Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:53:07.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Influence in South-East Asia, c.1500–1630

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

D.K. Bassett
Get access

Extract

The more precise definition of the European impact upon South-East Asian trade and society prior to the nineteenth century has become an important pre-occupation of historians of that region in recent years. The hypothesis of J.C. van Leur that “modern capitalism” took shape only after 1820 impelled him to suggest an equality or near-equality between Asian and European commercial organization in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A corollary of this view was his negative assessment of the Portuguese achievement in South-East Asia, his refusal to accord them technical or organizational superiority except in a limited military sense, his insistence upon the small and unimportant Portuguese share of inter-Asian trade, and his denunciation of the Portuguese as little better than a band of condottieri who lacked an effective central administration.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , September 1963 , pp. 173 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1963

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

1. van Leur, J.C., Indonesian Trade and Society. (The Hague and Bandung, 1955), 10, 31Google Scholar. He defined “modern capitalism” as “the pacification df world markets, political control of possessions ans spheres of influence.…, mobilization of the world as a market for sale ans production of goods and raw materials, mechanization of big industry, rational organization of free labour and free capital”.

2. op.cit., 117–8, 188–9.

3. Boxer, C.R., “The Portuguese in the East, 1500–1800”, in Livermore, H.V., Portugal and Brazil. (Oxford, 1953), 194Google Scholar; also Boxer's review of Van Leur's Indonesian Trade and Society in Indonesie, 8. (1955), 426–7.

4. Bastin, J., “The Western Element in modern Southeast Asiam History”, in Essays on Indonesian and Malayan History, (Singapore, 1961), 5–6.Google Scholar

5. Van Leur, , Indonesian Trade and Society. 117–8, 130–4.Google Scholar

6. op.cit., 129.

7. op.cit., 188.

8. Meilink-Roelofsz, M.A.P., Asian Trade and European Influence in the Indonesian Archipelago between 1500 and about 1630, (viii & 471 pp., Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1962).Google Scholar

9. Cartesao, A. (ed.), The Suma Oriental of Tome Pires. 2 vols., (London, 1944).Google Scholar

10. For example, the failure of Pires to mention Gujerat merchants in Malacca of the standing of the Hindus Nina Chetti and Curia Deva cannot be used to demonstrate that the pre-1511 Gujerat merchants must have been men of limited means. (Meilink-Roelofsz, 56), The Gujerat merchants fled in 1511, so that Pires could not cite individuals comparable in wealth to the Hindus who stayed. Nor is Pires' reference to foriegners in the Gujarat army directly or by imflication evidence of collaboration between Turkey and Egypt against the Portuguese (Meilink-Roelofsz, 63). The Ottoman invasion of Egypt in 1517 is proof to the contrary, and a minor weakness in Dr. Meilink-Roelofsz's bibliography is her omission of the articles on this subject by Sir E. Denison Ross and M. Longworth Dames in The Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1921–2. Again, the statements by Pires that Kedah was outside Malacca's direct sphere of influence refer to the mid-15th century (Meilimk-Roelofsz, 337, f.n.21; Suma Oriental, II, 243, 248), and his comment that “Kedah is under the jurisdiction of the king of Siam” (Suma Oriental, I, 107) does not preclude a brisf period of allegiance to Malacca which was interrupted by the Portuguese conquest. Finally, the fact that “the people of Malacca” went to Pegu (Suma Oriental. I 98; Meilink-Roelofsz, 39, 339 f.n.19) is not evidence that they sailed on their own ships. In the same sentence Pires records that the people of Pase also visited Pegu, but Dr. Meilink-Roelofsz is adamant that Pase possessed no junks of its own. (Meilink-Roelosz, 20, 90).

11. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 16–7.Google Scholar

12. Op.cit., 14–5.

13. Op.cit., 15–6.

14. Op.cit., 24.

15. Op.cit., 6, 105, 113.

16. Cf. however the statement that “the conversion of the other rulers of coastal territories in Java invariably led to a break with Majapahit”. Meilink-Roelofsz, Asian Trade, 105.

17. Van Leur, , Indonesian Trade and Society, 112.Google Scholar

18. Op.cit., 168.

19. Meilink-Roelofsz, , op.cit., 6.Google Scholar

20. Loc.cit.; Van Leur, , Indonesian Trade and Society, 363, f.n.122.Google Scholar

21. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 6.Google Scholar

22. Van Leur, , Indonesian Trade and Society. 98–9.Google Scholar

23. Op.cit., 114.

24. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 5.Google Scholar

25. Op.cit., 54.

26. Van Leur, , op.cit., 139, 201–2.Google Scholar

27. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 5, 329, f.n.24.Google Scholar

28. Op.cit., 65.

29. Op.cit., 67–8.

30. op.cit., 45.

31. Op.cit., 46.

32. Op.cit., 47.

33. Bantam to Company, 27 Oct., 1670. Java Records, vol.IV, f.67. India Office Library (IOL), Commonwealth Relations Office, London.

34. Cf. Meilink-Roelofsz, , 246Google Scholar. “The fact that there were so many [chinese] buyers [of pepper in the Bantam hinterland] meant that a large quantity could be gathered together in a short time.” This piecemeal method of purchase was employed at Bantam at the beginning of the seventeenth century, although most of the officials of the Bantamese government then were Chinese and might have been expected to resort to bulk-buying.

35. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 250.Google Scholar

36. Op.cit., 53.

37. Op.cit., 259–60.

38. Op.cit., 240–244.

39. Op.cit., 8–9.

40. Op.cit., 106, 110.

41. Op.cit., 51–2, 341 f.n.88–9, 271.

42. Van Leur, , Indonesian Trade and Society, 205–7.Google Scholar

43. Van Leur, , op.cit., 207.Google Scholar

44. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 272.Google Scholar

45. Op. cit., 274.

46. Op.cit., 259–60, 262, 283.

47. Boxer, C.R. “The Portuguese in the East, 1500–1800” in Livermore, H.V., Portugal and Brazil (Oxford, 1953), 196–7Google Scholar; Sansom, B.G., The Western World and Japan (London, 1950), 68–9.Google Scholar

48. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 10.Google Scholar

49. Op.cit., 124.

50. Ibid.

51. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 116–7Google Scholar. The value of Ballard, Rulers of the Indian Ocean (London. 1927) is questionable in this connection.

52. Meilink-Roelofsz, , op.cit., 118.Google Scholar

53. Meilink-Roelofsz, , op.cit., 123, 357Google Scholar f.n.29; Wilkinson, R.J., “The Pall of Malacca” JMBRAS, XIII (2), 68.Google Scholar

54. Macgregor, I. A., “Johore Lama in the Sixteenth Century” JMBRAS, XXVIII (2) (1955), 112.Google Scholar

55. Twelve or thirteen Portuguese were killed in the toattle off Singapore in January 1577, which lasted between three and six hours. The Achinese were greatly superior in their numtoer of ships and the weight of their artillery, but their casualties may have reached 1,600 killed and captured. Macgregor, I.A., “A Portuguese sea fight off Singapore in the 1570's”, JMBRAS., XXIX (3), (1956), 13–5, 17.Google Scholar

56. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 39, 57.Google Scholar

57. For an example, see Macgregor, I.A., “Portuguese sea fight off Singapore in the 1570's”, JMBRAS, XXIX (3), 16.Google Scholar

58. Original Correspondence Series. No.4285, (I0L).

59. Monckton to Madras Select Committee, 22 April, 1772. Sumatra Factory Records, vol.15, f.88. (IOL). Monckton wrote: “The King of Quedah and all the Malay Kings have got Guns enough to drive all the Europeans out of India if they knew how to use them, and yet they want more”. In a letter of 2 May, 1772, Monckton estimated that there were 300 guns lying in the mud at the capital in Parlis.

60. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 139.Google Scholar

61. Op.cit., 139–40, 364 f.n.24.

62. Op.cit., 140.

63. Op.cit., 141.

64. Loc.cit.

65. Johore Lama was devasted by the Achinese in 1564 but this does not affect this discussion of Malay-Portuguese or obviate the ease with which Johore Lama was rebuilt.

66. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 277, 279.Google Scholar

67. Op.cit., 140–1.

68. Op.cit., 141.

69. SirMarkham, C. (ed.), Early Spanish Voyages to the Strait of Magellan, (London, 1911), 81.Google Scholar

70. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 130.Google Scholar

71. Loc.cit.

72. Boxer, C.E., Fidalgos in the Far East, 1550–1770, (The Hague, 1948), chap. XI.Google Scholar

73. Galeote Pereira, who was a contemporary of Pinto at Malacca, was at Malacca when the Achinese were defeated in 1547, fought on the Thai side at Ayuthia in 1548, made several voyages to Chian, where he was a prisoner in 1549–52. See Boxer, C.R., South China in the Sixteenth Century, (London, 1953), l–lv.Google Scholar

74. Collis, M., The Grand Peregrination. (London 1949), 232.Google Scholar

75. Teixeira, M., Early Portuguese”, Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Historians of Asia. (Taipeh, 1962), 28–9.Google Scholar

77. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 151.Google Scholar

78. Op.cit., 153.

79. Petition of the Bendahari and Indian merchants of Malacca to King Joao III of Portugal, 10 September 1527. Macgregor Papers. University of Singapore Library.

80. “Revenue and expenditure of the income which the King of Portugal has in the East Indies”, 7 November 1574. Macare gor Papers. The bishop of China and the Portuguese missionaries in Solor, Cambodia, Siam, Japan, the Moluccas and Amboina received salaries from the Malacca government according to this account. The cloth investment in Banda and the Moluccas was also paid for by the Malacca government. But the revenue of Malacca was given as 17,118,000 reis and the expenditure as 13,769,460 reis, leaving a surplus of 3,348,540 reis.

81. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 170.Google Scholar

82. Brouwer & council to XVII, 27 December, 1634. W.Ph. Coolhaas (ed.), Generale Missiven van Governeurs-General en Raden aan Heren XVII der Vereigde Oostindische Compagnie. I, (1610–38). 467–9. (The Hague. 1960).

83. Leupe, P.A. (ed.), “The Siege and Capture of Malacca from the Portuguese in 1640–1641”, JMBRAS, XIV (1), (1946), 98–9, 120, 135.Google Scholar

84. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 42.Google Scholar

85. Op.cit., 149.

86. Op.Cit., 150.

87. Op.cit., 148.

88. Op.cit., 181.

89. Op.cit., 153.

90. Op.cit., 155.

91. Ibid.

92. Ibid.

93. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 125.Google Scholar

94. Op.cit., 186.

95. Op.cit., 184.

96. Ibid.

97. Op.cit., 164. There is considerable evidence in W.Ph. Goolhaas, Generale Missiven van Governeurs-General en Baden aan Heren XVII. I, (Hague, 1960) that the Portuguese of Malacca maintained trade with Griss until 1615 and that with Macassar, Timor, Solor end Macao until Couper enforced the blockade in 1633. Similarly, Portuguese competition from Malacca and via the Mergui Peninsula seriously affected Dutch pepper purchases and cloth sales in the Bay of Patani in 1626. See Coolhaas, , op.cit., 47, 84, 137, 138, 182, 191, 208, 226, 264, 281.Google Scholar

98. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 219.Google Scholar

99. Op.cit., 201.

100. Company to Surat, 31 May, 1683, IOL, Letter Book VII, f.152.

101. K. Glamann, Dutch-Asiatic Trade. 1620–1740. (Copenhagen and the Hague, 1958) chap.VII.

102. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, 3.Google Scholar

103. Van Leur, , Asian Trade and Society, 261.Google Scholar