Urry (1981) has made a powerful argument that, because of its role in communications, the sea constitutes the dominant factor in the prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian region. Geographically the archipelago consists of thousands of islands, joined by relatively shallow, warm seas ideally situated for easy communication, while, in contrast, the larger islands of the region are often difficult to penetrate, except where river systems reach inland, forming, as it were, extensions of the sea (Urry 1981:2-3).
It is not known how long the sea may have exerted this pre-eminence. But Urry suggests that its importance began to be felt by at least the end of the Pleistocene, when ocean levels altered, encouraging marine innovation (1981:4). Whatever the case, in recent historical times, despite geographical and cultural barriers, nearly all societies indigenous to the archipelago have been involved in a complex network of trading and exchange relationships. “At the centre” of this network have historically been “…those who controlled the seas, integrating communities and regions” (Urry 1981:4).
Here it needs to be pointed out that, in addition to the role of the sea in communications, the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago is also singularly rich in marine life. While Island Southeast Asia, in terms of its terrestrial fauna, comprises a zone of overlap between Asian and Australian faunal zones, in terms of its marine fauna, it is, of itself, the single primary centre of world diversity. Thus as Dunn and Dunn (1984:252) observe, while
[T]he tropics are far richer in numbers of animals and plant species than are the temperate … regions of the world, …this generalization holds true for the seas at least as much as for the terrestrial realm … [and o]f the tropical seas, …those surrounding the mainland and islands of present day Southeast Asia are known to contain the greatest wealth of marine life … The centre of this richness is Sundaic Southeast Asia, and Ekman’s (1953:18) oft-quoted statement on this matter bears repeating here: “The further one moves away from this centre in any direction, the more the fauna appears as … progressively impoverished…”.
Much of this richness is due to the existence of two ecosystems unique to the tropics: coral reefs and mangrove associations (Dunn and Dunn 1984:252-253). In the next section, I will touch briefly on their significance to the development of maritime foraging in the region. But here the important point is that, from early times, large numbers of people in the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago have depended on the sea for their subsistence. If the early Austronesians entered the archipelago with an already developed maritime technology, it is likely that while some groups may have abandoned seafaring to concentrate on the land, others almost certainly responded to this richness by developing even more proficient fishing and strand-gathering technologies.
While trade was undoubtedly part of the resulting marine adaptations that evolved, the second point to be made is that not all of those who engaged in maritime trade occupied positions of economic or political dominance. Coastal fishing communities, while dependent on trade, have never enjoyed high status or notable power in Southeast Asia. The “oceanic nomads” who appear to have been instrumental in the formation of the earliest historical states in the region were in many cases semi-pariahs, some of whom maintained boat-nomadism, as we shall see presently, just as hunter-gatherers ashore preserved its forest counterpart, as a means of dissimilation, a way of resisting domination and the loss of identity to neighbouring land-based societies.
All of this should not detract, however, from Urry’s main argument concerning the dominance of the sea, and so of trade in early Austronesian prehistory. Initially, before the development of navigational skills, the sea must have constituted a barrier to wider integration. Thus during this early period, a mosaic of cultures would have developed, occupying different environments, and it was this rich variety of environments and human cultures that provided, Urry (1981:7) argues, the basis upon which the trade and exchange of later periods developed. It also contributed to the formation of political hierarchy. Thus he maintains (1981:7),
the group or groups who gained some mastery of the seas and who could thus transform the barrier into a bridge, could exploit this cultural variety for their own ends. Indeed, if it were done carefully, they had the potential to dominate the whole archipelago.
The subsequent growth of trade did not spell an end to socio-cultural diversity. Indeed, as Urry notes, the experience in Southeast Asia has been that cultural distinctiveness is characteristically fostered rather than destroyed by trade. However, Urry argues that if one group dominates, then the danger exists that this domination may threaten the very diversity on which the system is based. This question of dominance and possible assimilation leads to Urry’s major argument (Urry 1981:9) that the early Austronesians, even before they left eastern Asia, may have already been adapted to coastal conditions and to inter-island trade. Thus trade itself may have contributed to Austronesian expansion. Groups may have set out, in other words, seeking not only new lands to farm, but exchange goods and new communities to trade with (Urry 1981:9). As the Austronesians entered the archipelago, the geography of the region would have given a further stimulus to trade and to the development of maritime technology. Geography thus provided the “basic outline upon which … the prehistory of the region [was later] played out”.
The pattern of islands and inland seas provided the stimulus for maritime innovation and the production of goods from the ecological and cultural diversity of the islands supplied the impetus for trade and exchange. Utilizing sea routes the whole pattern of trade and exchange and the strategies for developing producers and consumers was expanded within and beyond the archipelago (1981:23).
Ultimately this expansion drew the Austronesians westward, throughout Island Southeast Asia to the mainland, and eventually to the Indian Ocean and beyond.[2]
As a result of their control of the sea, the first Austronesians were able to spread their culture and language, assimilating pre-existing populations through their command of maritime trading networks. An example is provided by the collectors-for-trade of southern Malaya whose assimilation we described in the previous section. Thus Urry (1981:10) argues that a mass movement of people is not necessary to account for the spread of Austronesian languages. Trade seems likely to have played a part in encouraging expansion, and once the Austronesians began to penetrate the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago, the subsequent spread of Austronesian languages is likely to have been linked to trade itself, with Austronesian languages replacing the earlier languages of the area through their role as the dominant languages of trade.
Whatever its role in Austronesian expansion, there can be little doubt that the sea has shaped, in a major way, the subsequent history of the Austronesian-speaking world. In Western Austronesia the sea and immediate littoral have also been, from the beginning of historical documentation, zones of notable economic and ethnic diversity, and have included within their compass widely-scattered communities whose distinctive mode of life is characterized by various forms of boat-dwelling nomadism — peoples constituting, in short, maritime foragers.
The Southeast Asian sea nomads are divided geographically, culturally, and linguistically into three major groupings, each the product of an apparently independent history of adaptation. The first of these groupings comprises the Moken and Moklen of the Mergui Archipelago of Burma, with extensions southward into the islands of southwestern Thailand (Anderson 1890; Hogan 1972; Ivanoff 1985, 1987). The second is represented by a congeries of variously named groups, collectively referred to as Orang Laut (lit. “sea people”), who inhabit the islands and estuaries of the Riau-Lingga Archipelagoes, the Bantam Archipelago, and the coasts and offshore islands of eastern Sumatra, Singapore, and southern Johor (Andaya 1975; Logan 1847; Sopher 1965; Wee 1985). A northern subgroup of Orang Laut, the Urak Lawoi, occupy the offshore islands from Phuket to the Adang island group, along the southern edge of the Moken-Moklen range (Hogan 1989:1-2).[3] Finally, the third, and largest grouping consists of the Sama-Bajau, most of them maritime or strand-oriented communities, but including also small numbers of boat nomads, who together form what is probably the most widely-dispersed ethnolinguistic group indigenous to Island Southeast Asia, living over an area of some one-and-a-quarter million square miles, from south-central Philippines, eastern Borneo and Sulawesi, south and eastward through to the islands of eastern Indonesia to Flores and the southern Moluccas (Fox 1977; Geoghegan 1984; Nimmo 1972; Pallesen 1985; Sather 1975a, 1978, 1984, 1993a).