Commodity and Market 53
hand, has proposed another way to rectify the dominant northern bias in
discussing the historical interactions between China and Southeast Asia.
He hints at a possible reversal in the treatment of the subject “to put more
historians on a ‘southern track’” and grow used to looking at the “north”
from the “south”, moving away from the “Nanyang concept”.^188 However,
this shift in position does not seem to resolve the problem of dealing with
the two historiographical biases. Only when the two maritime spaces
of north and south are connected is it possible to comprehend the long
history of maritime East Asia.
Positioning Southeast Asia in the Long-Distance Trade
To reconcile the Northeast and Southeast Asia biases, the role of
Southeast Asia in the long-distance trade is of essential importance.
Sanjay Subrahmanyam rightly highlights “the India factor” and “the
China factor”. One might want to modify the two factors as “the Indian
Ocean factor” and “the Northeast Asia factor” to cover regions rather than
individual states. In the long stretch of the sea-routes from the Indian
Ocean to Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia did not merely play a passive
intermediary role as the bridge between the two regions, it was itself an
engine propelling and sustaining the long-distance trade with its unique
commodities widely sought after by regions in the northeast and to its
west. Together the three maritime spaces were organically connected
and created a miracle in maritime trade in human history.
Final Remarks
Efforts to put an emphasis on the geographical unity of maritime East
Asia and the complementary roles of Northeast and Southeast Asia
in long-distance trade are indeed long overdue. One hopes for a new
historiography on maritime East Asia. Our knowledge of maritime Asia in
general and the East Asian Seas in particular remains sketchy with gaps
to be βilled, puzzles to be solved and conβlicting views to be reconciled.
Although quality works have been produced in the past 20 years,
especially on seaports and port-to-port connections, linkages between
ports and hinterlands are still understudied. Only when the inland rural
producers and the hinterland consumers are connected to the structure
of maritime long-distance trade can one claim to have gained a proper
appreciation of a fuller picture of the trade.
- Roderich Ptak, “International Symposium: China and Southeast Asia: Historical
Interactions”, Hong Kong, 10–21 July 2001, Archipel 62 (2001): 3–4.