![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ssapplet.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that when referring to the islands alone as a geographical area the term Malay Archipelago (excluding peninsular bodies) be used,if adverting to its maritime culture the term Maritime Southeast Asia (including peninsular bodies) be used. -(unsigned comment) Hector 20:46, 27 June 2007 58.69.12.253
There is some merit in Hector's points. No one would seriously dispute that Singapore is "Maritime Southeast Asia" if that term connotes a purely geographical meaning. On the other hand, if the term is to be used to connote sea-faring, maritime based cultures, then it is apt to cover a wider geographical areas as well, arguably encompassing coastal Vietnam (which has a strong sea-faring tradition), to the southern edges of the South China Sea, like China's Hainan Island).
But regardless of which meaning we adopt, Singapore arguably fits both. I see no need to distinguish between an Austronesian-type cultural sphere, and Singapore's non-Austronesian Sinitic majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.243.19 ( talk) 08:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Maritime Southeast Asia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Simanjuntak2017":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Academic papers about Island (or insular) Southeast Asia appear to differentiate this region from Maritime Southeast Asia. For instance the review [1] roundly criticises an author for confusing "maritime" with "island", in discussing maritime Southeast Asia. A definition of Island Southeast Asia is found in this academic paper [2] : "Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) comprises the tropical islands lying in between mainland East Asia and Taiwan to the northwest and Australia and New Guinea to the southeast." My understanding is that Maritime Southeast Asia also contains the parts of the mainland that have a significant sea coast - so that includes countries like Vietnam.
This is an important distinction for both biology and archaeology/history, because there are differences between the spread of species, people, ideas/technology in mainland areas and on islands. This is particularly so in a region that is bisected by the Wallace line.
It appears to me that Island Southeast Asia is a geographic region that is part of, but also different from the larger geographic region Maritime Southeast Asia. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 11:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
As a (probably) trivial comment, being someone who trained as a biologist and now has an interest in the pre-history and early history of maritime technology, my terminological requirements for defining a geographic area are different from someone looking at the history of trade centred around 1500 CE. If you are discussing an era in which boats and ships are a sufficiently mature technology for significant trade and transportation, the distinction that I look for between mainland regions with a seacoast and islands becomes a lot less relevant.
I am still looking out for definitions of either terms (ISEA/MSEA) and may reach an RS-supported opinion on how to modify the article. At present I do not have a source that clearly says that definitions vary. I simply have (a) a source that states there is a difference (without saying what that is) (b) a source that gives a clear definition of one of the terms (c) a source that specifically states that they use ISEA and MSEA interchangeably (The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization, ch 8.4 Tracing maritime connections between Island Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean world.) (I guess that (c) is a case of there being a mature maritime technology for the level of contact discussed.) and finally (d) Encyclopedia Britannica's article (linked above) which defines Insular Southeast Asia in the way I would expect (as an alternative term for the East Indies). ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 15:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The islands of Southeast Asia – Sumatra to the Moluccas, Taiwan to Timor. The inclusion of Taiwan is also made by Bob Blust (a close collaborator of Bellwood) in The Austronesian Languages (p. 1):
The major western island groups include the great Indonesian, or Malay Archipelago, to its north the smaller and more compact Philippine Archipelago, and still further north at 22 to 25 degrees north latitude and some 150 kilometres from the coast of China, the island of Taiwan (Formosa). Together these island groups constitute insular (or island) Southeast Asia.. Apart from the insular (allow me the pun) inclusion of Taiwan, the disjunction of the Malay Archipelago and the Philippine Archipelago is unusual; more commonly "Malay Archipelago" comprises the Philippine Islands.
We refer to this region interchangeably as Maritime Southeast Asia, Island Southeast Asia and Insular Southeast Asia. It is also known as 'Malesia'.I will also try to dig up more sources which explicitly mention both terms.
I have just found a second review of Shaffer (a source used in this article) which characterises this work with:
"Unfortunately the book is plagued by problems and factual errors"
[5]
The review has further, more general criticisms.
Given the review by Barbara Watson Andaya [6] already identified on this talk page, which is also extremely critical of Shaffer's book, should we question whether Shaffer is an RS that is suitable for used on Wikipedia? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 13:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Noting this edit [7], I agree we have the potential to disappear down a terminological rabbit hole. The history of all these lines is well described in "Too Many Lines" [8], which takes a partisan position, as you can tell from the title. Unfortunately it suggests, as a conclusion, that we should use the Huxley Line and the Lyddekker Line. The original article content was based on Bellwood's First Islanders (pg 12). The Wallace Line and Wallacea (and none of the other lines) are used in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania, which despite its title goes into how humans crossed Wallacea in the chapter jointly written by Sue O'Connor. It avoids mentioning the Lyddekker line by talking about the "Sahul shelf". So that is two of the leading archaeologists of the area taking slightly different descriptive approaches. Both, however, have maps that show the Wallace Line in the same position, differentiating it from the Huxley Line, and in agreement with the map in "Too Many Lines".
For the article, the purpose of mentioning the Huxley line is if a discussion of the spread of pre-neolithic humans into the area is included. The purpose of this post is that future content may require the introduction of the concept of the Huxley line, but we might use Sue O'Connnor's strategy of not naming yet another line, but dealing with it in a descriptive manner. I am possibly thinking too far ahead in the editing process and acknowledge that my view may be tilted by having sat through lectures on the subject in (pretty much) the same era as the "Too Many Lines" paper mentioned above. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ssapplet.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that when referring to the islands alone as a geographical area the term Malay Archipelago (excluding peninsular bodies) be used,if adverting to its maritime culture the term Maritime Southeast Asia (including peninsular bodies) be used. -(unsigned comment) Hector 20:46, 27 June 2007 58.69.12.253
There is some merit in Hector's points. No one would seriously dispute that Singapore is "Maritime Southeast Asia" if that term connotes a purely geographical meaning. On the other hand, if the term is to be used to connote sea-faring, maritime based cultures, then it is apt to cover a wider geographical areas as well, arguably encompassing coastal Vietnam (which has a strong sea-faring tradition), to the southern edges of the South China Sea, like China's Hainan Island).
But regardless of which meaning we adopt, Singapore arguably fits both. I see no need to distinguish between an Austronesian-type cultural sphere, and Singapore's non-Austronesian Sinitic majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.243.19 ( talk) 08:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Maritime Southeast Asia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Simanjuntak2017":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Academic papers about Island (or insular) Southeast Asia appear to differentiate this region from Maritime Southeast Asia. For instance the review [1] roundly criticises an author for confusing "maritime" with "island", in discussing maritime Southeast Asia. A definition of Island Southeast Asia is found in this academic paper [2] : "Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) comprises the tropical islands lying in between mainland East Asia and Taiwan to the northwest and Australia and New Guinea to the southeast." My understanding is that Maritime Southeast Asia also contains the parts of the mainland that have a significant sea coast - so that includes countries like Vietnam.
This is an important distinction for both biology and archaeology/history, because there are differences between the spread of species, people, ideas/technology in mainland areas and on islands. This is particularly so in a region that is bisected by the Wallace line.
It appears to me that Island Southeast Asia is a geographic region that is part of, but also different from the larger geographic region Maritime Southeast Asia. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 11:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
As a (probably) trivial comment, being someone who trained as a biologist and now has an interest in the pre-history and early history of maritime technology, my terminological requirements for defining a geographic area are different from someone looking at the history of trade centred around 1500 CE. If you are discussing an era in which boats and ships are a sufficiently mature technology for significant trade and transportation, the distinction that I look for between mainland regions with a seacoast and islands becomes a lot less relevant.
I am still looking out for definitions of either terms (ISEA/MSEA) and may reach an RS-supported opinion on how to modify the article. At present I do not have a source that clearly says that definitions vary. I simply have (a) a source that states there is a difference (without saying what that is) (b) a source that gives a clear definition of one of the terms (c) a source that specifically states that they use ISEA and MSEA interchangeably (The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization, ch 8.4 Tracing maritime connections between Island Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean world.) (I guess that (c) is a case of there being a mature maritime technology for the level of contact discussed.) and finally (d) Encyclopedia Britannica's article (linked above) which defines Insular Southeast Asia in the way I would expect (as an alternative term for the East Indies). ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 15:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The islands of Southeast Asia – Sumatra to the Moluccas, Taiwan to Timor. The inclusion of Taiwan is also made by Bob Blust (a close collaborator of Bellwood) in The Austronesian Languages (p. 1):
The major western island groups include the great Indonesian, or Malay Archipelago, to its north the smaller and more compact Philippine Archipelago, and still further north at 22 to 25 degrees north latitude and some 150 kilometres from the coast of China, the island of Taiwan (Formosa). Together these island groups constitute insular (or island) Southeast Asia.. Apart from the insular (allow me the pun) inclusion of Taiwan, the disjunction of the Malay Archipelago and the Philippine Archipelago is unusual; more commonly "Malay Archipelago" comprises the Philippine Islands.
We refer to this region interchangeably as Maritime Southeast Asia, Island Southeast Asia and Insular Southeast Asia. It is also known as 'Malesia'.I will also try to dig up more sources which explicitly mention both terms.
I have just found a second review of Shaffer (a source used in this article) which characterises this work with:
"Unfortunately the book is plagued by problems and factual errors"
[5]
The review has further, more general criticisms.
Given the review by Barbara Watson Andaya [6] already identified on this talk page, which is also extremely critical of Shaffer's book, should we question whether Shaffer is an RS that is suitable for used on Wikipedia? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 13:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Noting this edit [7], I agree we have the potential to disappear down a terminological rabbit hole. The history of all these lines is well described in "Too Many Lines" [8], which takes a partisan position, as you can tell from the title. Unfortunately it suggests, as a conclusion, that we should use the Huxley Line and the Lyddekker Line. The original article content was based on Bellwood's First Islanders (pg 12). The Wallace Line and Wallacea (and none of the other lines) are used in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania, which despite its title goes into how humans crossed Wallacea in the chapter jointly written by Sue O'Connor. It avoids mentioning the Lyddekker line by talking about the "Sahul shelf". So that is two of the leading archaeologists of the area taking slightly different descriptive approaches. Both, however, have maps that show the Wallace Line in the same position, differentiating it from the Huxley Line, and in agreement with the map in "Too Many Lines".
For the article, the purpose of mentioning the Huxley line is if a discussion of the spread of pre-neolithic humans into the area is included. The purpose of this post is that future content may require the introduction of the concept of the Huxley line, but we might use Sue O'Connnor's strategy of not naming yet another line, but dealing with it in a descriptive manner. I am possibly thinking too far ahead in the editing process and acknowledge that my view may be tilted by having sat through lectures on the subject in (pretty much) the same era as the "Too Many Lines" paper mentioned above. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)