of 20.4–23.2 million piculs. Cf. Viraphol, Tribute and Profit, 73, 104;Google ScholarSkinner, Chinese in Thailand, 17.Google Scholar

51 Lieberman, ‘Secular Trends,’ 7–9.Google Scholar

52 See Thai references in n. 46, supra.Google Scholar

53 See supra n. 46, plus Thanth-Nha, Nguyen, Tableau éconmique, 53, 115, 150;Google ScholarWoodside, Vietnam, 139–41.Google Scholar

54 Watabe, Tadayo in Thailand: A Rice-Growing Society, 13–14;Google ScholarLiberman, ‘Secular Trends’, 10–11. Note, however, that my claims, based on translations by Than Tun, for large increases in kauk-gyi yields have been effectively questioned by Aung Thwin, Irrigation in the Heartland, 38–51.Google Scholar

55 On Burmese and Vietnamese intensification and diversification, see Fisher, Charles, Southeast Asia: A Social Economic, and Political Geography (London, 1964), 531;Google ScholarKeyes, Charles, The Golden Peninsula (New York, 1977), 138, 182, 185;Google ScholarWoodside, Vietnam, 138, 254;Google ScholarThanh-Nha, Nguyen, Tableau économique, 50–7, 230;Google ScholarDampier, Voyages, 23–4;Google ScholarLieberman, ‘Secular Trends’, 9–11. Cf. Albert Feuerwerker, ‘Handicraft Industry in Ming and Ch'ing China: “Proto-Industrialization” ca. 1550–1850’ (unpublished 1991 MS).Google Scholar

56 Lieberman, ‘Secular Trends’, 11–12. The lowland population according to the 1783 census numbered between 1,982,000 and 2,313,000. Idem., Administrative Cycles, 20–2.

57 Cf. La Loubère, Siam, 11;Google ScholarReid, Age of Commerce, 14;Google ScholarSkinner, Chinese Society, 68–80. The 1800 figure may be an underestimate.Google Scholar

58 See discussion of figures in Whitmore, Ho Quy Ly, 106;Google ScholarWoodside, Vietnam, 143, 158–9. Ming figures may have been somewhat low.Google Scholar

59 For theoretical discussions of the relation between agricultural/demographic expansion and commercialization, see Lieberman, ‘Secular Trends’, 12–18;Google ScholarSkinner, G. William, ‘Marketing and Social Structure in Rural China,’ JAS 24 (1964–1965): 3–43, 195–228;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHartwell, Robert M., ‘Demographic, Political, and Social Transformations of China, 750–1550,’ Harvard Jl. of the Asiatic Studies 41, 2 (1982): 377–9;Google ScholarSubrahmanyam, Political Economy, 46 ff., 352–70;Google ScholarBraudel, Structures, 32–4.Google Scholar On mainland market structures, see Sandhu and Wheatley, Melaka, 40–50.Google Scholar

60 See Lieberman, ‘Secular Trends,’ 18–21;Google ScholarThanh-Nha, Nguyen, Tableau économique, pt 2 and Concl.;Google ScholarTerwiel, Travellers' Eyes, 100–2, 178–216 passim, 234–57;Google ScholarLysa, Hong, Nineteenth Century, chs 3, 4;Google ScholarViraphol, Tribule and Profit, ch. 8;Google ScholarTomosugi, Takashi, A Structural Analysis of Thai Economic History (Tokyo, 1980), 86–8, 104–18.Google ScholarCf. van Ravenswaay, L. F., ‘Translation of van Vliet's Description of Siam,’ JSS 7 (1910): 89–97;Google ScholarLa Loubère, Siam, pt 1.Google Scholar

61 Whitmore, ‘Monetary Flow’, 363–93;Google ScholarSmith, ‘Politics and Society in Vietnam,’ 164–6;Google ScholarNha, Nguyen Thanh, Tableau économique, 229–30;Google ScholarDang, Nghi, Phuong, Les institutions, 103;Google ScholarWicks, Roberts S., ‘Money, Markets and Trade in Early Southeast Asia’ (unpublished MS) ch. 2, p. 52–64.Google Scholar Woodside, ‘Central Vietnam's Trading World’ emphasizes that Vietnam's copper shortages were part of a wider specie famine rooted in the rapid growth of the 18th century South China Sea economy. For theoretical approaches to the monetization of agrarian societies, see Money and the Morality of Exchange, Parry, J., and Boch, M., eds (Cambridge, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 Lieberman, ‘Secular Trends,’ 19–21.Google Scholar

63 India and the Indian Ocean, 66;Google ScholarDhiravat, ‘Crown Trade,’ 127;Google Scholarvan Ravenswaay, ‘Van Vliet's Description,’ 28, 47, 95–6;Google ScholarLysa, Hong, Nineteenth Century, 50–2;Google ScholarWicks, ‘Money, Markets and Trade,’ Intro., p. 6, 21; ch. 5, p. 1.Google Scholar

64 Reid, Age of Commerce, 14;Google ScholarLes Paysans, 133; and supra, n. 58.Google Scholar

65 Ishii, Yoneo, in Thailand: A Rice-Growing Society, 15–39.Google Scholar

66 Lieberman, ‘Secular Trends,’ 24. See John Brewer's argument, following Gabriel Ardant, that sucessful tax collection and assessments are necessarily linked to a cash economy.Google ScholarBrewer, , The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688–1783 (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), 182.Google Scholar

67 See supra n. 40, plus La Loubère, Siam, 94;Google ScholarAkin, Thai Society, 57–65, 142;Google ScholarWyatt, Thailand, 107–9, 131–2;Google ScholarWenk, Klaus, Restoration of Thailand, 35;Google ScholarWales, Ancient Siamese Government, 56, 61, 63, 96, 200.Google Scholar

68 Smith, ‘Politics and Society in Vietnam,’ 164–5;Google ScholarWoodside, Vietnam, 79–80, 139–40;Google ScholarThanh-Nha, Nguyen, Tableau économique, 28, 32–5, 150–1. Cf. supra, n. 61.Google Scholar

69 See previous three notes, plus Terwiel, Travellers' Eyes, 236–44, 252–4;Google ScholarAkin, Thai Society, ch. 7;Google ScholarTomosugi, Takashi, Structural Analysis, 66;Google ScholarLieberman, Victor, ‘The Political Significance of Religious Wealth in Burmese History,’ JAS 39, 4 (1980): 753–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Conceivably, enhanced cash flows also allowed kings to obtain merchant loans more easily and cheaply. See Lieberman, Administrative Cycles, 125–6, 158–9;Google ScholarTilly, Charles, Coercion Capital, and European States, AD 900–1990 (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), 84–91.Google Scholar

70 For discussion of the relation between economic change and political crisis, see Lieberman, Administrative Cycles, 1–14, 152–84, 271–92.Google ScholarCf. Bayly, C. A., ‘The Middle East and Asia during the Age of Revolutions, 1760–1830,’ Itinerario 10, 2 (1986): 69–84;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the provocative demographic-based model of periodic state breakdown developed in Goldstone, Revolution and Rebellion, chs 1–4. On late 18th and early 19th century Southeast Asian attempts at administrative/fiscal reorganization, see supra n. 17.

71 John Whitmore, personal communication, February 7, 1991 notes that the most commercialized districts in pre-15th century Tonkin were most likely to yield Confucian scholars. On cultural assimilation via migration and expanded trade, see supra n. 46, plus Lieberman, ‘Seventeenth Century Watershed,’ nn. 43–59; Idem., Administrative Cycles, 119, 213–15; The Kalyani Inscriptions Erected by King Dhammaceti at Pegu in 1476 A.D. (Rangoon, 1892); Sao Saimong Mangrai, The Padaeng Chronicle and the Jengtung State Chronicle Translated (Ann Arbor, 1981), 4–6, 34–7, 204–5;Wyatt, Thailand, 49, 76. Note, however, that the diffusion of new Buddhist doctrines did not always adhere to imperial boundaries.

72 Nguyen Thanh-Nha, Tableau économique, 134–41. On social change, see Yu Insun, ‘Law and Family’, 185–90, 215–21; Whitmore, Ho Quy Ly, 6–7, 15–24, 44–50, 69–70, 115; idem, ‘Social Organization and Confucian Thought in Vietnam,‘ JSEAS 15, 2 (1984): 296–306; Nguyen Khac Vien, ‘Traditional Vietnam: Some Historical Stages,’ Vietnamese Studies 21 (1969): 77–8; R. B. Smith, ‘England and Vietnam in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,’ in Southeast Asian History and Historiography, C. D. Cowan and O. W. Wolters, eds (Ithaca, 1976), 241; Ngo Kim Chung and Nguyen Duc Nghinh, Propriété Privée et Propriété Collective dans l'Ancien Vietnam (Paris, 1987), esp. 65–78; Hodgkin, Vietnam, 17–18; Ungar, ‘Vietnamese Leadership and Order,’ 21.

73 See Lieberman, ‘Secular Trends,’ 26–8; Idem., Administrative Cycles, chs 1, 2.

74 Cf. Bayly, Imperial Meridian, 27–8.Google ScholarSimilarly perhaps in the northern Chaophraya delta, Tomosugi, Takashi, Structural Analysis, 104–17 argues that landholding evolved from a system based on communal and kin prerogatives to one in which private authority was effectively protected.Google Scholar By the late Ayudhya period he describes de facto land titles, land sales, inheritance, and mortgage contracts. Note, too, the comment of Terwiel, Travellers' Eyes, 237: ‘Perhaps it is time to recognize that [in early 19th-century Thailand] an indigenous form of capitalism seems to have evolved under the umbrella of the absolute state.’Google Scholar

75 See supra nn. 16, 17, plus Ungar, ‘Vietnamese Leadership,’ 11–70, 137–41, 253–67;Google ScholarVuong, Tran Quoc, ‘Traditions, Acculturation, Renovation…’ Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries, 271–7;Google ScholarHuy, Nguyen Ngoc and Van Tai, Ta, Le Code, I, 8–31.Google Scholar

76 See previous note plus Search of Southeast Asia, 70–3; Woodside, Vietnam, 181–94; Yu, ‘Law and Family,’ 41–4, 185–93, 215–23; Taylor, ‘Literati Revival,’ 1–23; Whitmore, ‘Elephants Can Swim,’ 117–33; idem, personal communication, April 23, 1991; Smith, ‘Cycle of Confucianization,’ 1–24.

77 On literacy, ritual, and literary changes in Burma, see sources in Lieberman, ‘Seventeenth Century Watershed,’ Mendelson, E. Michael, Sangha and State in Burma (Ithaca, 1975), 50–81.Google Scholar On the social/intellectual ramifications of expanded literacy, see Clancy, M. T., From Memory to Written Record (London, 1979);Google ScholarGoody, Jack and Watt, Ian, ‘The Consequences of Literacy,’ in Literacy in Traditional Societies, Goody, , ed. (Cambridge, 1968), 27–68.Google Scholar

78 Terwiel, Travellers' Eyes, 251–2, provides anecdotal rather than statistical evidence of extensive literacy; 17th-century Thailand saw the growth of a lay chronicle tradition which, like that of Burma, showed a high degree of accuracy and which may have reflected enhanced scribal activities.Google Scholar See Lieberman, ‘How Reliable Is U Kala's Burmese Chronicle?’ JSEAS 17, 2 (1986): 253–5.Google Scholar On the other hand, Tambiah, S. J., ‘Literacy in a Buddhist Village in North-East Thailand,’ Literacy in Traditional Societies, 85–131, portrays literacy in the early 20th century as a specialist, rather than mass, phenomenon.Google Scholar

79 See Lieberman, ‘U Kala's Chronicle,’ 236–55; idem, ‘Ethnic Politics in Eighteenth-Century Burma,’ MAS 12, 3 (1978): 455–82; U Tet Htoot and Tin Ohn, in Historians of South East Asia, D. G. E. Hall, ed. (London, 1962).

80 From a juridical standpoint, the wars between Trinh and Nguyen Vietnam, and later between the Taysons and Trinh Vietnam, represented a category intermediate between civil warfare and external warfare; but the incentives to administrative and military reform that flowed from such contests were no less significant for this peculiar character.Google Scholar

81 See supra n. 17.Google Scholar

82 See supra nn. 16, 17.Google Scholar

83 Woodside, Vietnam, 61, 96–104, 135–41;Google ScholarMarr, David, Vietnamese Anticolonialism, 1885–1925 (Berkeley, 1971), 15–16;Google ScholarVuong, ‘Pattern of Vietnamese Culture,’ 273–4;Google ScholarYu, ‘Law and Family,’ 230;Google ScholarGourou, Les Paysans, 133. Convincing China that Vietnam was ‘civilized,’ and therefore not in need of Chinese occupation and instruction, represented another practical benefit of self-Confucianization.Google Scholar

84 For an acute conflict, see Gesick, Lorraine, ‘Kingship and Political Integration in Traditional Siam, 1767–1824’ (Cornell PhD diss., 1976), 104–9.Google Scholar

85 See Koenig, Polity, ch. 3; Lieberman, Administrative Cycles, 65–78;Google ScholarTambiah, World Conqueror, chs 1–10.Google Scholar

86 See supra nn. 19, 23, plus Kala, U, Maha-ya-zawin-gyi, vol. 2, Pwa, Hsaya, ed. (Rangoon, 1932), 307, 312;Google ScholarKoenig, Polity, 79–89;Google ScholarTin, U, Kon-gaung-zet maha-ya-zawin daw-gyf (rpt, Rangoon, 1967), 70–1;Google ScholarROB III, 229; IV, 316, 352–3, 471–5, 548, 614;Google ScholarAkin, Thai Society, 50–1;Google ScholarLingat, R., ‘Evolution of the Conception of Law in Burma and Siam,’ JSS 38, 1 (1950): 9–31;Google ScholarWenk, Restoration of Thailand, 35–42;Google ScholarWyatt, Thailand, 75–6, 84–5;Google ScholarSpiro, Melford E., Burmese Supernaturalism (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1967), 131–8.Google Scholar

87 Moerman, Michael, ‘Ethnic Identification in a Complex Civilization,’ American Anthropologist 67 (1965): 1215–30;CrossRefGoogle ScholarLieberman, ‘Ethnic Politics,’ 455ff.Google Scholar

88 See supra n. 86, plus Lieberman, Administrative Cycles, 30, 214–24, 236–49;Google ScholarKoenig, Polity, 13–15, 21–32, 58–64.Google Scholar

89 Woodside, Vietnam, 169 and ch. 4;Google ScholarSmith, ‘Cycle of Confucianization,’ 1–24;Google ScholarYu, ‘Law and Family,’ 190 ff.Google Scholar

90 On the promulgation of Confucian culture within Vietnam and in newly-conquered areas, see supra n. 20, plus Whitmore, ‘Le Government’, ch. 5; Vuong, ‘Pattern of Vietnamese Culture,’ 275–6; Yu, ‘Law and Family,’ 41–3, 216–21; Woodside, Vietnam, ch. 4.Google Scholar

91 Lieberman, ‘Ethnic Politics,’ 455–82; Idem., Administrative Cycles, 268; Wyatt, Thailand, 75–6, 84.

92 Lam, Truong Buu, Patterns of Vietnamese Response to Foreign intervention 1858–1900 (New Haven, 1967), 1–65;Google ScholarWolters, ‘Assertions of Cultural Well-Being,’ esp. 74–90Google ScholarKhanh, Huynh Kim, Vietnamese Communism 1925–1945 (Ithaca, 1982), 29–32;Google ScholarMarr, Vietnamese Anticolonialism, 7–21;Google ScholarWhitmore, ‘New View of the World,’ 61–70.Google Scholar Cf. the importance of warfare in forging European national identities, Smith, Anthony D., ‘War and Ethnicity: the Role of Warfare in the Formation, Self-Images and Cohesion of Ethnic Communities,’ Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4, 4 (1981): 375–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

93 On the balance between local themes (most prominent apparently in Vietnam) and universalist themes, see supra nn. 85, 92; Wolters, ‘Assertions of Cultural WellBeing,’ 435–50, 74–90; Lieberman, ‘Ethnic Politics,’ 455–82; idem, ‘U Kala's Chronicle,’ 236–55; Idem., Administrative Cycles, 96–104.

94 See Smith, ‘Princes, Nobles, and Traders,’ 6–14;Google ScholarThanh-Nha, Nguyen, Tableau économique, 197–201;Google ScholarFoster, Brian L., Commerce and Ethnic Differences (Athens, Ohio, 1982), esp. chs 3–4.Google Scholar

95 On state promotion of commercial and agricultural activity, see supra nn. 34, 46, 61, 66, plus (for Burma) Lieberman, Administrative Cycles, 59–60, 261; idem, ‘Secular Trends,’ 6–9; (for Thailand) essays by Tanabe and Ishii in Thailand: A Rice-Growing Society; Shigeharu Tanabe, ‘Historical Geography of the Canal System in the Chao Phraya River Delta,’ JSS 65, 2 (1977): 23–72; Terwiel, Travellers' Eyes, 241; (for Vietnam) Nguyen Khac Vien, ‘Traditional Vietnam,’ 78–9;Whitmore, ‘Le Government,’ 195–6; Nguyen Thanh-Nha, Tableau économique, 35–3, 61, 68–73, 152, 177–81, 230; Vuong, ‘Pattern of Vietnamese Culture,’ 276; Woodside, Vietnam, 137–8, 264; Yu, ‘Law and Family,’ 188–9; Taylor, ‘Literati Revival,’ 12.

96 Lieberman, ‘Secular Trends,’ 5.Google Scholar

97 See supra n. 53.Google Scholar

98 So far as I know, the wider economic impact of cash taxes has yet to be investigated. Cf. The Cambridge Economic History of India (CEHI), Vol. I: c. 1200–c. 1750, Raychaudhuri, Tapan and Habib, Irfan, eds (Cambridge, 1982), 327, 358;Google ScholarSubrahmanyam, Political Economy, 66–71.Google Scholar

99 Ricklefs, M. C., ‘Some Statistical Evidence on Javanese Social Economic, and Demographic History in the Later Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,’ MAS 20, 1 (1986): 1–32;Google ScholarReid, Age of Commerce, 12–18;Google ScholarOwen, Norman G., ‘The Paradox of Nineteenth Century Population Growth in Southeast Asia: Evidence from Java and the Philippines,’ JSEAS 18, 1 (1987): 45–57.Google ScholarPubMed

100 Cf. William H. Sewell, ‘Three Temporalities: Toward a Sociology of the Event’ (unpublished 1990 MS), critiquing Wallerstein; and Prakash, Gyan, ‘Writing PostOrientalist Histories of the Third World: Perspectives from Indian Historiography,’ CSSH 32, 2 (1990): 383–408.Google Scholar

101 On the Tayson rebellion and inter-regional tensions in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, see Khoi, Le Thanh, Histoire, ch. 7;Google ScholarWoodside, Vietnam, 96–107, 132 ff., 220, 248–60, 284–5;Google ScholarSmith, ‘Cycle of Confucianization,’ 20;Google ScholarHodgkin, Vietnam, 89–92.Google Scholar

102 See Achei-pya myan-ma naing-ngan-yei thamaing, vol. 1 (Rangoon, 1970), Pt 3; Craig J. Reynolds, Thai Radical Discourse: The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today (Ithaca, 1987); idem, ‘Feudalism as a Trope,’ in Feudalism: Comparative Studies, 136–54; idem, and Hong Lysa, ‘Marxism in Thai Historical Studies,’ JAS 43, 1 (1983): 77–104; Hodgkin, Vietnam, 18–19; John Whitmore, ‘Communism and History in Vietnam,’ in Vietnamese Communism in Comparative Perspective, William Turley, ed. (Boulder, Colo., 1980), 21–8.

103 See Reynolds, Hong Lysa, and Whitmore in previous note, plus Gyi, Khin Maung and Tin, Daw Tin, Administrative Patterns in Historical Burma (Singapore, 1980).Google Scholar On the AMP model, see Anderson, Perry, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London, 1979), 462–549;Google ScholarO'Leary, Brendan, The Asiatic Mode of Production (Oxford, 1989).Google Scholar

104 See, for example, the stark characterizations of Southeast Asian stasis in Harvey, History, 249;Google ScholarThwin, Aung, Pagan, 199–207;Google ScholarSchrieke, Sociological Studies, II, 4, 100 and passim;Google Scholarvan Leur, J. C., Indonesian Trade and Society (The Hague, 1955), esp 89–116, 169.Google ScholarCf. Said, Edward W., Orientalism (New York, 1979).Google Scholar

105 See Anderson, Absolutist State, 397–549; Karl Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism (New Haven, 1957); E. L. Jones, The European Miracle (Cambridge, 1985) [cf., however, idem., Growth Recurring, which seeks to redress the Eurocentrism of his previous work]; Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World–System I, II (Orlando, New York, 1974, 1980), esp. I, ch. 1; idem, ‘Incorporation of Indian Subcontinent,’ esp. 32–5; Geoffrey Parker, The Military Revolution (Cambridge, 1988), ch. 4; Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York, 1987), ch. I; John A. Hall, Powers and Liberties (Berkeley, 1985); Louis Dumont, Homo Hierarchicus (London, 1970); idem, Religion, Politics, and History in India (Paris, 1970); George Dalton, ‘Theoretical Issues in Economic Anthropology,’ Current Anthropology 10, 1 (1969): 63–102. Apart from Wittfogel and Dumont, none of the scholars listed in the text trained as Asianists. Historians of Asia also have attempted comparisons, generally of economic and political institutions. Not surprisingly, these tend to be more nuanced than the grand contrasts offered by Western scholars; but here, too, we find a strong tendency–more marked perhaps among historians of China than of India or Japan–to oppose Western and Eastern trajectories. For representative economic studies, see Albert Feuerwerker, ‘State and Economy in Late Imperial China,’ Theory and Society 13, 3 (1984): 297–326; Mark Elvin, ‘Why China Failed To Create an Endogenous Capitalism,’ Theory and Society 13, 3 (1984): 379–91; idem, The Pattern of the Chinese Past (Stanford, 1973), chs 14–18; William T. Rowe, ‘Approaches to Modern Chinese Social History,’ in Reliving the Past, Olivier Zunz, ed. (Chapel Hill 1985), esp. 270–83; SanjaySubrahmanyam, ‘Rural Industry and Commercial Agriculture in Late Seventeenth-Century South-Eastern India,’ Past and Present (PP) 126 (1990): 76–114; Thomas C. Smith, ‘PreModern Economic Growth: Japan and the West,’ PP 60 (1973): 127–60; essays by Habib, Inalcik, and Takenaka in ‘Capitalism and the Extent of its Early Development Outside Europe,’ The Journal of Economic History 29, 1 (1969). For comparisons of European and Asian ‘feudalism,’ see Feudalism in History, Rushton Coulborn, ed. (Princeton, 1956); Jeffrey Mass, ‘The Early Bakufu and Feudalism,’ in Court and Bakufu in Japan, Mass, ed. (New Haven, 1982), 123–42.

106 To some extent this interest in political and economic processes transcending Europe is foreshadowed in Goldstone's imaginative Revolution and Rebellion, which argues that between 1500 and 1850 demographic cycles defined the context of state breakdown in the Ottoman Empire, China, and Western Europe. My approach differs from Goldstone's in so far as: (a) I focus on different regions, (b) I am concerned less with cyclic collapse than with long-term secular construction, (c) I am interested in the formation of ‘national’ cultures and societies as well as of administrative institutions. For other pioneering assessments of Eurasian synchrony, see Fletcher, Joseph, ‘Integrative History: Parallels and Interconnections in the Early Modern Period, 1500–1800,’ Journal of Turkish Studies 9 (1985): 37–58;Google ScholarMousnier, Roland, Peasant Uprisings in Seventeenth-Century France, Russia, and China, Pearce, Brian, tr. (New York, 1970);Google ScholarSteensgard, Niels, ‘The Seventeenth Century Crisis and the Unity of Eurasian History,’ MAS 24 (1990): 683–97.Google Scholar

107 My discussion of Japan relies inter alia on John W. Hall, Japan from Prehistory to Modern Times (New York, 1970); idem, Government and Local Power in Japan 500 to 1700 (Princeton, 1966); Edwin O. Reischauer and Albert M. Craig, Japan: Tradition and Transformation (Sydney, 1979); The Cambridge History of Japan (CHJ), vol. 3. Medieval Japan, Kozo Yamamura, ed.; vol. 4: Early Modern Japan, John W. Hall et al., eds (Cambridge 1990, 1991); Studies in the Institutional History of Early Modern Japan, John W. Hall and Marius B. Jansen, eds (Princeton, 1968); Japan in the Muromachi Age, John W. Hall and Toyoda Takeshi, eds (Berkeley, 1977); Janetta, Epidemics and Mortality; Susan B. Hanley and Kozo Yamamura, Economic and Demographic Change in Preindustrial Japan 1600–1868 (Princeton, 1977); Thomas C. Smith, The Agrarian Origins of Modern Japan (Stanford, 1959); Innes, ‘Door Ajar’ Japan Before Tokugawa, John W. Hall et al., eds (Princeton, 1981); and Gary Leupp, ‘One Drink from a Gourd: Servants, Shophands, and Laborers in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan’ (Univ. of Mich. PhD diss., 1989).

108 My understanding of Russian development derives inter alia from Vernadsky, George, Kievan Russia (rpt New Haven, 1976);Google ScholarHalperin, Charles, Russia and the Golden Horde (Bloomington, 1985);Google ScholarBlum, Jerome, Lord and Peasant in Russia (Princeton, 1961);Google ScholarFennell, John, The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200–1304 (London, 1983);Google ScholarCrummey, Robert O., The Formation of Muscovy 1304–1613 (London, 1987);Google ScholarAlef, Gustave, Rulers and Nobles in Fifteenth-Century Muscovy (rpt, London, 1983);Google ScholarKollman, Nancy Shields, Kinship and Politics (Stanford, 1987);Google ScholarSmith, R. E. F., Peasant Farming in Muscovy (Cambridge, 1977);CrossRefGoogle ScholarDukes, Paul, The Making of Russian Absolutism, 1613–1801 (London, 1982);Google ScholarThe Structure of Russian History, Cherniavsky, Michael, ed. (New York, 1970);Google ScholarHellie, Richard, Enserfment and Military Change in Muscovy (Chicago, 1971);CrossRefGoogle ScholarPipes, Richard, Russia under the Old Regime (New York, 1974);Google ScholarCrummey, Robert O., Aristocrats and Servitors (Princeton, 1983);CrossRefGoogle ScholarAvrich, Paul, Russian Rebels 1600–1800 (New York, 1972);Google ScholarRiasanovsky, Nicholas, A History of Russia (New York, 1984).Google Scholar

109 One could also cite the dramatic integration of the Ottoman Empire and, perhaps, of Safavid Iran. For early modern Western Europe, particularly France, I have found especially useful Strayer, Joseph R., On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (Princeton, 1970);Google Scholar Tilly, European States; Miskimin, Harry A., The Economy of Later Renaissance Europe 1460–1600 (Cambridge, 1977);Google ScholarThe Formation of National States in Western Europe, Tilly, Charles, ed. (Princeton, 1975);Google ScholarParker, The Military Revolution; Anderson, Absolutist State; Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution; Kennedy, Rise and Fall;Google ScholarNorth, Douglass C. and Thomas, Robert, The Rise of the Western World (Cambridge, 1973);CrossRefGoogle Scholar De Vries, Economy of Europe; Habermas, Jurgen, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Burger, T., tr. (Cambridge, 1989);Google ScholarRice, Eugene Jr, The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460–1559 (New York, 1970);Google ScholarLe Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel, The Peasants of Languedoc (Urbana, 1974);Google ScholarBriggs, Robin, Early Modern France 1560–1715 (Oxford, 1977);Google ScholarMandrou, Robert, Introduction to Modern France 1500–1640 (New York, 1976);Google ScholarBeik, William, Absolutism and Society in Seventeenth-Century France (Cambridge, 1985);CrossRefGoogle ScholarParker, David, The Making of French Absolutism (New York, 1983);Google ScholarKettering, Sharon, Patrons, Brokers, and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France (New York, 1986);Google ScholarSahlins, Peter, Boundaries: The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees (Berkeley, 1989).Google Scholar

110 Blum, Lord and Peasant, 67, 120;Google ScholarRiasanovsky, Russia, 193, 215. From 1725 to 1878 additional major annexations occurred on the west, southwest, and southeastern borders.Google Scholar

111 See supra nn. 47, 48 on possible synchronizations through climate, epidemics, and Mongol disruptions (including McNeill's putative links between Mongols and the plague). During the late first millennium c.e. the importation of literate Great Traditions around the Eurasian periphery (at Angkor, Pagan, Nara/Heian Japan, and Kiev) gave birth to novel centralizing states/societies in each region. One might speculate, fancifully, that these societies then experienced a crudely synchronized institutional rhythm: weaknesses in political structure (usually involving tensions between patrimonial/provincial authorities and the crown) combined with uneven economic growth to undermine each polity in the early to mid-second millennium. Such an approach would not require the same close synchrony demanded by climatic, epidemiological, or Mongol theories; and in fact Japan's correlation with other regions always was limited.Google Scholar

112 Kennedy, Rise and Fall, 70.Google Scholar

113 Tilly, European States, 29–30, 76–85, 140 ff., 185–90, 224.Google Scholar

114 In France, for example, one thinks of the impetus to fiscal/administrative innovation provided by the extraordinary demands of the Hundred Years War, the Religious Wars, the Thirty Years War, the Fronde, the wars of Louis XIV. In Russia, the 1425–1450 civil wars, the war for Kazan, the Thirteen Years' War, the Great Northern War. Cf. Anderson, Absolutist State, 86 ff.;Google ScholarFiner, Samuel, ‘State- and Nation-Building in Europe,’ in National States in Western Europe, 84–165.Google Scholar

115 Parker, Military Revolution, esp. ch. 4; Perrin, Noel, Giving Up the Gun (Boston, 1979)Google Scholar, emphasizing Tokugawa Japan's retreat from firearms; McNeill, Pursuit of Power, chs 1–4; Hellie, Military Change, Pt 3;Google ScholarHodgson, Marshall G. S., The Venture of Islam, vol. 3: The Gunpowder Empires and Modern Times (Chicago, 1974), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

116 Perhaps the strongest evidence that technological and tenure changes in the 15th–17th centuries contributed to increases in per capita output comes from Japan. See Yamamura, Kozo and Keiji, Negahara in Japan Before Tokugawa;Google ScholarHanley, and Yamamura, , Economic and Demographic Change, 6, 99–103;Google ScholarCHJ, vol.4, chs. 3, 10. Evidence for sustained improvements in European yields is less impressive. Note, too, that in contrast to Europe and China, Japan's population does not appear to have declined in the 13th–15th centuries. Taeuber, Irene B., The Population of Japan (Princeton, 1958), 14–21.Google Scholar

117 Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution, 151–5;Google ScholarDe Vries, , Economy of Europe, 9–12. After c. 1720 late marriage, non-marriage, abortion, and infanticide also slowed Japan's population increase.Google Scholar

118 On trade rhythms, see Chaudhuri, K. N., Asia Before Europe (Cambridge, 1990), 39, 387;Google ScholarMiskimin, Later Renaissance Europe, 43–6, 123–54; Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution, ch. 9; De Vries, Economy of Europe, ch. 4; Furber, Rival Empires of Trade, chs 3, 6; Leonard Blussé, ‘Chinese Commercial Networks and State Formation in Southeast Asia 1600–1800,’ Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Era. The continued, if slower, growth of Japan's economy after 1715 has been variously interpreted to show the secondary importance of external stimuli, or the impossibility of rapid European-style transformation without such stimuli.Google Scholar See Innes, ‘Door Ajar,’ chs 4–6, 619–33;Google ScholarReischauer and Craig, Japan, 89–98.Google Scholar

119 The 17th-century Russian Church Schism (Raskol) and Vietnam's 18th century Tayson revolt exemplified in part such cultural divides. Size, commercial weakness, and mosaic ethnicity precluded the same level of popular cultural integration in Russia as in Japan or France. On the numerous mechanisms and varieties of cultural integration, for France see Le Roy Ladurie, Languedoc, pt 2, ch. 1; Briggs, France, ch. 4; Mandrou, Modern France, ch 4. Stein Rokkan in Formation of National States, 562–600;Google ScholarElias, Norbert, The Court Society, Jephcott, Edmund, tr. (New York, 1983).Google ScholarCf. Weber, Eugen, Peasants into Frenchmen (Stanford, 1976), emphasizing the tardiness of peasant acculturation.Google ScholarOn Japan, see CEH, vol. 3, chs 10, 11 and vol. 4, chs 1, 8, 13, 14; The Muromachi Age, 279–309.Google Scholar On Russia, see Cherniavsky, Michael, ‘The Old Believers and the New Religion,’ Slavic Review 25, 1 (1966): 1–39;CrossRefGoogle ScholarAlef, Gustave, ‘Muscovite Military Reforms in the Second Half of the Fifteenth Century,’ Forschungen zur Osteuropaischen Geschichte 18 (1973): 73–108;Google ScholarKollman, Kinship and Politics, ch. 5 and Concl.Google Scholar; Crummey, Aristocrats and Servitors, 134–74;Google ScholarSmith, Peasant Farming, 226–8;Google ScholarDukes, Russian Absolutism, chs 3, 4;Google ScholarKleimola, A. M., ‘Up Through Servitude,’ Russian History 6, 2 (1979); 210–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

120 Ali, M. Athar, ‘Towards an Interpretation of the Mughal Empire,’ JRAS 1978, I: 46; and supra n. 115.Google Scholar

121 Richards, ‘The Seventeenth-Century Crisis in South Asia,’ MAS, 24, 4 (1990): 628–9, 633–5; idem, ‘Mughal State Finance and the Premodern World Economy,’ CSSH 23 (1981): 296, 302–8; Om Prakash, The Dutch East India Company and the Economy of Bengal 1630–1720 (Princeton, 1985), 65–83, 256–9; CEHI, 382–433; Sinnappah Arasaratnam, Merchants, Companies and Commerce on the Coromandel Coast 1650–1740 (Delhi, 1986), 3–4.

122 See Richards, ‘Mughal State Finance,’ 295–9; idem, ‘Seventeenth-Century Crisis,’ 626–33; Bayly, Imperial Meridian, 16–34; Deyell, Blake, and Richards in The Imperial Monetary System of Mughal India, J. F. Richards, ed. (Delhi, 1987); CEHI, 214–25, 325–59; Subrahmanyam, ‘Rural Industry,’ 76–114.

123 See, for example, Irvine, William, Later Mughals, Sarkar, J. N., ed. (Calcutta, 1921–1922), 2 vols.Google Scholar

124 Habib, Irfan, The Agrarian System of Mughal India (London, 1963).Google Scholar

125 Some such explanations can be integrated with Habib's approach. Satish Chandra, Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707–1740 (Alilgarh, 1959); M. Athar Ali, The Mughal Nobility under Aurczngzeb (Bombay, 1966); Richards, ‘Seventeenth-Century Crisis,’ 636–8; idem, ‘The Imperial Crisis in the Deccan,’ JAS 35, 2 (1976): 237–56; M. N. Pearson, ‘Shivaji and the Decline of the Mughal Empire,’ JAS 35, 2: 221–35.

126 Ali, M. Athar, ‘The Passing of Empire: The Mughal Case,’ MAS 9, 3 (1975): 387–8.Google ScholarCf. Wallerstein, ‘Incorporation of the Indian Subcontinent,’ 11–12.Google Scholar

127 Bayly, Imperial Meridian, 29, 33; idem, Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars (Cambridge, 1983), 10–12; idem, ‘The Middle East and Asia,’ 69–84; Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India (Delhi, 1986), 6, 9–17, 204, 247–55, 289–318; André Wink, ‘Al-Hind,’ Itinerario 12, 1 (1988): 56, 68–9, summarizing the argument in his Land and Sovereignty in India (Cambridge, 1986).

128 See supra n. 70Google Scholar; Ali, M. Athar, ‘Passing of Empire,’ 385 ff.Google Scholar

129 See Bayly, Townsmen and Bazaars, 11; and infra n. 132.Google Scholar

130 Arasaratnam, Coromandel Coast, 76–8;Google ScholarLudden, David, ‘Asiatic States and Agrarian Economies: Tributary Commercialism in South India, 1650–1800’ (unpublished MS), 10–13;Google ScholarFurber, Rival Empires of Trade, 89–103, 125–46;Google ScholarPrakash, Economy of Bengal, 234–56;Google ScholarMarshall, P. J., East Indian Fortunes (Oxford, 1976), 29–50;Google Scholar Burton Stein, personal communication, March 22, 1991.

131 Wolpert, Stanley, A New History of India (New York, 1982), chs 13, 14;Google ScholarBayly, Townsmen and Bazaars, 1–4, 27–8, 67, and passim;Google ScholarMarshall, P. J., ‘British Expansion in India in the Eighteenth Century: A Historical Revision,’ History 60 (1975): 28–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

132 Bayly, Townsmen and Bazaars, 10–109, 458–61; Idem., Imperial Meridian, 26, 46–60; Richards, J. F., ‘Crisis in the Deccan,’ 248, 256;Google ScholarWink, ‘Al-Hind,’ 68;Google ScholarCole, Juan, The Roots of North Indian Shi'ism in Iran and Iraq (Berkeley, 1988), ch. 2;Google ScholarStein, Burton, ‘State Formation and Economy Reconsidered,’ MAS 19, 3 (1985): 387–413;Google ScholarAlam, Crisis of Empire, 14–17, 204–42, 299–318.Google Scholar

133 Recent works emphasizing the social, economic, and cultural coherence of the era c. 1550–1900 include Popular Culture in Late Imperial China, Johnson, David, Nathan, Andrew J., and Rawski, Evelyn S., eds (Berkeley, 1985), x, 3–33;Google ScholarConflict and Control in Late Imperial China, Wakeman, Frederic Jr and Grant, Carolyn, eds (Berkeley, 1975), 2;Google ScholarThe City in Late Imperial China, Skinner, G. William, ed. (Stanford, 1977), 26–8;Google ScholarEastman, Lloyd E., Family, Fields, and Ancestors (New York, 1988)Google Scholar; Naquin and Rawski, Chinese Society, 236.Google Scholar By contrast, An Introduction to Chinese History, Meskill, John T., ed. (Lexington, 1973) using political criteria;Google Scholar and Elvin, Chinese Past, pt 3Google Scholar, and Huang, Philip C. C., The Peasant Family and Rural Development in the Yangzi Delta, 1350–1988 (Stanford, 1990), using essentially social and economic criteria, see the 14th century as a turning point.Google Scholar For yet a third periodization, see Hucker, Charles O., China's Imperial Past (London, 1975).Google Scholar

134 Skinner, City in Late Imperial China, 26–8. Cf. Elvin, Chinese Past, pts 2, 3.Google Scholar

135 See Skinner, esp. 285–6, and Braudel, in n. 47 supra.Google Scholar

136 Rawski, Evelyn S., Agricultural Change and the Peasant Economy of South China (Harvard, 1972), ch. 4;CrossRefGoogle ScholarNaquin and Rawski, Chinese Society, 31, 102, 233.Google Scholar

137 Goldstone, Revolution and Rebellion, ch. 4; population figures at Eastman, Family, Fields and Ancestors, 4. Cf. supra n. 48 on putative Mongol-plague associations.Google Scholar

138 Popular Culture in Late Imperial China, esp. chs 1, 2, Naquin and Rawski, Chinese Society, 221 f. The Ming Dynasty was 1368–1644; the Qing, 1644–1912.Google Scholar

139 Naquin and Rawski, Chinese Society, 229–31, 236; Popular Culture in Late Imperial China, esp. chs 1, 2, 9–11.Google Scholar

140 On Sinicization both on the internal frontier and in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, see Ho, Ping-ti, ‘The Significance of the Ch'ing Period in Chinese History,’ JAS 26, 2 (1967): 189–91;CrossRefGoogle ScholarNaquin and Rawski, Chiniese Society, ix, 129, 223;Google ScholarEastman, Family, Fields and Ancestors, 8–14.Google Scholar

141 In fact, private sector activities had been growing at the expense of the public sector since the 8th century. Of course, Ming–Qing elites lacked the strong regional political identity of their Indian counterparts. See Hartwell, ‘Demographic, Political and Social Transformations,’ 365–442;Google ScholarCity in Late Imperial China, 19–26, 419–73;Google ScholarMetzger, Thomas, ‘On the Historical Roots of Economic Modernization in China,’ in Modern Chinese Economic Histoiy, Hou, Chi-ming and Yu, Tzong-Shian, eds (Taipei, 1979), 3–14;Google ScholarRowe, ‘Modern Chinese Social History’, 266–70;Google ScholarNaquin, and Rawski, , Chinese Society, 11, 26, 45–6, 126, 222–9;Google ScholarPopular Culture in Late Imperial China, 5–6.Google Scholar

142 See Ch'u, T'ung-tsu, Local Government in China Under the Ch'ing (Stanford, 1962);CrossRefGoogle ScholarMetzger, Thomas, The Internal Organization of Ch'ing Bureaucracy (Cambridge, 1973);CrossRefGoogle ScholarNaquin and Rawski, Chinese Society, 223 f.;Google ScholarWill, Pierre-Etienne, Bureaucracy and Famine in Eighteenth-Century China, Forster, Elborg, tr. (Stanford, 1990);Google ScholarBartlett, Beatrice S., Monarchs and Ministers: The Grand Council in Mid-Ch'ing China, 1723–1820 (Berkeley, 1991).Google Scholar

143 Hucker, Imperial Past; Chu, T. T., Han Social Structure, Dull, Jack, ed. (Seattle, 1972);Google ScholarHuang, Ray, China: A Macro History (Armonk, N.Y., 1988), chs 2–6.Google Scholar

144 See n. 138 supra, plus Hartwell, ‘Demographic, Political, and Social Transformations,’ 365–442;Google ScholarEbrey, Patricia, ‘The Dynamics of Elite Domination in Sung China,’ Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 48 (1988): 493–519;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHucker, Imperial China, 303–28, 357–78;Google ScholarElvin, Chinese Past, Pt 2.Google Scholar

145 Elvin, Chinese Past, 150.Google Scholar

146 See in addition to n. 133 supra, Myers, Ramon, ‘Transformation and Continuity in Chinese Economic and Social History,’ JAS 33, 2 (1974): 265–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

147 The same claim might be made for Nara/Heian Japan, Kievan Russia, or Carolingian/early Capetian France. Yet in terms of providing an historicized charter for subsequent polities, Ly/Tran Vietnam was not truly equivalent to Pagan or Angkor.Google Scholar

148 Compare, for example, the Chinese Yellow turbans, White Lotus, and Taiping with anti-Confucian, anti-landlord rebellions, especially the Tayson, in 18th century Vietnam. By contrast, horizontal (as opposed to vertical patron–client) cleavages were virtually unknown in Indianized Southeast Asia. See Wakeman, Frederic, ‘Rebellion and Revolution: The Study of Popular Movements in Chinese History’, JAS 36, 2 (1977): 201–37;CrossRefGoogle ScholarReischauer, Edwin O. and Fairbank, John K., East Asia: The Great Tradition, 122–6, 140, 392;Google ScholarWoodside, Alexander, ‘Conceptions of Change…;’ in Moral Order and the Question of Change, 104–5;Google ScholarHodgkin, Vietnam, 83–9.Google Scholar On the role of independent ideologies in generating peasant resistance, see Scott, James, Weapons of the Weak (New Haven, 1985), esp. 39–41, 184–98, 305–22.Google Scholar

149 See Woodside, Vietnam, 141–52, 172–80, claiming that the transposition of Chinese structures to small-scale Vietnam afforded the Vietnamese state better local control.Google Scholar

150 See supra nn. 26–9, plus Reid, ‘The Pre-Colonial Economy of Indonesia,’ Bulletin of indonesian Economic Studies 20, 2 (1984): 151–61; idem, ‘Trade and State Power in the [sic] 16th and 17th Century Southeast Asia,’ Proceedings, Seventh IAHA Conference (Bangkok, 1979), 391–419; Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Western Archipelago,’ 256 ff.

151 Manguin, Pierre-Yves, ‘The Southeast Asian Ship: An Historical Approach,’ JSEAS 11, 2 (1980): 266–76.Google Scholar

152 Much depends on the definition of ‘urban.’ Reid, Anthony, ‘The Structure of Cities in Southeast Asia, Fifteenth to Seventeenth Centuries,’ JSEAS 11, 2 (1980): 235–50.Google ScholarCf. Kathirithamby-Wells, J., ‘The Islamic City: Melaka to Jogjakarta, c. 1500–1800,’ MAS 20, 2 (1986): 333–51.Google Scholar

153 M. C. Ricklefs, ‘Six Centuries of Islamization in Java’, in Conversion to Islam, Nehemia Levitzion, ed. (New York, 1979), 104–6; idem, A History of Modern Indonesia London, 1981), 12; The Suma Oriental of Tome Pires, Armando Cortesao, ed., 2 vols (London, 1944), I, 173, 182–98.

154 On Islam's early appeals, especially political and economic, see Ricklefs, Modern Indonesia, 3–13, 7–55; idem, ‘Six Centuries of Islamization,’ 100–28; C. H. Wake, ‘Melaka in the Fifteenth Century,’ in Melaka, Sandhu and Wheatley, eds, I, 140–54; Schrieke, Sociological Studies, I, 7–48, and II, 230–67; A. C. Milner, ‘Islam and the Muslim State,’ in Islam in South-East Asia, M. B. Hooker, ed. (Leiden, 1983), 23–49; S. Q. Fatimi, Islam Comes to Malaysia (Singapore, 1963); Anthony Reid, ‘The Islamization of Southeast Asia,’ in Historia, Muhammad Abu Bakar et al., eds (Kuala Lumpur, 1984), 13–33; John Villiers, ‘The Cash Crop Economy and State Formation in the Spice Islands,’ and ‘Makassar,’ in Southeast Asian Port and Polity, 83–105, 143– 59; J. Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Banten,’ ibid., 106–25.

155 Anthony Reid, ‘Islamization and Christianization in Southeast Asia,’ forthcoming in Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Era.Google Scholar

156 See Ricklefs, ‘Six Centuries of Islamization,’ 104, 108–10; A. H. Johns, ‘Sufism as a Category in Indonesian Literature and History,’ JSEAH 2, 2 (1961); 10–23. On the cultural idiom of conversion, see, too, idem. ‘Islam in Southeast Asia,’ in Southeast Asian History and Historiography, 304–20; idem, ‘Muslim Mystics and Historical Writing,’ in Historians of South-East Asia, 37–49; G. W. J. Drewes, ‘New Light on the Coming of Islam to Indonesia?’ Bijdragen tot de taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde (BKI), 124, 4 (1968): 433–59 (often critical of Johns); de Graaf, H. J. and Pigeaud, Th. G. Th., Chinese Muslims in Java in the 15th and 16th Centuries (North Melbourn, 1984);Google ScholarJones, Russell, ‘Ten Conversion Myths from Indonesia,’ Conversion to Islam, 129–58.Google Scholar

157 On the fate of Islam in central Java and Bali, see supra n. 154, plus Pigeaud, Theodore G. Th. and de Graaf, H. J., Islamic States in Java 1500–1700 (The Hague, 1976), chs 1–4Google Scholar, Vickers, Adrian, ‘Hinduism and Islam in Indonesia: Bali and the Pasisir World,’ Indonesia 4 (1987): 31–58;Google ScholarWorsley, P. J., ‘Preliminary Remarks on the Concept of Kingship in the Babad Buleleng,’ in Pre-Colonial State systems in Southeast Asia, Reid, Anthony and Castles, Lance, eds (Kuala Lumpur, 1975), 108–13;Google ScholarGeertz, Clifford, Negara (Princeton, 1980), 87–9.Google Scholar

158 To a lesser degree this culture also influenced Cham, Khmer, and Thai coastal areas of the mainland. On cultural changes linked to Islamization, see discussions of Aceh, Banten, Melaka, north Java, Ternate, and Makassar in nn. 154–6, plus Andayas, Malaysia, 43–4, 50–5, 93 (a nonpareil overview of island history); Leonard Y. Andaya, The Heritage of Arung Palkakka (The Hague, 1981), 33–40; Roy F. Ellen, ‘Social Theory, Ethnography, and the Understanding of Practical Islam in SouthEast Asia,’ in Islam in South-East Asia, 55–6, 72; Reid, ‘Islamization of Southeast Asia,’ 20–4; Idem., Age of Commerce, 7, 35, 40, 67–89, 142–4, 156–8, 205–7, 217–34; Laarhoven, Ruurdje, ‘Lords of the Great River’, in Southeast Asian Port and Polity, 161–85;Google ScholarLombard, D., ‘Réflexions sur le Concept de “Pasisir” et sur son Utilité pour l'Etude des Littératures,’ Cultural Contact and Textual Interpretation, Grijns, C. D. and Robson, S. O., eds (Dordrecht, 1986), 19–24;Google ScholarVilliers, ‘Cash Crop Economy,’ 96–9;Google Scholar and Pelras, Christian, ‘Religion, Tradition and the Dynamics of Islamization in South Sulawesi,’ Archipel 29 (1985): 107–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

159 Andayas, Malaysia, 54–5. See too 23–9, 42–53.Google Scholar

160 Ellen, ‘Social Theory,’ 72–3;Google ScholarReid, Age of Commerce, 7Google Scholar; Andayas, Malaysia, 55, 93 ff.Google Scholar

161 On the transition from Srivijaya to Melaka and early Melaka history, see supra, n. 159, plus Wolters, O. W., The Fall of Srivijaya in Malay History (London, 1970);Google ScholarWheatley, Paul, Impressions of the Malay Peninsula in Ancient Times (Singapore, 1964), chs 7–9;Google ScholarMeilink-Roelofsz, M. A. P., Asian Trade and European Influence in the Indonesian Archipelago (The Hague, 1962), chs 1, 2;Google ScholarMelaka, Sandhu and Wheatley, eds, I, 101–12, 128–79.Google Scholar

162 The Mongols' 1293 invasion of Java lacked institutional or political significance comparable to the Mongol-precipitated fall of Pagan in 1287. Notwithstanding A. H. Johns' theories, the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in 1258 and the subsequent rise of the Sufis was also less direct a watershed for island Southeast Asia than were Tai and Chinese invasions for the mainland. Cf. Johns, ‘Sufism as a Category,’ 14.Google Scholar

163 See Lieberman, Administrative Cycles, 23–32; idem, ‘Reinterpreting Burmese History,’ 171–2; Wolters, Fall of Srivijaya, 42–8; Chandler, Cambodia, 77–87.

164 On Melaka see supra n. 161, plus Meilink-Roelofsz, Asian Trade, chs 3–5; Suma Oriental, II, 229–89; Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Regional and State Integration,’ 26–7; Luis Filipe F. R. Thomaz, ‘The Malay Sultanate of Malacca,’ forthcoming in Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Era.Google Scholar

165 Ricklefs, Modem Indonesia, chs I (esp. p. 7), 2, 4;Google ScholarIslamic States in Java, ch. I; Meilink-Roelofsz, Asian Trade, 103–15.Google Scholar

166 Kumar, ‘Four Societies,’ 11–14; Ito and Reid, ‘Feudal Diffusion’, 201–3; Anthony Reid, ‘Trade and the Problem of Royal Power in Aceh. Three States: c. 1550–1700,’ in Pre-Colonial State Systems, 45–8; idem, The Contest for North Sumatra (Kuala Lumpur, 1969), 2–3.

167 Nicholl, Robert, ‘Brunei Rediscovered,’ JSEAS 14, 1 (1983): 32–45;Google ScholarRicklefs, Modern Indonesia, 5–8;Google ScholarMeilink-Roelofsz, Asian Trade, 85, 100, 101;Google ScholarAndayas, Malaysia, 57–9;Google ScholarLeake, David, Brunei (Jefferson, N.C., 1989), 6–21.Google Scholar

168 Banda, Tidore, and Ternate were the principal states. See Villiers, ‘State Formation in the Spice Islands,’ 83–105Google Scholar; Lapian, A. B., ‘The Diversified Unity of Maluku-Kie-Raha: Its Historical Development,’ in States in Southeast Asia, Tsuchiya, Kenji, ed. (Kyoto, 1984), 171–208.Google Scholar

169 See similar speculations at Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Banten,’ 108;Google ScholarRicklefs, Modern Indonesia, 29.Google Scholar

170 On Portuguese commercial impact and the 16th century fragmentation of authority, see Meilink-Roelofsz, Asian Trade, chs 6, 7; Schrieke, Sociological Studies, I, 37–48; Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Banten,’ 107–11; idem, ‘Regional and State Integration,’ 27–32, 38–9, 42; Reid, ‘Royal Power in Aceh,’ 46–8; idem, ‘Sixteenth Century Turkish Influence in Western Indonesia,’ JSEAH 10, 3 (1969): 395–414; Leonard Andaya, ‘The Kingdom of Johor’ (Cornell Univ. PhD diss., 1972), 15–20; C. R. Boxer, ‘A Note on Portuguese Reactions,’ JSEAH 10, 3 (1969): 415–28; Luis Filipe F. R. Thomaz, ‘Les Portugais dans les mers de l'Archipel au XVIe siècle,’ Archipel 18 (1979): 105–25.

171 See previous note, plus Blussé, Strange Company, 38.Google Scholar

172 Reid, ‘Turkish Influence,’ 394–411; idem, ‘Europe and Southeast Asia: The Military Balance,’ Asian Studies Assoc. of Australia Fourth Nat'l. Conference Paper, Monash, 1982.

173 See analyses at Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Regional and State Integration,’ 32–44; Gupta, Arun Das in India and the Indian Ocean, 256–67;Google ScholarReid, ‘Trade and State Power,’ 391–419.Google Scholar

174 Meilink-Roelofsz, Asian Trade, 239–58; Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Western Archipelago,’ 265–6; Reid, ‘Trade and State Power,’ 404–5;Google ScholarBlussé, Strange Company, 39 ff.Google Scholar

175 On 17th century Bantanese and Acehnese innovations, see three previous notes, plus Denys Lombard, Le Sultanat d'Atjeh au Temps d'Iskandar Muda 1607–1636 (Paris, 1967), chs 2–4; Ito and Reid, ‘Feudal Diffusion,’ 200–8; Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Banten,’ 107–25; idem, ‘Achehnese Control over West Sumatra up to the Treaty of Painan of 1663,’ JSEAH 10, 3 (1969): 453–79;Google ScholarReid, ‘Royal Power in Aceh,’ 48–55;Google ScholarRoelofsz, Meilink, Asian Trade, 207–68.Google Scholar

176 Jambi, Palembang, and Indragiri likewise strove to control pepper districts and shipping routes. On those states and Johor, see Arun Das Gupta in India and the Indian Ocean, 261–67; Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Regional and State Integration,’ 38–9; Andaya, ‘Kingdom of Johor,’ chs 2–4.Google Scholar

177 Blussé, Strange Company, 39, 44.Google Scholar

178 Kumar, ‘Four Societies,’ 18–19; Ito and Reid, ‘Feudal Diffusion,’ 206; Barbara Watson Andaya, personal communication, Lisbon, December 1989;Google ScholarReid, Struggle for North Sumatra, 2, 5.Google Scholar

179 On the Spice Islands, Borneo, and Bali, see supra nn. 157, 167, 168.Google Scholar

180 On Makassar's fortunes to c. 1670, see Andaya's magnum opus, Heritage of Arung PalakkaGoogle Scholar, plus Reid, Anthony, ‘A Great Seventeenth Century Indonesian Family,’ Masyarakat Indonesia 8, 1 (1981): 1–28;Google Scholar‘Symposium on South Sulawesi,’ Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs 17 (1983): 62–160Google Scholar; Villiers, ‘Makassar,’ 143–59Google Scholar; Noorduyn, J., ‘Some Aspects of Makassar-Buginese Historiography,’ in Historians of South-East Asia, 29–36.Google Scholar

181 On Mataram to c. 1677, see Ricklefs, Modern indonesia, chs 4, 7; idem, Jogjakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi 1749–1792 (Oxford, 1974), 1–26; Kumar, ‘Four Societies,’ 29–36. Cf. Lieberman, Administrative Cycles, 281–3.

182 See figures at Reid, ‘Structure of Cities,’ 238; idem., Age of Commerce, 14; Lombard, Sultanat d'Atjeh, 46, 99–100.

183 Lombard, Sultanat d'Atjeh, 60–1, 99–100.Google ScholarCf. Ricklefs, Modern Indoesia, 32. According to Reid, ‘Structure of Cities,’ 237–40, two primary characteristics of archipelagic cities were their poor agricultural hinterland, and the high urban/rural population ratios.Google Scholar

184 Schrieke, , Sociological Studies, I, 67;Google ScholarVilliers, ‘Makassar,’ 152.Google Scholar

185 This point receives emphasis in Burger, D. H., Structural Changes in Javanese Society: The Supra-Village Sphere (Ithaca, 1956), 6–9.Google Scholar

186 See Remmelink's, W. remarks on the illiteracy of Javanese courtiers, astonishing by Burmese as well as Vietnamese standards. ‘Expansion without Design,’ Itinerario 12, 1 (1988): 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

187 Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Western Archipelago,’ 265–7;Google ScholarIto and Reid, ‘Feudal Diffusion,’ 204–8; Reid, ‘Trade and State Power,’ 408–15; Andaya, ‘Kingdom of Johor,’ chs 7–10;Google ScholarReid, Contest for North Sumatra, 4–6.Google Scholar

188 Andaya, Arung Palakka, chs 3–5; Reid, ‘A Great Family,’ 26.Google Scholar

189 Reid, ‘Seventeenth-Century Crisis,’ 657; idem, ‘Trade and Shipping,’ 92. Cf. De Vries, Economy of Europe, 134–6. Note, however, the criticisms by Steensgaard, ‘Eurasian History,’ 687.

190 H. G. Quaritch Wales, Ancient South-East Asian Warfare (London, 1952), esp. chs 6, 7; Reid, ‘Military Balance,’ 9–14; idem., Age of Commerce, 121–9.

191 See Smith, Dutch in Thailand, ch. 3; Boxer, C. R., The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600–1800 (London, 1965), chs 2, 7;Google ScholarIsrael, Jonathan I., Dutch Primacy in World Trade 1585–1740 (Oxford, 1989).Google Scholar On the other hand, when competing against the Dutch, individual Southeast Asian, Indian, and most especially Chinese traders often enjoyed more extensive local support networks, better commercial information, and smaller overheads.

192 In Java and Makassar drought and famine may have joined local disorders to tilt further the economic/military balance in favor of Europeans. See Lamb, H. H., Climate Present, Past and Future, 2 vols (London, 1977), II, 224, 603–5;Google Scholar and Reid, ‘Seventeenth Century Crisis,’ 654–6.Google Scholar

193 On Dutch conquests, see Gupta, Arun Das, India and the Indian Ocean, 256–69;Google ScholarRicklefs, Modern Indonesia, 59–68;Google ScholarSchrieke, , Sociological Studies, I, 61–9;Google ScholarReid, ‘Trade and Shipping,’ 91;Google ScholarVlekke, Nusantara, 158–72;Google ScholarReid, ‘Seventeenth-Century Crisis,’ 641–2.Google Scholar

194 Ito and Reid, ‘Feudal Diffusion,’ 199–207;Google ScholarSchrieke, , Sociological Studies, I, 62–5;Google ScholarKathirithamby-Wells, ‘Achehnese Control,’ 465–79;Google ScholarReid, Contest for North Sumatra, 4–5. Aceh already had been weakened by internal feuds and by the failure of its 1629 attack on Portuguese Melaka.Google Scholar

195 On Malay political realignments and the Dutch contribution thereto, see Andayas, Malaysia, 79–88, 95–8, 105, 108–13;Google ScholarAndaya, Leonard, ‘Kingdom of Johor,’ 115, chs 8, 9 passim;Google ScholarAndaya, Barbara Watson, Perak: The Abode of Grace (Kuala Lumpur, 1979).Google Scholar

196 Ricklefs, Modern Indonesia, chs 7–9; Idem., Sultan Mangkubumi, chs 1–4, 12; Vlekke, Nusantara, ch. 8.

197 On the decline of the indigenous urban/commercial sector, particularly in the eastern and central archipelago, and on the new colonial cities, see Burger, Structural Changes, 7–11; Reid, ‘Origins of Poverty,’ 43–9; idem, ‘Seventeenth-Century Crisis,’ 641–57; idem, ‘Trade and Shipping,’ 93–6; idem, ‘Pre-Colonial Economy,’ 161–64; Leonard Blussé, ‘Batavia, 1619–1740,’ JSEAS 12, 1 (1981): 159–78, esp. 169; Jean Taylor, The Social World of Batavia (Madison, 1983), 33–79; Search of Southeast Asia, 153–4.

198 Reid has so characterized Bugis and Acehnese enterprises. On 17th century commercial changes, see previous note plus India and the Indian Ocean, 147–8, 269–70;Google ScholarCurtin, Cross-Cultural Trade, 159–67.Google Scholar

199 Reid, ‘Islamization and Christianization, 1550–1650.’Google Scholar

200 See Johns, ‘Islam in Southeast Asia,’ 319–20;Google ScholarReid, ‘Islamization and Christianization, 1550–1650’; Ito and Reid, ‘Feudal Diffusion,’ 207–8. Moreover, in 18th-century Aceh the local language emerged from the hegemony of Malay, a preeminently cosmopolitan language that had dominated textual composition during the ‘golden age’ of the 17th century.Google Scholar

201 Ricklefs, ‘Six Centuries of Islamization,’ 107 suggests that Islam influenced central Javanese court life more pervasively in the 17th than in the 18th century. See, too, Burger, Structural Changes, 11–14. More recently, however, Nancy Florida, ‘Crossing Kraton Walls: On Santri Aspects of the Literary Culture of a Premodern Javanese Court’ (unpublished 1991 MS), has shown a powerful santri literary influence at court from at least the late 18th century;Google Scholar while Hoadley, Mason, ‘Javanese, Peranakan, and Chinese Elites in Cirebon: Changing Ethnic Boundaries,’ JAS 47, 3 (1988): 507 refers to the growing influence on Javanese family law of Islamic norms during the late 17th and early 18th centuries.Google Scholar

202 See below on the changing character of Islamic revivalism and of renewed contacts with the Near East, especially in Sumatra and the Straits, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.Google Scholar

203 See the first edition of Hall, D. G. E., A History of South-East Asia (London, 1955);Google Scholar the preface to the third edition (London, 1968); and the analyses of colonial-era European historiography by Chesneaux, Jean, Hooykaas, C., and Macdonald, A. W. in Historians of South-East Asia.Google Scholar

204 Coedes, G., The Making of South East Asia, Wright, H. M., tr. (London, 1962), esp. vii–viii;Google Scholar van Leur, Indonesian Trade and Society; Schrieke, Sociological Studies; and Smail, John R. W., ‘On the Possiblity of an Autonomous History of Modern Southeast Asia,’ JSEAH 2, 2 (1961): 72–102.Google Scholar

205 Besides previous notes, see Meilink-Roelofsz, Asian Trade, 1–12.Google Scholar

206 On European involvement, see Wyatt, Thailand, 110–12; Smith, Dutch in Thailand, chs 2–5;Google ScholarThanh-Nha, Nguyen, Tableau économique, 201–17;Google ScholarHall, D. G. E., Early English Intercourse with Burma 1587–1743 (rpt London, 1968);Google ScholarLieberman, ‘Unification of Burma,’ 202–26; Woodside, Vietnam, 16–18, 261–94;Google ScholarKoenig, Polity, 22–30, 201–20.Google Scholar

207 Andaya, ‘Kingdom of Johor,’ esp. 52–80; Andayas, Malaysia, 68–70.Google Scholar

208 On British trade see supra n. 31; Boxer, Dutch Seaborne Empire, ch. 10.Google Scholar

209 Andayas, Malaysia, 79–113, esp. 89–93; Barbara Watson Andaya, Perak, esp. ch. 2; Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Regional and State Integration,’ 40; India and the Indian Ocean, 297–8.Google Scholar

210 Ibrahim, Sultan Tuanku (1838–1870) again extended Aceh's territory and attempted to reassert central authority.Google ScholarReid, Contest for North Sumatra, 6–17;Google ScholarKumar, ‘Four Societies,’ 19;Google ScholarReid, ‘Origins of Poverty,’ 43–7;Google ScholarDobbin, Christine, Islamic Revivalism in a Changing Peasant Economy (London, 1983), 166–7.Google Scholar

211 Warren, James Francis, The Sulu Zone 1768–1898 (Singapore, 1981).Google Scholar

212 Carey, Peter B. R., Babad Dipanagara (Kuala Lumpur, 1981), xlvi;Google ScholarDobbin, Revivalism, chs 4, 5; Wink, ‘Al-Hind,’ 69.Google ScholarAndaya, Barbara Watson, personal communication, Lisbon, December, 1989;Google Scholar and Ricklefs, Modern Indonesia, 6, 13 also emphasize Islam's geographic extension and orthodox commitment. Note, however, that in contrast to Theravada Buddhism or Neo-Confucianism on the mainland, both of which were generally sympathetic to political centralization, Islamic reformism in 18th and 19th-century Southeast Asia was frequently hostile to established authority, whether raja-centered or, more obviously, European.Google ScholarSee Milner, ‘Islam and the Muslim State,’ 45–8; and Dobbin, Islamic Revivalism.Google Scholar

213 Andaya, Barbara Watson and Andaya, Leonard, personal communications, Lisbon, December, 1989 both have emphasized intra-archipelagic variation.Google Scholar

214 Lieberman, ‘Seventeenth Century Watershed.’ European compression of indigenous shipping is by no means incompatible with the claim that on the whole Europeans prior to 1824 strengthened mainland courts militarily.Google Scholar

215 On Chinese expansion in this era, see Blussé, ‘Chinese Commercial Networks’; Carey, Peter, ‘Changing Javanese Perceptions of the Chinese Communities in Central Java, 1755–1825,’ Indonesia 37 (1984): 1–47, esp. 4–16;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWickberg, Edgar, The Chinese in Philippine Life 1850–1898 (New Haven, 1965), 3–41;Google ScholarBlussé, Strange Company, chs 3–5; Dobbin, Islamic Revivalism, 73–87, 101–3, 149–66, 212–39;Google ScholarSkinner, Chinese Society, 1–27; Viraphol, Tribute and Profit, chs 8–10; Cushman, ‘Fields from the Sea,’ chs 1, 4, 5;Google ScholarLysa, Hong, Nineteenth Century, chs 3, 4;Google ScholarThanh-Nha, Nguyen, Tableau économique, 133, 164–6, 195–201;Google ScholarWoodside, Vietnam, 30–3, 115–17, 267–79.Google Scholar

216 Furnivall, J. S., Colonial Policy and Practice (New York, 1956), 303–12.Google ScholarCf. Wood-side, Vietnam, 31–2.Google Scholar

217 See Skinner, Chinese Society, 3, 5, 11, 19–22, 71, 128–34, 150–4; Woodside, Vietnam, 115–16, 270–5; Nguyen Ngoc Huy and Ta Van Tai, Le Code, I, 30; and Smith, Dutch in Thailand, ch. 4, esp. p. 77; idem, ‘Princes, Nobles, and Traders,’ 6–13, referring to Thai-Muslims, Thai-Japanese, Thai-Chinese, Thai-Portuguese, Thai Malays, and Mons. Although leaders of these communities were integrated into the Thai status hierarchy and although long term pressures favored integration, economic and residential segregation also limited the pace and extent of assimilation. Cf. Koenig, Polity, 58–64;Google ScholarLieberman, ‘Ethnic Politics,’ 455–82.Google Scholar

218 Mason C. Hoadley, Roots of the Chinese Minority ‘Problem’ in Indonesia (Stockholm, 1986), 1–16; idem, ‘Javanese, Peranakan, and Chinese,’ 503–18; Peter Carey, ‘Changing Javanese Perceptions,’ esp. 1–18, 31–2, 41–2; Taylor, Social World of Batavia, chs 4, 5. Heather Sutherland, ‘Eastern Emporium and Company Town,’ in Brides of the Sea, Frank Broeze, ed. (Honolulu, 1989), esp. 124–6, and idem, ‘Ethnicity, Wealth and Power in Colonial Makassar,’ in The Indonesian City, Peter J. M. Nas, ed. (Dordrecht, 1986), 47, argues that 18th century Makassar also saw a Dutch-sponsored tightening of ethnic boundaries. Yet the role of changing Chinese demography, as opposed to changing elite policy, awaits analysis, as does the Chinese role in Malay-ruled archipelagic courts.

219 Vlekke, Nusantara, 137–8, 161;Google ScholarKnaap, G. J., ‘Coffee for Cash,’ in Trading Companies in Asia 1600–1830, van Goor, J., ed. (Utrecht, 1986), 47;Google Scholar Glamann, Dutch–Asiatic Trade, chs 4, 5.

220 De Vries, , Economy of Europe, 135–6;Google ScholarVlekke, Nusantara, 201, 204Google Scholar; Knaap, ‘Coffee for Cash,’ 47Google Scholar; Glamann, Dutch–Asiatic Trade, chs. 4, 5, 8, 10, 11;Google ScholarAndayas, Malaysia, 99–101.Google Scholar

221 Reduced political autonomy, however, was compatible in many cases with increased priayi income. See Schrieke, Sociological Studies, I, 201–21; Peter Carey, ‘Aspects of Javanese History,’ in The Development of Indonesian Society, 45–52; idem., Babad Dipanagara, xxxvii–xlvii; idem, ‘Waiting for the Just King,’ 59–137. See, too, overviews at Ricklefs, Modern Indonesia, chs 8–10; Search of Southeast Asia, 151–7; Remmelink, ‘Expansion Without Design,’ 110–27.

222 On Dutch relations with south central Java 1750–1830, see Carey, ‘Aspects of Javanese History,’ 45–78; Ricklefs, Modern Indonesia, chs 9, 10; idem., Mangkubumi, esp. chs 6–12.

223 On the extension of Dutch authority in Palembang, Jambi, and the Minangkabau area of Sumatra, and in Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and other Outer Islands, see Ricklefs, Modern Indonesia, ch. 12, and Dobbin, Islamic Revivalism.Google Scholar

224 The British maintained a base at Bencoolen in Sumatra from 1682 to 1824, and acquired Penang in 1786, Melaka in 1795, Province Wellesley in 1800, and Singapore in 1819. Yet not until the Anglo–Burmese Wars (1824–1885) and the forward movement in Malaya (from 1874) can Britain be said to have developed a substantial Southeast Asian domain.Google Scholar

225 On the pre-1750 economy of the Spanish Philippines, see Diaz-Trechuelo, Maria Lourdes, ‘Eighteenth Century Philippine Economy: Commerce,’ Philippine Studies 14 (1966): 252–79;Google ScholarCorpuz, O. D., The Bureaucracy in the Philippines (Manila, 1957), 32;Google ScholarSchurz, William L., The Manila Galleon (New York, 1939);Google ScholarLarkin, John A., ‘Philippine History Reconsidered: A Socioeconomic Perspective,’ American Historical Review 87, 3 (1982) 598–612;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPhelan, John L., The Hispanization of the Philippines (Madison, 1959), 93–120;Google ScholarCushner, Nicholas P., Spain in the Philippines (Quezon City, 1971), 101–52.Google Scholar

226 The Spanish tobacco monopoly was a profitable exception. See de Jesus, Ed. C., The Tobacco Monopoly in the Philippines (Quezon City, 1980).Google Scholar

227 Wickberg, Chinese in Philippine Life, 3–64; idem, ‘The Chinese Mestizo in Philippine History,’ JSEAH 5, 1 (1964): 62–100; Michael Cullinane and Dennis Roth in Philippine Social History, Alfred C. McCoy and Ed. C. de Jesus, eds (Honolulu, 1982) Larkin, ‘History Reconsidered,’ 606–12.

228 Wickberg, , Chinese in Philippine Life, 15, 31–6.Google ScholarOn Christianization and Hispanization, see Phelan, Hispanization, 31–89, 121–35;Google ScholarSitoy, T. Valentino Jr, A History of Christianity in the Philippines, vol. I (Quezon City, 1985).Google ScholarRafael's, Vicente revisionist critique appears in his Contracting Colonialism (Ithaca, 1988).Google Scholar

229 Wickberg, Chinese in Philippine Life, 34–6 suggests that (particularly outside Manila) the higher the mestizo's socio-economic status, the more ardent his Hispanized identity.Google Scholar

230 Larkin, ‘History Reconsidered,’ 611;Google ScholarReid, Age of Commerce, 14;Google ScholarRicklefs, Modern Indonesia, 105. Cf. supra nn. 56–8.Google Scholar

231 Robles, Eliodoro G., The Philippines in the 19th Century (Quezon City, 1969), chs 2–6;Google ScholarPhilippine Social History, essays by Roth, Cruikshank, and Cullinane. See, too, Cullinane, Michael, ‘Accounting for Souls,’ Philippine Historical Demography, Cullinane, and Xenos, Peter, eds (forthcoming, Ann Arbor);Google ScholarGreg Bankoff, ‘In Verbo Sacerdotis: The Judicial Powers of the Church in the Nineteenth-Century Philippines’ (unpublished MS).Google Scholar

232 See Phelan, Hispanization, 99–102;Google ScholarCushner, Spain in the Philippines, 187–8;Google ScholarSearch of Southeast Asia, 92–5, 160–2.Google Scholar

233 See Taylor, Social World of Batavia, 52–79;Google ScholarSutherland, ‘Eastern Entrepot’, 97–128;Google ScholarRicklefs, Modern Indonesia, 78–85; 102;Google ScholarCorpuz, Bureaucracy, 22–46; 92–151;Google ScholarCushner, Spain in the Philippines, ch. 7.Google Scholar

234 Phelan, Hispanization, chs 1, 2, 8. Cf. Scott, William Henry, Cracks in the Parchment Curtain (Quezon City, 1982).Google Scholar

235 See Ricklefs, Modern Indonesia, chs 10–12, Vlekke, Nusantara, chs 13, 14;Google ScholarLarkin, ‘Philippine History Reconsidered,’ 612–24;Google ScholarCorpuz, Bureaucracy, 80–2, 102–6, 128–47;Google ScholarSteinberg, Search of Southeast Asia, ch. 19; Robles, 9th Century, chs 3–6, 8–10. Growing divisions between peninsulares, creoles, indios, and mestizos, and the late 19th century development of mestizo/ilustrado resistance to Spanish rule, in no way negate the general argument that in the 19th century Philippine administration and society became more effectively integrated, with new networks of communication and closer supervision of the localities.Google Scholar