自律史観の確立をめざして

石井米雄編『東南アジアの歴史』(講座東南アジア学第四巻)を解剖する

抄録

The history of Southeast Asian countries has been studied for almost four generations. History of Southeast Asia edited by Ishii Yoneo, volume four in the recently completed Southeast Asian Studies, indicates the current level of work in Japan on the subject, since eight of the contributors are leading Japanese scholars. From this book we are able to discern the frontier of Japanese research on the subject. The main focus of this review will be survey how far an autonomous Southeast Asian history has been established in Japan.
In his introduction, Ishii clearly traces the trend from heterogeneous to autonomous historical studies in the search on Southeast Asia. While he does not refer to the effects of cultural background on the historical viewpoints of scholars, he dose argue that heterogeneous view of Southeast Asian history are formed not only from the nature of the source materials, but also from the individual scholar's personal values. In this regard, the paper by Nitta Eiji is suggestive in emphasizing the importance of settling the typological order of excavated pottery and other artifacts over a wider area, in order to exclude subjectivity from the study of the region's pre-history.
One of the common themes in the study of Southeast Asian history is Indianization or Islamization. In this volume the former phenomenon is treated by Sakurai Yumio and the latter by Nakamura Mitsuo. Sakurai takes the agriculture of Kanchipuram in south India as the model for Indianized Southeast Asian agriculture and attempts to reveal the economic base of urban areas formed during the Angkor period by employing the theory of hydraulic cities proposed by B. Ph. Groslier. Nakamura elucidates the process of the expansion of Islam through the Southeast Asian archipelago. Neither of them pay much attention to any domestic motivation. Althought lacking sufficient evidence, Sakurai presumes that the agriculture of northeast Thailand at that time was similar to Kanchipuram simply because the area was Indianized. In the same way, Nakamura describes the expansion of Islam as if the Malay world had been shaped by Islamic power. This type of attitude is also to be seen in the article by Hamashita Takeshi. It depicts Southeast Asian countries during the period of the Ming and Qin dynasties as incorporated within the Chinese world order formed by the system of tribute paid to the Emperor. His way of thinking could be described as “Sinocentric.”
Papers by Ikehata Setsuho and Ishii Yoneo on the spiritual world of Southeast Asian people also appear in this volume. Ikehata sheds light on the mechanism by which Catholicism shaped and modified the social order, while Ishii deals with Theravada Buddhism in a similar fashion. Both reveal the contradictory roles of these religions in ruling the people while at the same time offering them concepts of resistance to government. The logic of this paradox is to be found not in Catholic or Buddhist systems of thought per se but in the manner by which they were adopted locally. Both discussions display low regard for native Southeast Asian thought.
Takaya Yoshikazu describes dynamically the relationship between ecology and history, as trade with the outside world changed the ecosystem, bringing about agricultural expansion. It is difficult to accept, however, his explanation that the ecosystem or factors external to society determine the impetus and direction of history. Basing his ideas on Anthony Reid's theory that Southeast Asia composed a single world system during the Age of Commerce, Oki Akira examines whether Southeast Asia might be regarded as a unified world, and tries to build up an effective paradigm within which to study Southeast Asian history. Although his is a creative approach, there are some problems, such as the fact that he accepts a priori the fact that Southeast Asia was indeed a unified world. The topics of trade relations and trading networks c