Since the first paragraph has become the subject of a small tug of war earlier today, I have taken the time to deconstruct the two opening claims which have been here for more than a decade, only to find that both stand on shaky ground.
1. The first seems to be not questioned by any of the three editors involved in today's edit skirmish: the term "Malay Archipelago" is claimed to be derived from the concept of a "Malay race". This statement is based on Wallace's classic from 1869. A great book and still a useful primary resource for researchers studying the region until to this date, BUT not an ideal choice as the only source for an etymological claim. I am still looking for a modern source that goes into this, but I should note at this point that as early as 1799, William Marsden wrote in the Transactions Of The Society, Instituted In Bengal, For Inquiring Into The History And Antiquities, The Arts, Sciences, And Literature, Of Asia:
The Malayan is a branch or dialect of the widely extended language prevailing through the Archipelago, to which it gives name (*) and those of the South Sea.
and more explicit in the footnote:
* The Malay-Archipelago may be understood to comprehend the Sunda, Philippine and Molucca islands, in the maritime parts of which, the Malayan is used as a lingua franca.
Thus, one very early attestation of the term explicitly tells us that the archipelago is named after the reach of the Malay language as a lingua franca. I am aware this goes into OR terrain, but it should give you an idea why we should not rely on Wallace's book for this detail.
2. An even more serious issue is the use of Reid (2001) to support the claim that the concept of the Malay race was "proposed by European explorers based on their observations of the influence of the Srivijaya empire". In fact, the source does not say that at all. It's not in the text, and furthermore, it is a grave anachronism: while Raffles (1781 - 1826) is mentioned by Reid "as the most important voice in projecting the idea of a ‘Malay’ race or nation", he had no knowledge of Srivijaya whatsoever. At Raffles' time, the Srivajaya empire was entirely forgotten, only to resurface into western AND local knowledge at the turn of the 20th century. Check for yourself here's the publisher link to Reid's paper, and fully available for all of you who have access to the WP Library.
@Pagewatchers: thoughts? (@ThoughtIdRetired: maybe you're not watching this page, but since we have already dug together into the various extant definitions of Maritime Southeast Asia and Insular Southeast Asia, you might have an idea about what sources we can use to put this matter on firmer ground.) Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello,
- As one of the editors involved, I just want to clarify that my goal here is to help improve what’s already written. I am happy that incorrect statement about Indonesian archipelago has been removed including Nusantara statement which I mistakenly thought as a fact and just tried to improve instead of removing.
- Looks like there’s more to improve than what I thought. Thank you @Austronesier for pointing out the above.
- While I’m not a linguist but still want to contribute, I am inclined to agree with the suggestion that the term Malay Archipelago is more likely derived from the widespread use of the Malay language across the region, as you pointed out with William Marsden's early reference.
- Regarding the mention of Srivijaya, I feel it might not belong here at all. I would suggest removing it entirely, as I don’t think it was added in good faith to begin with. Although I might be wrong.
- To clarify: I’m not a sockpuppet or anything of that sort. I’ve had an account here about ~15 years ago, but forgotten even what username I used. I’ve yet to register a new one, so I’m just here as someone who’s reading this with fresh eyes and trying to contribute constructively.
- Thanks for your time and attention, and apologies for any confusion I may have caused earlier. 103.171.42.14 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having been asked for comment, this seems to be more a matter of political geography than physical geography. It is easy to find use of "Malay Archipelago" prior to Wallace. Whilst he was from the era of the polymath, I am not sure that someone who is primarily a biologist is an RS for the etymology – in wikipedia terms, a mention in passing, as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I fully agree with the second point made above – it is just a case of a failed verification of a fact that, quite reasonably, is highly likely to be untrue.
- It is perhaps worth commenting that "Malay Archipelago" does not appear to be an archaic form or concept, as seems to have been a factor from the edit summaries. There are many recent academic articles that use the term (and I have checked a few to see that they are not simply citing Wallace's book). The first example I got was .
- What is less easy to find is a definition of the geographic extent of the Malay Archipelago. I presume that it is the same or similar to Island Southeast Asia (in the strict meaning of the words, some equate this term to be the same as "Maritime Southeast Asia", which from the meaning of the words would be anywhere in that region which has a sea coastline – not the same as just the islands, as in an archipelago). Dipping into Wallace's work, his definition of the eastward geographic extent of the Malay Archipelago seems to be influenced by the animal species he finds there (page 267). ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree Austronesier that the etymology and terminology of the Malay Archipelago should be understood as a linguistic concept rather than a racial one. Historical evidence links it to the spread of the Malay language as a lingua franca (as William Marsdan noted in 1799). The concept of a Malay race was largely a colonial idea promoted by European explorers like Raffles (in 1810s), ignoring racially diverse regions such as papua, maluku, ntt and timor leste, which was dominated by Melanesians and not "brown” race. Sayurasem (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sayurasem: What about the Srivijaya part then? It is not based on the currently used source, and I don't think that any reliable source will explicitly link the nomenclature of the Malay Archipelago to Srivijaya. While the importance of (literary and vehicular) Malay throughout many parts of the archipelago in the Modern Era arguably could be seen a late indirect consequence of the political dominance of Srivijaya 1000 years earlier (the lede of Malay trade and creole languages claims so without a source), the naming of the archipelago (and also of the "Malay race") by European explorers happened in total unawareness of Srivijaya's existence.
- As a first remedy, I will remove the reference to Srivijaya as not supported by the source. I can see that all other commenters agree about the failed verification. Also, I will change the tag for the etymological part to "dubious". Once we have a secondary source that confirms our observations from the primary source (Marsden 1799), we can change the text accordingly. And if we then have a source that explicitly makes the link between ancient Srivijaya and the role of Malay as a lingua franca in the Modern Era, we can add it as an explanatory note. –Austronesier (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem with "Malay" term is this term has multiple definitions about it which unless explicitly declared (such as understood as a linguistic concept rather than a racial one). Unfortunately, the concept of Malay Archipelago, as stated by Alfred Russel Wallace himself in his book, refers to the Malay race in page 13. It has not been about the linguistic concept.
- So, I agree to the current wording of "The term "Malay Archipelago" was derived from the European concept of a "Malay race" (a culturally-similar non-Oceanian subset of the Austronesian peoples), an outdated racial concept proposed by European explorers." Xbypass (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Xbypass: Have you even bothered to read what I have written at the start of the discussion? –Austronesier (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, ...but it does not mean that Malay Archipelago has no colonial racial undertone and negate the term "Malay" has so many definitions that it need be stated clearly otherwise. For example, John Crawfurd wrote on “On Language as a Test of the Races of Man.” Transactions of the Ethnological Society of London, vol. 3, 1865, pp. 1–9 as below.
"There is a common agreement in sound and structure, but by no means in fundamental words, between the many languages which have been designated the Malayan; and within the proper Malay Archipelago the race of man is the same, a brownish yellow one, of short stature with flat features."
- Hence, the Malay Archipelago might began as the reach of the Malay language as a lingua franca, but it relates to the "outdated" Malay race undertone. Xbypass (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- The undertone entirely seems to lie in the ear of the one particular beholder here. The section is entitled "Etymology", and you will need a reliable source to continue the "'Malay Archipelago' has a racial undertone" narrative. –Austronesier (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
