2 - The Periodization of Southeast Asian History, in Comparison with that of Northeast Asia

Summary

FRAMEWORK OF COMPARISON

This chapter aims at reviewing the periodization of Southeast Asia from the 9th century to the mid-19th century in comparison with that of Japan, and sometimes of Korea and China. The authors prefer the term Northeast Asia to the more usual East Asia for the three countries, and in some cases are inclined to regard southern China as part of Southeast Asia. We focus on the common features of East Eurasian rimlands. It will help readers grasp wider (in terms of both time and space) economic and social trends, in which maritime interactions examined in the following chapters took place. Southeast Asianists often pay attention to common features or the entire composition of the region. Generally speaking, however, Southeast Asian historical studies are indifferent to the periodization of regional history. Serious challenges to the ahistorical dichotomy of Ancient/Modern or Traditional/Modern Southeast Asia have only recently appeared, despite the early proposition of Benda's “The Structure of Southeast Asian History”. On the other hand the historiography of Northeast Asia, led mostly by scholars in the region, is often nation-state oriented. But it is more conscious of periodization, whether it is done to trace negative “premodern” or “feudal” pasts, or to find positive “preludes” or “embryos” of modernity. There are ample arguments about continuities and changes among various historical stages, and standards of periodization as well. For this reason, Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian studies can be supplementary to each other.

Nevertheless, the scope of Southeast Asianists in relation to the northern direction usually covers only China, while peripheral areas of Northeast Asia like the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Archipelago are often overlooked. Most Japanologists and Koreanists in their turn are far less interested in Southeast Asia than in China. In this context, Lieberman's comparisons of mainland Southeast Asia, Japan and China, focussing on the major steps of state consolidation, are quite challenging. He drew a picture of Eurasia as a whole, distinguishing the “protected zone” (much of Europe, Southeast Asia, and Japan) from the “exposed zone” (China, most of South Asia, and Southwest Asia) strongly influenced by Inner Asia. This distinction reminds Japanese readers of the “ecohistory of civilizations” proposed by Umesao Tadao.