Highland Chiefs and Regional Networks in Mainland Southeast Asia: Mien Perspectives

IF 0.4 Q3 AREA STUDIES
Jiem Tsan Le, Rich Cushman, H. Jonsson
{"title":"Highland Chiefs and Regional Networks in Mainland Southeast Asia: Mien Perspectives","authors":"Jiem Tsan Le, Rich Cushman, H. Jonsson","doi":"10.20495/SEAS.5.3_515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionIn the studies of highland societies of mainland Southeast Asia, it is somewhat rare to get a glimpse of chiefs as a significant component of regional networks of relations. When anthropologists studied Thailand's hill tribes since the 1965 founding of the Tribal Research Center, their mandate was to examine the socio-economic characteristics of the six main tribes: Akha, Hmong, Karen, Lahu, Lisu, and Mien (Geddes 1967; 1983). The resulting works described for the most part egalitarian village societies that had no links to lowland national society (Walker 1975; McKinnon and Wanat 1983; McKinnon and Vienne 1989). It was primarily the research of Ronald D. Renard (1980; 1986; 2002) with the Karen, independent of the Tribal Research Center since he was a historian and they were all ethnographers, that has insisted on the importance of long-standing connections between upland and lowland regions, and on the positive role of chiefs.But recent work on upland-lowland relations in Laos, Burma, and southern China flows in a similar direction to Renard's research and suggests that interethnic uplandlowland networks may have been historically the predominant form of political organization in this region (Badenoch and Tomita 2013; Boute 2011; 2015; Chen 2015; Evrard 2006; 2007; Hayami 2004; 2011; Ikeda 2012; Jonsson 2005; 2014a; Kojima and Badenoch 2013; Sprenger 2006; 2010). Other recent work suggests that the attribution of statelessness to highland peoples may express recent dynamics of dispossession, rather than any intrinsic feature of highland societies over the last millennia (Scott 2009; Kataoka 2013). Both issues encourage a move away from the ethnographic focus on ethnic groups as distinct from one another and toward an ethnological focus on patterns and variations that transcend ethnic labels and leave questions with the state/non-state binary.The main text of this article is a Mien history that was recorded in 1972 and centers on the life of a particular Mien chief (Le and Cushman 1972). His name was Tang Tsan Khwoen, and he later received the Thai title Phaya Khiri (\"mountain chief\") from the king of Nan, and the family name Srisombat which many of his descendants still carry. The story was told by Le Jiem Tsan to researcher Richard D. Cushman in the village of Khun Haeng, Ngao District of Lampang Province, on June 1, 1972. Most of Cushman's recordings with Le Jiem Tsan and others are in the Mien ritual language, but the chief's life-story and a few other recordings are in the everyday language. Le Jiem Tsan died before 1980 and Richard Cushman in 1991. Because I (HJ) was somewhat familiar with the individual chief from ethnographic research among his descendants (Jonsson 1999; 2001; 2005) I am able to check some of the information against other sources. The Mien story shows the ease and normalcy with which relations between hill peoples and lowland rulers were established, and I situate the story against the general trend in northern Thailand at the time of cutting relations with highland peoples and depriving them of rights to settlement and livelihood.While the evidence for highland people's dispossession in the early twentieth century is published and has long been available, it seems that anthropologists of Thailand were not particularly curious about the separation of highlanders from their lowland neighbors, but instead expected ethnic divides to be important. Ethnographic traditions encouraged the search for ethnic groups as distinct and separate from others, and anthropological theory expected clear differences between state populations and stateless peoples. The peculiarity of twentieth century Thai history and of research traditions regarding highland peoples were perhaps less apparent because neighboring countries were inaccessible for research due to wars and other political turbulence for a good part of the last century. The idea that tribal culture and social organization were endangered traditions from the past appears to have discouraged areal comparisons and critical historical scrutiny of highland people's isolation and dispossession in Thailand. …","PeriodicalId":42525,"journal":{"name":"Southeast Asian Studies","volume":"5 1","pages":"515-551"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southeast Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20495/SEAS.5.3_515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

IntroductionIn the studies of highland societies of mainland Southeast Asia, it is somewhat rare to get a glimpse of chiefs as a significant component of regional networks of relations. When anthropologists studied Thailand's hill tribes since the 1965 founding of the Tribal Research Center, their mandate was to examine the socio-economic characteristics of the six main tribes: Akha, Hmong, Karen, Lahu, Lisu, and Mien (Geddes 1967; 1983). The resulting works described for the most part egalitarian village societies that had no links to lowland national society (Walker 1975; McKinnon and Wanat 1983; McKinnon and Vienne 1989). It was primarily the research of Ronald D. Renard (1980; 1986; 2002) with the Karen, independent of the Tribal Research Center since he was a historian and they were all ethnographers, that has insisted on the importance of long-standing connections between upland and lowland regions, and on the positive role of chiefs.But recent work on upland-lowland relations in Laos, Burma, and southern China flows in a similar direction to Renard's research and suggests that interethnic uplandlowland networks may have been historically the predominant form of political organization in this region (Badenoch and Tomita 2013; Boute 2011; 2015; Chen 2015; Evrard 2006; 2007; Hayami 2004; 2011; Ikeda 2012; Jonsson 2005; 2014a; Kojima and Badenoch 2013; Sprenger 2006; 2010). Other recent work suggests that the attribution of statelessness to highland peoples may express recent dynamics of dispossession, rather than any intrinsic feature of highland societies over the last millennia (Scott 2009; Kataoka 2013). Both issues encourage a move away from the ethnographic focus on ethnic groups as distinct from one another and toward an ethnological focus on patterns and variations that transcend ethnic labels and leave questions with the state/non-state binary.The main text of this article is a Mien history that was recorded in 1972 and centers on the life of a particular Mien chief (Le and Cushman 1972). His name was Tang Tsan Khwoen, and he later received the Thai title Phaya Khiri ("mountain chief") from the king of Nan, and the family name Srisombat which many of his descendants still carry. The story was told by Le Jiem Tsan to researcher Richard D. Cushman in the village of Khun Haeng, Ngao District of Lampang Province, on June 1, 1972. Most of Cushman's recordings with Le Jiem Tsan and others are in the Mien ritual language, but the chief's life-story and a few other recordings are in the everyday language. Le Jiem Tsan died before 1980 and Richard Cushman in 1991. Because I (HJ) was somewhat familiar with the individual chief from ethnographic research among his descendants (Jonsson 1999; 2001; 2005) I am able to check some of the information against other sources. The Mien story shows the ease and normalcy with which relations between hill peoples and lowland rulers were established, and I situate the story against the general trend in northern Thailand at the time of cutting relations with highland peoples and depriving them of rights to settlement and livelihood.While the evidence for highland people's dispossession in the early twentieth century is published and has long been available, it seems that anthropologists of Thailand were not particularly curious about the separation of highlanders from their lowland neighbors, but instead expected ethnic divides to be important. Ethnographic traditions encouraged the search for ethnic groups as distinct and separate from others, and anthropological theory expected clear differences between state populations and stateless peoples. The peculiarity of twentieth century Thai history and of research traditions regarding highland peoples were perhaps less apparent because neighboring countries were inaccessible for research due to wars and other political turbulence for a good part of the last century. The idea that tribal culture and social organization were endangered traditions from the past appears to have discouraged areal comparisons and critical historical scrutiny of highland people's isolation and dispossession in Thailand. …
东南亚大陆的高地酋长和区域网络:Mien Perspectives
在对东南亚大陆高地社会的研究中,很少看到酋长作为区域关系网络的重要组成部分。自1965年部落研究中心成立以来,当人类学家研究泰国的山地部落时,他们的任务是检查六个主要部落的社会经济特征:阿卡、苗族、克伦、拉祜族、傈僳族和米恩族(Geddes 1967;1983)。由此产生的作品主要描述了与低地国家社会没有联系的平等主义乡村社会(Walker 1975;McKinnon and Wanat 1983;McKinnon and Vienne 1989)。这主要是Ronald D. Renard (1980;1986;2002年)和克伦人,独立于部落研究中心,因为他是一名历史学家,他们都是民族志学家,坚持高地和低地地区之间长期联系的重要性,以及酋长的积极作用。但最近对老挝、缅甸和中国南部高地-低地关系的研究与雷纳德的研究方向相似,并表明种族间高地网络在历史上可能是该地区政治组织的主要形式(Badenoch and Tomita 2013;Boute 2011;2015;陈2015;分离2006;2007;Hayami 2004;2011;Ikeda 2012;琼森2005;2014年;Kojima and Badenoch 2013;斯派格2006;2010)。最近的其他研究表明,将无国籍归属于高地人民可能表达了最近剥夺的动态,而不是过去千年高地社会的任何内在特征(Scott 2009;Kataoka 2013)。这两个问题都鼓励人们从人种学上把重点从不同的民族群体转移到人种学上,把重点放在超越种族标签的模式和变化上,把问题留给国家/非国家二元论。这篇文章的主要文本是1972年记录的一段米恩人的历史,并以一位特殊的米恩酋长的生活为中心(Le and Cushman 1972)。他的名字是唐赞克文,后来他从南国王那里得到了泰语称号Phaya Khiri(“山头”),他的许多后代仍然沿用着他的姓氏Srisombat。这个故事是1972年6月1日,在南邦省昂高区Khun Haeng村,由Le jem Tsan向研究员Richard D. Cushman讲述的。库什曼与勒杰姆·赞和其他人的录音大多是用曼人的仪式语言录制的,但酋长的生活故事和其他一些录音是用日常语言录制的。曾志坚于1980年去世,Richard Cushman于1991年去世。因为我(HJ)在某种程度上熟悉民族志研究中酋长的后代(Jonsson 1999;2001;2005年)我能够核对一些信息与其他来源。米恩的故事显示了山区人民与低地统治者之间建立关系的轻松和正常,我把这个故事置于泰国北部断绝与高地人民关系并剥夺他们定居和生计权利的大趋势之下。虽然关于高地人在20世纪早期被剥夺土地的证据已经发表,而且很久以前就有了,但泰国的人类学家似乎对高地人与低地邻居的分离并不特别好奇,相反,他们认为种族分裂是重要的。民族志传统鼓励寻找与其他民族截然不同的民族群体,人类学理论预计国家人口和无国家人口之间存在明显差异。20世纪泰国历史的独特性和关于高地民族的研究传统可能不太明显,因为在上个世纪的大部分时间里,由于战争和其他政治动荡,邻国无法进行研究。部落文化和社会组织是过去遗留下来的濒危传统,这一观点似乎阻碍了对泰国高地人民的孤立和剥夺进行地域比较和批判性的历史审查。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Southeast Asian Studies
Southeast Asian Studies AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The new journal aims to promote excellent, agenda-setting scholarship and provide a forum for dialogue and collaboration both within and beyond the region. Southeast Asian Studies engages in wide-ranging and in-depth discussions that are attuned to the issues, debates, and imperatives within the region, while affirming the importance of learning and sharing ideas on a cross-country, global, and historical scale. An integral part of the journal’s mandate is to foster scholarship that is capable of bridging the continuing divide in area studies between the social sciences and humanities, on the one hand, and the natural sciences, on the other hand. To this end, the journal welcomes accessibly written articles that build on insights and cutting-edge research from the natural sciences. The journal also publishes research reports, which are shorter but fully peer-reviewed articles that present original findings or new concepts that result from specific research projects or outcomes of research collaboration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信