In his review of my doctoral thesis on the Portuguese decline in Asia Timothy J. Coates expresses amazement that so little time was spent in the archives or on the old historiography on Portuguese Asia and that I largely relied on the work of modern authors who did. My explanation for this well considered omission is quite simple: after the uncovering of so many new data by excellent historians it was about time to take a step back to see whether the many existing intersections through the archives, that had the Portuguese-Spanish-Dutch triangle as a subject, could be interrelated. I think the final conclusions were worth the effort.

In my review of Dr van Veen's work, I stated that his lack of archival and other primary sources was ‘inexplicable’. This was a polite way of pointing out what was to me the obvious. If one wants to construct an original thesis that the Portuguese Habsburg kings turned to other investments that they felt would yield greater profit than the Estado da India, the possible proof of tfiat thesis is in the archives in Simancas. By the same token, if one wants to examine the profit and losses in Portuguese Asia, the place to look is the Historical Archives of Goa and the Overseas Archives in Lisbon. There is no substitute for working in the archives and using the very rich published primary literature on the subjects of van Veen's work. His avoidance of these sources and complete lack of any archival work in Spain, Portugal, or India is well, inexplicable.