1. Comment on Stapel's biography of Governor General Speelnan, 1681-4 in "On the Study of Indonesian History", van Leur Indonesian Trade and Society, The Hague-Bandung 1955, p, 153.

2. G.W. Locher, "Inleidende Beschouwingen over the Ontmoeting van Oost en West in Indonesie" (Introductory Observations on the Meeting of East and West in Indonesia) Indonesia Vol. II (1948-9), pp. 411-28 and 538-55.

3. The Western Element in Modern Southeast Asian History, Papers on South east Asian Subjects, no.2. Department of History, The University of Malaya : in Kuala Lumpur, 1960, p. 15. For. similarly fundamental use of the term see G.J. Rasink, "Lots over Europacentrische, Regiocentrische on Indocentrisohe Geschiedschrijvlng" -(Something on Europe-Centered, Region-Centered, and Indonesia-Centered.. Historiography), Orientatie, No.37 (Oct,1950), p.26: "The-fact that that indocentrie vision of van Leur's originated from a Europe-centric"thought-world and was expressed in Dutch scientific terminology made "that vision much less extreme and much less antithetical to the euxopacentric vision; than was once realized..." and again on p.29. Some such idea is: generally in the air, I believe. For convenience, I have adopted Resiak'r. adjectival form "Indo-centric". (adding the hyphen) rather than the noun ibrm "Indonesia-centric", while elsewhere using noun forms: "Europe-centric" (as in Hall), "Asia-centric" and so forth.

4. My language, but the idea originates with Resink, who gives much atten- ; tion to the sociological origin of historiographical tendencies. For the effect of the colonial scene, particularly of the 1820's and 30's, on colonial historiography see remarks in many of his articles cited in note 19 below.

5. "Zakelijkheid en Zekerheid in do Indonesische Geschied-sclirijving" (Objectivity and Certainty in the Writing of Indonesian History) Weerklanfr op het Werk van Jan Ronein, Amsterdam-Antwerp 1953, p. 148.

6. It is clear enough, that is, if taken in contradistinction to "Europe-centric," which is the way it is ordinarily taken. But it is far from clear if considered in relation to regional, national and Southeast Asian perspectives and historiographies. Is "Indo-centric," for example as "Europe-centric" is, or is it to be understood as being subsumed under the more general tern? If the latter, why? The whole question requires exhaustive treatment by itself and I will have to beg the question in this paper. For discussion of this neglected problem, see Resink's article cited in note 3 above and R. Mohammad Ali, "Masalah sekitar Penenpatan V.O.C. Chusus dan Kekuasaan Belanda Umumnjc dalam Sedjarah Indonesia," (The Problem of the Place of the Dutch Company in particular and Dutch Rule in general in Indonesian History) Medan Ilmu Pengetahuan. Djakarta, Vol. 1, No. 3 (July 1960), pp.261-89. For convenience of argument, though it is far from being my real opinj ion, I will assume in this paper that all these perspectives are not antithetical,to one another, but only to the Europe-centric perspective. 1 In parWcular, I will frequently use the term "Indo-centric" in referring to periods before the 20th century, though I am convinced that before then we can only speak of regional perspectives. However, following van Leur, I will use the term "the Indonesian world" for periods before 1900.

7. Here, as throughout in this paper, I am making use of the convenient : fiction that practice follows theory, though this is seldom the case and certainly not here.

8. I omit, for the moment, his more equivocal treatment' of the 18th century.

9. "Group" only in a loose sense, to indicate that they share certain tendencies. Certainly not a school, which implies much closer ties.

10. Vlekke, Nusantara, a History of Indonesia, 2nd rev ed, The Hague, 1959, roughly pp. 107-84 gives a less Europe-centric picture of the 17th century than Hall, roughly pp. 224-65. chiefly, I think, because he has had the benefit of van Leur's and Professor C.C. Berg's writing on this period, while Hall apparently has not.

11. Hall, pp. 495-9, also adopts a generally neutral moral viewpoint: These versions may be compared with a more colonial one, in H.J. de Graaf, Geschiedenis van Indonesie (History of Indonesia), The Hague-Bandung 1949, pp. 438-44. De Graaf is not, I believe, ordinarily accounted a colonial historian, but his version of the Acheh War has its share of "our troops", "the enemy", the "gall" (onbeschaamdheid) of the Achebnese on one occasion, "fanatics" and so forth, As far perspective is concerned, however, Kail and de Graaf are almost identical with Vlekke.

12. For lack of' knowledge about other Southeast Asian nationalist historio- graphies I must confine my remarks here to the Indonesian case.

13. My language, but I borrow the main idea from the work of Laura W, Lord, The Uses of History in Contemporary Indonesia, unpublished thesis (M.A.), Cornell University, Ithaca N.Y. 1959, passim, where.it is conclusively demonstrated for nationalist historians. On nationalist historians, too, see the article' by Mohammad Ali cited in note 6, esp. p. 266 n. 10, and p. 277. For essentially the same point as regards Western anti-colonial historians as well as nationalist ones, see - Bastin op. cit. p. 18, where, however, the failure to shift perspective, is apparently considered conscious ("a neat deception has been perpetrated") and not sociologically conditioned, as I shall argue below.

14. Sediarah Indonesia untuk Sekolah Menengah (History of Indonesia fofi Secondary Schools), 8th printing, Bandung 1957, Vol. III, pp. 75-89. It is worth remarking at this point that this book, like almost all Indonesian nationalist history books, is a textbook and is based entirely on secondary sources (15 listed under heading "Sources Consulted"), It could be argued from this that it would be unfair to make the same demands on it as on books based on Wider research and aimed at scholarly readers. But we are interested here mainly in the problem of what viewpoints have been used to see Southeast Asian history, not in the scholarship of the works in which these perspectives are found. Furthermore, the example of other.more scholarly anti-colonial works (particularly Western ones)' suggests that the perspectives found here may be taken as reasonably typical for all works by anti-colonial historians whatever their level. For a further discussion of this point, see Lord, op. cit. passim.

15. The general problem of sources is raised by Bastin op.cit.pp.16-17 Hall op.cit.vii. and Mohammad Ali op.cit.p.265 n.8(among others), to put them roughly in the order of increasing hopefulness about the possibility of solving the problem. I am more sanguine still. There is so much material about Southeast Asia in European sources and historians generally in the last contury or so have solved sources problems so infinitely more difficult that I cannot believe the problem will stand up long before confident attack.

16. Bastin op.cit. p.23 remarks correctly that Indonesian writers give great enphasis to the golden age of Madjapahit but continues "These writers steer clear of the period of Western rule, for they regard it as-such a time, but far from steering clear of it they, extend it and dwell on it, See Lord, op.cit. passim, and, generally, any Indonesian nationalist textbook.

17. Hall, in a recent article, "Looking at Southeast Asian History," Journal of Asian Studies, Vol, XIX, No. 3 (May 1961), pp. 243, in effect seams actually to recommend such avoidance. His purpose in confining his remarks for the most part to Southeast Asian history "before the era of. European political control" is for one thing, he says, "to avoid the distortions of the picture caused by the wealth of writings on European activities in the area, which have tended to thrust into the background the history of peoples of the area . . . " One nay ask whether it is the writings or the European political control which is to blame for this thrusting into the background, for from his History it is evident that Hall subscribes to the criterion of independent povrer for determining autonomy and hence himself adopts a generally Europe-centric perspective for the era of European political control. But, on either view, is avoidance the best way to handle the problem?

To do justice to Hall, two remarks must be made. The first is tharb he tends to view the "distortion" mentioned above as giving too much emphasis to the later, colonial period and too little to the earlier periods, thus a distortion of the relative importance assigned to periods, not to elements within one period. The second is that he has throughout taken it as his main task to establish the autonomy, in van Leur's fundamental sense, of the earlier culture of Southeast Asia, as against the school of thought which subordinates it to imported Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic and Chinese culture. See, on this point, ibid., p. 250, last three sentences (which contain the core of his case against Coodes), and History, vi (on the "India-centric approach" to early Southeast Asian history), p.4 and passim. In doing this, incidentally, he uses arguments very similar to mine here, especially in the later pages of this paper, in trying to establish the autonomy of modern Southeast Asian history.

18. Van Leur, using this seme criterion of independent power, considers the 16th and 17th centuries a closed question (i.e. maintains they must be seen Asia-centrically) and moves the debate forward to the 18th, a decision for which he is able to adduce good reasons. But it takes two to make an argument and if the other side still makes its stand in the 16th and 17th centuries then the battle must be fought there, as it seems tobe now. For mainland Southeast Asia generally, of course, those dates must be moved forward at least, century.

19. To the articles cited and discussed in J.M. van der Kreef, "On the Writing of Indonesian History." Pacific Affairs, Vol. XXXI, No. 4 (December 1958), which must remain for the time being, for non-readers - of Dutch the best pla.ee to meet Resink's thought, can be added "Inlandsche Staten in den Costerschon Archipel1" ("Native States in the Eastern Archipelago"), Bijdragen tot de Taal - Land - en Volkenkunde, Vol. 116 (1960), pp. 313-49, and, particularly "De Archipel voor Joseph Conrad" (The Archipelago for Joseph Conrad), ibid. Vol. 115 (1959), pp. 192-208.

20. I am speaking here sololy of the historiographlcal problems involved. As far as practical research is concerned, the independent Indonesian world, particularly the Outer Islands, is still almost virgin territory end desEryes much closer attention than it, has been getting.

21. Creative adaptation, in this sense, is a "positive" concept referring to cultural changej submission to: foreign culture would be the "negative" analogue. This has nothing to do with showing a good side of colonialism, "positive" in the sense of favorable. The latter loads quickly to moral calisthenics, as in Vlokke's treatment of the 20th century, pp. 338-99.

22. A mediating elite, if it wants to and if ;it is strong enough, can facilitate or speed up cultural change by increasing and intensifying exposure to new cultural elements and by increasing incentive (positively or negatively, carrot or stick) to accept thorn. In the limiting, case this comes close to what would be meant by forced acculturation, but the argument retains its theoretical significance.

23. Vlekke op.cit, p. 527, but only about the end-of-war settlement. Seeroto, Indonesia ditengah-tengah Dunia dari Abad ke abad (Indonesia in. the World through the Centuries') Djakarta 1958, Vol. Ill, pp.179-87, gives considerable attention to the theme, more than any other nationalist historian, to the best of my knowledge. Yet for him, as for Sanusi, the dominant perspective Is Dutch-centric, Only two books in the modern literatxire give the theme its due. The first A.J. Piekaar, Atjeh en de Oorlog met Japan (Acheh and the War with Japan), The Hague Bandung 1949, indeed, takes It explicitly as the central theme of modern Achehnese history, though because Piekaar1s subject is the Japanese occupation there is only a little specifically on the Achoh War. The second is Professor W.F. Wertheim's Indonesian Society in Transition, The Hague-Bandung 1956, which in many scattered references, in total far fewer words than used by any of the above-cited authors, manages to give a satisfactory sketch of the Acheh War in Achehnese terms.

24. I am describing hero what I take to be the general tendency in the literature. To this, of course, there are some exceptions, as the examples below will indicate, Wertheim's characteristically stimulating treatment of the nationalist movement (op.cit, pp. 65-74 and 312-18), not all of which I would agree to, sketches out an approach to the movement along essentially the same lines as urged above, that is in particular emphasizing its domestic significance ant1 de-emphasizing its relations with the Dutch, B.Schrieke's report on the Communist rebellion in 'West Sumatra, 1926-7 (published in part in Schrieke, Indonesian Sociological. Studies, Part I, The Hague-Bandung 1955, pp. 85-166 and in part in Bcnda and McVey, The Communist Uprisings of 1926-1927 in Indonesia: Key Documents, Modern Indonesia Project, Cornell University, Ithaca N.Y. 1960, pp. 97-177) shows how rich and complex a small corner of the nationalist movement can seem if approached in terms of the society in which it developed. Among more general historical treatments of the nationalist movement, the most scholarly are George McT.Kathin, Nationalism and, Revolution in Indonesia. Ithaca N.Y. 1952, pp. 1-100, and J.M. Pluvier, Overzicht van de Ontwilkkeling der Nationalistische Bewegn in Indonesie in de Jaren 1950 tot 1942 (Survey of the Development of the Nationalist Movement in Indonesia in the Years 1930-1942), The Hague- Bandung 1953, Both, though providing considerable information on the social background of the movement, definitely subordinate this to the political aspect and the struggle the Dutch, This is perhaps clearer if one compares these works with the first part of Harry Benda's The Crescent and, the Rising Sun; Indonesian Islam under the Japanese Occupation. The Hague-Bandung 1958, pp. 9-99, which gives a. broad and integrated social and cultural as well as political picture of the Islamic movement, and to a lesser extent the "secular" movement, in their own terms, not merely or even predominantly in terms of their relations with the Dutch.

25. See Southeast Asia, A Short History London 1957, p.252 for the original.

26. Once again, there are partial or total exceptions to the general tendency. For much material on domestic developments, though definitely subordinated to "foreign relations," see Kahin op.cit., pp.134-469, much the best book in any language on the Revolution, Wertheim, op.cit. passim is perhaps less interesting on the Revolution than on the nationalist movement, but retains his emphasis on domestic history, Henri H.J. Alers, Om Een Rode of Groene Merdeka (Concerning a Red or a Green Merdeka), Eindhoven 1956, makes much the same point as I do here about the Revolution. "I shall not take the Dutch-Indonesian relationship as the chief theme.... For Holland it was the 'Indonesian problem,' important to be sure but never more than a problem among other problemai, .. For Indonesia it was. not only a 'problem', not only a revolution, but the revolution," (p.9) Throughout his book Alers concentrates his attention on internal history; his book would be excellent if it were not colored by a highly dramatic, indeed apocalyptic, style. Major- General A.H. Nasution, Tenters Nasional Indonesia ((History of) The Indonesian Amy), Djakarta 1956, Vol. 1 (Vols. II and III forthcoming), the most thoroughly researched book on the Revolution by an Indonesian writer, uses throughout an entirely convincing autonomous perspective, in which foreign policy, appears only as a domestic issue, and internal developments stand squarely in the foreground.

27. For periods up to and including tho early colonial period it is still possible to bring together foreign relations and domestic history under one heading of Asia-centric history; this is why the antithesis Europe-centric docs not lead to difficulties for these periods.

28. We can see now that tho antithesis Europe-centric/Asia-centric is itself a consequence of the preoccupation with the colonial relationship. If we were not enthralled by the antithesis Europe/Asia, colonial power colony we would express our desire for a reorientation of South east Asian history in different terms, We might simply call for more study of Southeast Asia history, for example, taking for granted that it would be seen Asia-centrically, just as European history is necessarily see Europe-centrically.