52 Boundaries and Beyond
“that makes it practically impossible to carry through any comparison of
phenomena”.^184
Nevertheless, there is no denying that Braudel’s works remain a
source of inspiration to those studying a maritime civilization named
after a particular sea. Even Heather Sutherland, a critic of Braudel’s book,
concedes that the “great themes” tackled by Braudel are the attraction
of his works. Braudel frees a scholar from the conβines of political
borders, allowing him or her to “explore connections and borrowings,
while also reconciling continuity and change”.^185 Without a doubt, any
study of a maritime region will greatly beneβit from Braudel’s intellectual
imagination and rich conceptual vocabulary.
Two Maritime Spaces
Long-distance trade offers one opportunity by which to understand the
geographical unity of maritime East Asia and to appreciate the linkages
between the northern and southern sectors of the East Asian Seas more
thoroughly. What have blurred the picture of the unity of the two maritime
regions have been the two different historiographical approaches.
One places a heavy reliance on the Chinese sources in research work
and this has given rise to what is known as the “Nanhai” or “Nanyang”
perspective. Terms such as “tribute relations” and “the Nanhai trade” in
academic works reβlect a southward-looking perspective. In contrast,
John Smail’s appeal in 1961 for an “autonomous history” of Southeast
Asia^186 has created an opposite Southeast Asia-centered approach.
Although Smail’s main concern is the modern history of Southeast Asia
and his hypothesis is to contend with “Euro-centric” historiography, his
emphasis might inadvertently block the view of a connected maritime
East Asia. Sanjay Subrahmanyam, for example, is critical of John Smail’s
argument, claiming that it has the effect of delinking “Southeast Asian
history from that of China and India”. He deems such an approach hardly
desirable and intellectually infeasible.^187 Roderick Ptak, on the other
- J.C. van Leur, Indonesian Trade and Society, p. 147. Refer also to Heather
Sutherland, “Southeast Asian History and the Mediterranean Analogy”, Journal
of Southeast Asian Studies 34, 1 ( Feb. 2002): 1–20, for a critical review of the
Mediterranean parallels; and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, “Notes on Circulation and
Asymmetry”, pp. 21–43, for his reservations about the comparison. - Heather Sutherland, “Southeast Asian History and the Mediterranean Analogy”,
pp. 1, 17. - John Smail, “On the Possibility of an Autonomous History of ModernSoutheast
Asia”, Journal of Southeast Asian History 2 (July 1961): 72–102, that examines
the “Europe-centric” and “Asia-centric” schools of Indonesian historiography. - Ibid., pp. 23, 33.
http://www.ebook3000.com