1. Actually, of course, only the western section of the island, the area most accessible from the Indonesian archipelago and the South-East Asian mainland, aside from the casual visits of explorers elsewhere,-has been at all involved in world history. There seems to be some evidence to indicate that as early as the time of the compilation of the Ramayana, (c. 300 BC) New Guinea was known to the Indie world. For comment on a possible reference to the island's snow-capped mountain peaks in the Ramayana, see Kern, H.'s “De invloed der Indische beschaving op Java en omliggende eilanden,” Verspreide Geschriiften ('s-Gravenhage, 1928), XV, 182–183.Google Scholar

2. In 1941, for example, of India's total population of 389,000,000, 93,000,000 lived in some 560-odd indirectly governed “princely states.”

3. If this hypothesis be true at all, it seems probable that Salawatti and the coastal areas of the Vogelkop were involved.

4. I have taken the date 1516 for the approximate end of the Madjapahit Empire since this seems to be the last definite date at which even a shadow emperor can stifl be considered to be on the throne. As Hall, D. E. G. puts it, “The end of Majapahit is shrouded in darkness. (A History of South-East Asia, London: MacMillan and Company, Ltd., 1955, p. 84).Google Scholar

5. As far as the writer is aware, there is no English translation of the Nagaraker-tagama. After the original discovery of a Balinese edition on Lombok in 1894, ProfKern, J. H. translated the epic into Dutch and published it between 1905 and 1915 in volumes 58 through 69 of the Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenhunde van Nederlandsch-Indit uitgeven door het Kosinklijke Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volktnkunde (Contributions to the Philology, Geography, and Ethnology of the Netherlands East Indies Published by the Royal Institute for Philology, Geography and Ethnology)Google Scholar (Hereafter referred to as BKI.) This same edition subsequently appeared in Kern, 's collected works Verspreide Geschriften ('s-Gravenhage, 1917 and 1918), VII, VIIIGoogle Scholar. Any further citations will be to this latter source. (An English translation of the Nagarakertagama has been published by Pigeaud, T., The Hague, 1960. Editor).Google Scholar

6. Kern, for example, asserts, “… it remains clear that the authority of Madjapahit extended itself over almost the whole of Netherlands India and, in part, even further, …”, Verspreide Geschriften, VII, 241Google Scholar. Apparently basing themselves on Kern, both Vlekke, B. F., Geschiedenis van de Indischen Archipel (Roermond-Maaeseik, 1947), p. 66Google Scholar and the French historian, Coedes, G., Les États Hindouises d'Indochine et d'Indonésie, Histoire du Monde, VIII (Paris, 1948), 398–399Google Scholar, accept this thesis. Not surprisingly, the most enthusiastic and uncritical proponent of the “Greater Madjapahit” theory is the Indonesian nationalist publicist Mohammed Yamin, who seeks to stake out a claim for contemporary Indonesia to all the territories once allegedly under Madjapahit's rule. See for example, his Gadjah Mada, Pahlawan Persatoean Noesantara (Djakarta, 1948).Google Scholar

7. The leading exponent of this viewpoint is Berg, C. C., a former Javanist turned historian. See, for example, his “Javanese Historiography — A Synopsis of its evolution,” Historical Writings on the Peoples of Asia — South East Asia Seminar, university of London Conference (mimeographed, 8 pp., n.p., n.d.)Google Scholar. The quotation is taken from Berg's article, “De Sadeng Oorlog,” Indonesie, V (1951), 413.Google Scholar

8. There is a striking similarity here to the relations between the Eastern Roman Emperors at Byzantium and the barbarian conquerors of Italy and Gaul, particularly in the period of the fifth and sixth centuries.

9. Vlekke, , op. cit., p. 69.Google Scholar

10. Tomé Pires in his Suma Oriental as quoted by de Graaf, H. J. in “Tome Pires' ‘Suma Oriental’ en het tijdperk van godsdienst overgang op Java,” BKI, 108 (1952), 148.Google Scholar

11. “Verslag eener reis naar de MacCluers-, Goelvink- en Humboldt- Baaien in Nieuw-Guinea van Augustus tot November, 1871” in van de AA, Robide, Reizen noar Nederlandsch Nieuw-Guinea ('s-Gravenhage, 1879), p. 353.Google Scholar

12. Op. Cit., see the footnotes to pp. 19–21 and the appendix (Bilage A), “Over de rechten van Batjan, Tidor en Gebe op Nieuw-Guinea en de Papoesche eilanden,” pp. 345–371.Google Scholar

13. Ibid, p. 346.

14. Castanheda as quoted by Tiele, P. A., “De Europeers in den Maleischen Archipel-1529–1540”, BKI, 27 (1879), 42.Google Scholar

15. Haga, A., Nederlandsch Nieuw Guinea en de Papoesche eilanden, historische bijdrape, 1500–1883 (Batavia, 's-Hage, 1884) (I, II)Google Scholar quotes Robide van der AA (op. cit.) as expressing the opinion that “Mincimbo” is “perhaps an atrocious bastardization of Misool, …” I, 7.

16. Op. Cit. Harga was that rare combination of a soldier and a scholar, and made full use of his official position to search carefully through the Batavia archives for any pertinent material.

17. Ibid, I, 16–17.

18. Jamma, F. C., “De verhouding tussen Tidore en de Papoese eilanden in legende en historie,” Indonesie, II (1948), 546.Google Scholar

19. Quoted by Tiele, , op. cit., 28 (1880), 416.Google Scholar

20. Op. cit., I, 17–18.Google Scholar

21. van der AA, Robide, op. cit., 349–350.Google Scholar

22. The contents of the letter are summarized by Leupe, P. A., “Reizen der Neder-landers naar Nieuw-Guinea en de Papoesche Eilanden in de 17e en 182 Eeuw,” BKI, 22 (1875), 80–81.Google Scholar

23. Op. cit., I, 123–124.Google Scholar

24. Ibid., 122–123. See also Leupe, , pp. 92–95.Google Scholar

25. Op. cit., pp. 353–357.Google Scholar

26. Haga, , I, 89–90.Google Scholar

27. Ibid., p. 148.

28. de Vattel, Emer, Le Droit des gens, originally published 1758. (Photographically reproduced, edited by de Lapradelle, A., with English translation, by the Carnegie Institution (Washington, 1916)Google Scholar in its Classics of International Law series

29. See Fenwick, Charles G., International Law, 2nd edition (New York, London, 1934), pp. 250–258Google Scholar and Briggs, Herbert W., editor, The Law of Nations, 2nd edition (New York, 1952), pp. 250–252.Google Scholar

30. For a comprehensive survey of boundary problems relating to the Netherlands East Indies see Sturler, J. E.'s Het grondgebied van Nederlandsch Oast-Indie in verband met de tractaten met Spanje, Engeland en Portugal (Leiden, 1881)Google Scholar. Commenting on the application of the Treaty of Utrecht, Haga (I, 196) notes that Spain “tacitly abandoned all rights on New Guinea”, and (that) “the rights of the Company on that island stood only on the Tidorese claims which were still not yet recognized, is dearly evident.”

31. Haga, for example, comments: “Of the inhabitants of New Guinea and the nearby islands, in the general sense, a very unfavourable impression was received. Our language is perhaps not rich enough in nasty adjectives to supply what was considered necessary in official communications to characterize the indigenous inhabitants, … As to trade, New Guinea did not appear to be of much interest, if one leaves the slave trade aside. … Add to this, that the coast in many places was unapproachable; … the murderous nature of the people and the unhealthiness of the coast, made the voyage highly dangerous.” Op. cit., I, 145.Google Scholar

32. Heeres, J. E., compiler, Corpus diplomaticum Nedcrlando-Indicum, venameling van politieke contraeten en verdere verdragen door de Nederlanders in het Oosten gesloten in BKI, 87 (1931), 338–334.Google Scholar

33. deKlerk, R., van Milendenk, J. E. en Alting, W. A., published in Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen (Batavia, 1868), XXXIII, 28.Google Scholar

34. Op. cit., I, 76–77.Google Scholar

35. Heeres, , p. 337.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., p. 352.

37. Leupe, , p. 95.Google Scholar

38. Op. cit., I, 97–98.Google Scholar

39. Heeres, , Corpus Diplomaticum, Vierde Deel (1676–1691), BKI, 91, (1934), 499–506.Google Scholar

40. Op. cit., I, 134.Google Scholar

41. Ibid., p. 140.

42. Heeres, , Corpus Diplomaticum, Vijfde Deel (1691–1725), BRI, 93 (1935), 180–185.Google Scholar

43. One of the best accounts in English of the history of that remarkable institution, the Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie, often referred to from its initials as the VOC or, more familiarly, as “Jan Compagne”) is given in Furnivall, J. S.'s Netherlands India, A Study of Plural Economy (New York, 1944). pp. 20–53Google Scholar. See also deKlerck, E. S.'s History of the Netherlands East Indies (Rotterdam, 1938), IGoogle Scholar, chapters VI – IX and Vlekke, , Nusantara, op. cit.Google Scholar, chapters V – VII. In Dutch, for a brief account, see the Encyclopaedia van Nederlandsch-Indic, 2nd edition, The Hague, for volumes plus four supplementary volumes, 1917–1939Google Scholar under the heading in I of “Compagnie (Oostindische).” The entire third volume of the Geschiedenis van Nederlandsch-Indie, edited by Stapel, F. W. (Amsterdam: J. M. Meulenhoff, 1943)Google Scholar is concerned with the history of the Company from its founding to the end of the seventeenth century. Volume IV of the same series gives the history of the Company in the eighteenth century. For a brief account, see de Graff, H. J., Nederlanders over de zeen, (Utrecht: W. deHaan, N. V., 1955)Google Scholar, Hoofdstuk III, “De overgang van Compagnic tot Gouvernement” (Chapter III — “The Transition from Company to Government”), pp. 143-155.

44. For a brief description of this phase in Dutch history, see Vlekke, B. H. M., The Evolution of the Dutch Nation (Chapter X — “Ideals of the Eighteenth Century”) (New York: Roy Publishers, 1945), pp. 241–273.Google Scholar

45. See Haga, , I. 151–184Google Scholar; van de AA, Robide, 361–366Google Scholar; for details on virtually all these voyages, Leupe, , op. cit.Google Scholar, seems to give the best coverage.

46. deKlerk, R., van Milendenk, J. E. en Alting, W. A., op. cit.,. pp. 67–69Google Scholar. The impetus for thr formation of the deKlerk Committee which produced the report was furnished by a secret letter to the Council of the Indies in Batavia from officials on Ambon, dated May 25, 1761, and received June 16th, to the effect that the King of Salawatti had sent word that English vessels were in his territorial waters and were preparing to build a fort on Salawatti itself. The Commission, hastily appointed by the Company, made a thorough check of the Batavia archives for all information likely to strengthen Tidorese (i.e. Dutch) claims over the area. The subsequent Dutch reconnaissance expedition found no English on Salawatti. For an account of the whole affair, see Haga, , I, 244–256.Google Scholar

47. Haga, , I, 193.Google Scholar

48. See, for example, the texts of the contracts of May 21, 1705, January 2, 1709, June 21, 1728, June 23, 1733 and February 7, 1757, Corpus Diplomaticum, Vierde Deel (1691–1725), BKI 93, (1935), pp. 236–238, 310–314Google Scholar; Vijfde Deel (1726–1752), BKI 96 (1938), pp. 25–32Google Scholar; 153–157; Zesde Deel (1753–1799), collected and compiled by Stapel, F. W. ('s-Gravenhage, 1955), pp. 123–128.Google Scholar

49. Voyage aux Moluques et à la Nouvelle Guinée, fait sur la galère la Tartare en 1774, 1775 & 1776, par ordre de la Compagnie Anglaise, par le capitaine Forrest, (Paris, MDCCLXXX) p. 16.Google Scholar

50. Tregonning, K. G., Under Chartered Company Rule, North Borneo, 1881–1946 (Singapore: University of Malaya Press, 1958), p. 17, n. 1.Google Scholar

51. Stapel, , Corpus Diplomaticum, Zesde Deel (1753–1799), op. cit., 433–453Google Scholar; in particular, pp. 440–441.

52. Haga, , I, 460–461.Google Scholar

53. Meinsma, J. J., Geschiedenis van de Nederlandsche Oost-Indische Bezittingen (Delft, 1872) II, 129–133Google Scholar; DrBlink, H., Nederlandsch Oost-en West Indie (Leiden, 1907) II, 503Google Scholar; deSturler, , pp. 168–203Google Scholar; Haga, , I, 464–466.Google Scholar

54. Meinsma, , II, 248.Google Scholar

55. As one Dutch scholar summarizes it, “Tidorese sovereignty was defined … by the Netherlands in the 19th century (above all for opportunistic reasons and certainly with an eye on foreign power)…” Gallis, K., “Geschiedenis” (“History”), Nieuw-Guinea, de ontwikkeling op economisch, sociaal en cultured gebied in Nederlands en Australisch Nieuw Guinea, onder hoofdredactie van Dr. Ir. W. C. Klein (New Guinea, the Development in the Economic, Social and Cultural Spheres in Netherlands and Australian New Guinea, under the chief editorship of W. C. Klein, Eng. D.) 3 volumes ('s-Gravenhage: Staatsdrukkerij-en Uitgeverbedriif, 1953–1954) I, 23–24.Google Scholar

56. Op. cit., II, 435.Google Scholar

57. In season and out, for a hundred and eighty-five years, from approximately 1700 to 1885, the Dutch government and public were constantly engaged in worried speculation over English intentions towards the Netherlands East Indies. This concern was little affected by whether Great Britain, at any given time, was an official enemy or an official friend.

58. Temminck, C. J., Coup-d'Oeil General sur les Possessions Neerlandaises dans l'Inde Archipelagique (Leiden, 1849) III, 341–342.Google Scholar

59. Haga, , II, 8Google Scholar. While a contract had been signed with Tidore by the Indies Government in 1817, it was essentially a repetition of the contract of 1780 (see footnote 51).

60. Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Jndie No. 26b (Batavia, 1824).Google Scholar

61. Op. cit., II, 9.Google Scholar

62. deSturler, , pp. 204–292Google Scholar; for the full English text of the treaty itself and the notes exchanged, see British and Foreign State Papers, 1823–1824 (compiled by the Librarian and Keeper of the Papers, Foreign Office, London, 1825), pp. 194–213.Google Scholar

65. deSturler, , pp. 346 and 349.Google Scholar

64. Op. cit., II, 12–13.Google Scholar

65. Gordon, Donald C., The Australian Frontier in New Guinea, 1870–1885 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1951), pp. 48–49.Google Scholar

66. I have translated this quotation from the version of the Dutch original given by DrMuller, Salomon, Reizen en onderzoikingen in den Indischen archipel gedaan op last der Nederlandsche Indische Regering tusschen de jaren 1828 en 1836 (Voyages and Explorations in the Indies Archipelago carried out on behalf of the Netherlands Indies Government between the years 1828 and 1836) (Amsterdam, 1857), I, 109Google Scholar; A twentieth century Dutch writer comments somewhat sardonically on the annexation, “Thus, on the birthday of King William I, August 24, 1828, a ‘pearl’ was added to his crown. But, alas, how little value it appeared to possess!” DrKielstra, E. B., “Nieuw-Guinea,” De Indische archipel (Haarlem, 1917), p. 303.Google Scholar

67. Trotter, Couts, “New Guinea: A Summary of our Present Knowledge with regard to the Island”, Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society (London, 1884), VI, 213.Google Scholar

68. Haga, , II, 76.Google Scholar

69. Nieuw Guinea, ethnographisch en natuurkundig, onderzocht en beschreven in 1858 door een Nederlandsch-Indische Commissie (New Guinea, Ethnographically and Physically, Investigated and Described in 1858 by a Netherlands Indies Commission) (This document is often referred to as the “Etna Report” after the name of the ship on which the Commission voyaged.) published in the BKI, 22 (1862), pp. 193–196.Google Scholar

70. Trotter, , pp. 214–215.Google Scholar

71. Nederlandsch Nieuw-Guinea, II, 83–84.Google Scholar

72. Rather significantly, though probably with proper discretion, no effort was ever made by the Netherlands Indies Government to define these areas.

73. See, for example, Governor-General van Twist's statement on the Residency of Ternate in the Koloniale Verslag over 1855 ('s-Gravenhage, 1656), p. 18Google Scholar; the Etna Report, op. cit., pp. 86–87, 188–193Google Scholar; also, van der Crab, P.'s De Moluksche eilanden, reis van Z. E. den Gouverneur-General Charles Ferdinand Pahud door den Molukschen Archipel (Batavia, 1862), pp. 326–327Google Scholar. For the text of the 1861 “contract” with Tidore, see the Handelingen der Staten-Generaal, Tweede Kamer, Zitting 1861–1862, Bijlagen: Bijblad van der Neder-landsche Staats-Courant, ('s-Gravenhage: Staatsdrukkerij-voor den dienst, 1863), pp. 781–784.Google Scholar

74. (Batavia: Staatsdrukkerij, 1865), pp. 267–268.

75. Nederlandsch Nieuw-Guinea, II, 184–185.Google Scholar

76. (Batavia; Staatsdrukkerij, 1875), p. 226.

77. Nederlandsch Nieuw-Guinea, II, 280.Google Scholar

78. For the full text of this contract, see Haga, , II, 439–454.Google Scholar

79. Galis, , “Geschiedenis,” Nieuw-Guinea, I, 29.Google Scholar

80. For an analysis of the curious timing involved in the administrative modification of New Guinea's status in July, 1949, see Bone, Robert C., The Dynamics of the Western New Guinea (Irian Barat) Problem, Interim Report Series, Modern Indonesia Project, Southeast Asia Program, Department of Far Eastern Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., second printing, 1962, pp. 55–56.Google Scholar

81. Bijlagen, Handelingen, Tweede Kamer, Zitting 9100–1901, op. cit., 169, No. 28Google Scholar

82. The first quotation is taken from one of the best known reports of the pre-World War I period — that by Captain Colijn, H. (Nota becreffende de ten anzien van Nieuw Guinea te volgen gedragslijn, Batavia, 1907, p. 13)Google Scholar, usually referred to for short as the “Colijn Report” (Nota Colijn). The second quotation is taken from a letter on New Guinea's future written by the Resident (interestingly enough, Haga by name) of the Moluccas on January 31, 1935, to the Governor-General, as quoted in the official and unpublished “Verslag van de studiecom-missie Nieuw Guinea, ingesteld bij gouvernementsbesluit van 15 Maart 1948, No. 3”, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

88. For statement and discussion of the Indonesian arguments, see Bone, pp. 56–158, passim; in particular. Chapter V — “The Irian Issue in the World Forum, 1953–1958,” pp. 120–165Google Scholar, is concerned with the presentation of the UN General Assembly phase of the Irian dispute.