Printer Friendly

Anthropological communities of interpretation for Burma: an overview.

The empirical foundation for anthropology as an intellectual discipline is ethnography, which I define as the systematic description of cultures and societies based on direct observation. Even so, a lot is omitted here. It is not clear what counts as 'anthropology'. I omit most 'description and travel' (the category of the old Dewey decimal system for library cataloguing), which contains an unmanageable plethora of works in various languages. Yet everything not written by an academic anthropologist cannot be omitted either, keeping in mind that anthropology, as such, did not exist before the second half of the nineteenth century. I shall therefore include just motivated ethnographical accounts, by which I mean accounts based upon deliberate needs to describe and somehow make sense of the social and cultural life of people(s) in Burma. However, we need to distinguish two lines of such work: (a) studies on individual peoples, and (b) more synoptic investigations, which may be focused upon one people but studies them in the context of the larger congeries of peoples and institutions, systemically or comparatively. In the case of (a), there may be nothing relevant to what looks like Burma, and Burma may turn out to be merely the official 'place' (country, colony) within whose legal precincts work is carried out.

In this connection, I am reminded (1) that 'the history of Burma' does not imply more than the history of a sequence of socio-political entities that have 'evolved' into what we now call Burma, a product in many ways of British colonial construction. Its predecessors were indeed not 'Burma' or Myanmar at all. 'Burma', or rather bama in the Burmese language, is simply a contraction. In fact, until the European era, myanma pyi did not refer to a nation but merely to the territory where the Myanma people, the 'Burman', lived and were dominant. Rather, the situation was similar to Siam in 1933 when the new government of the constitutional monarchy renamed the country 'Thailand' (pratheed thai). That expression meant not the kingdom, but 'the country of the Thai people'. In fact, before the name-change, the country was known by complex, Sanskritic formal names. As in all the Indianised states in the region, the colloquial practice was basically to use the name of its capital city. Thus the Europeans regularly referred to 'The Kingdom of Ava' (Inwa pyi), 'The kingdom of Pegu' and so on. Following similar principles, a capital city could be called by the formal, ritual name of the state. Ayutthaya was called 'The City of Siam'. In the case of Burma, at least, the formal, 'classical' Sanskrit name did not refer to the central state at all but to the symbolic 'kingdoms' that it contained, such as Sunaparanta and Tambadipa, respectively, the lands of the upper Irrawaddy-Chindwin valleys and those of the lower part of the Irrawaddy valley. Ritually, they constituted imaginary subordinate kingdoms to a king-of-kings, in Pali, an ekaraja. (2) Even in the middle of the nineteenth century, the ruler of Sunaparanta and Tambadipa did not refer himself as the King of Burma / Myanmar in a letter addressed to the then President of the United States.

Nevertheless, an obvious continuity of states exists. Each successive state regarded itself as a sort of proper successor to the previous states. To that extent, but only to that extent, it makes sense to speak of 'the history of Burma' as the history of successions and systems of states leading up to what is now Burma. Nevertheless, even given these limits, the discussion is not intended to be comprehensive. No doubt, works of genuine anthropology and ethnography, and works by significant anthropologists, have been overlooked. For this, apologies are due. On the other hand, I have included some works that are not strictly about Burma, where such works relate to the adjacent areas of China or Thailand and are relevant to peoples who also live in Burma, and thus cast light upon the ethnography of those people in the Burma context. After all, Burma is not a 'closed system'. The works of (b) have general relevance for an interpretation of Burma, as such, and they are also the beginning, at least, of academically defined anthropology. Anthropology then became a social-cultural theoretical discipline, that is, it began to influence the work of neighbouring communities of interpretation, especially history and politics (see below). Similarly, as anthropology developed as an intellectual enterprise of its own, it included archaeology, which in turn has additional impact upon Burma as viewed by historians. For examples of all these, see the recent work of Bob Hudson on Pagan archaeology (2004), J. Stargardt (1990), and E. Moore (2003) on Pyu archaeology, and more generally, Stark and Aung-Thwin, (2002) for the connection between social science and history by way of archaeology; the 2002 volume edited by Gommans and Leider on The maritime frontier of Burma; and not least Charney's paper, with its titular emphasis upon 'non-state-centred history' in Gommans and Leider. (3)

Some of the earliest ethnographic works are in fact institutionally anthropological. I have in mind particularly A. Bastian's Reisen in Birma. One part of the journey covered much of Asia, and it was thus the first anthropology of Burma on a sort of comparative, regional basis at the end of the nineteenth century. (4) Another is the later work by Max and Bertha Ferrars, (5) with just one chapter on alien races, the rest on all sorts of things cultural, economic and material about the Burmans, with a splendid corpus of photographs. Both works are essentially museum anthropology (Bastian was in fact sent on various expeditions by the museum employing him). Indeed, the institutionalisation of anthropology as a 'discipline' or profession had basically two starting points: museums with their need to collect and document objects; and the convergence of new university interests and departments with the needs of governments to make sense and come to an understanding of the peoples they govern as 'outsiders' (colonial systems, or as in the United States, with respect to what we nowadays call 'indigenous minorities').This raises, for me as a South Asianist as well as a Southeast Asianist, the puzzling question why there was no extension from the Ethnological Survey of India--a colonial government establishment, arguably the first ever professional institutionalisation of anthropology as such--into Burma as part of the Indian Empire. Likewise, I wonder why the provincial governments of Burma, until 1936 a part of the Indian Empire, did not continue the work of those in India, where officers were seconded to study and write monographs upon the peoples in their jurisdiction. The exception is the handful of provincial gazetteers who wrote very brief and generalised accounts of some of the minority peoples in Burma, such as R. Grant-Brown (6) on the Kadu and the even fewer similar accounts in the Census of India (rich in such materials for India proper) in 1911, 1921 and 1931. I think it says something about Burma's marginality within the Indian Empire. It is a sort of amorphous appendage. Note that institutional / professional / academic anthropology as such arose because it was driven by such considerations, even though it has done its best to avoid the charge of being merely an enterprise in the service of western colonialism or 'post-colonial political and economic hegemony'. Thus 'Burma' played a part in the development and growth of anthropology, and Burma as a system, more than a place, became increasingly defined and problematised by purely academic-theoretical questions as well as administrative ones.

Now, there seem to have been a couple of ways in which the gaps mentioned above tended to be filled for Burma: (1) a missionary community of interpretation: (a) US Protestant: H. I. Marshall on the Karen, (7) and Wade (with his Karen Thesaurus, 1847-50) before him; (8) Hanson for the Kachin; (9) C. U. Strait for the Haka Chin (10)--all intent upon using such systematic study of a good part of a culture to enter native religious conceptual understanding in service of the project of conversion; and their associates, e.g. Halliday (11) (Mon--1917), Ruth Armstrong (12) (Kachin--from the notes of her missionary grandfather, Gustaf Sword, 1997), and then the missionary-inspired / nationalist-inspired works such as Kawlu Manawng (13) (Kachin again--see now Mandy Sadan's thesis 2004); and (b) Catholic (French and Italian): Fr Paolo Manna (14) on the Central Karen Gekhu community, and Fr C. Gilhodes for the Kachin. (15) And then there were works that intertwined the endeavours of missionaries and administrators (L. Milne on the Palaung, (16) for instance; L. Milne (and Cochrane), (17) again, Colquhoun on the Shan (18) and Cochrane on the Shan (19)). On the convergence of the administrative and missionary interest in such work, Mandy Sadan has a lot to say regarding Kachin, in her 2004 thesis. Most of the latter group in (b) was academic--at least to the extent of being members of the Royal Asiatic Society. (20)

Similar intertwining is found between the administrative and commercial-journalistic. The various books by Sir James George Scott (Shway Yoe) were one example. (21) A more technical example was Scott and Hardiman's Gazeteer of Upper Burma and the Shah States (22) (Scott and Hardiman is a government publication because after all Scott became the chief administrative officer of the Shan States after an earlier career as a journalist. Scott did not work in the India survey tradition but partly in the interest of commercial exploration and partly to promote colonisation. Other administrator ethnographers included Carrapiett (1929), (23) who founded the Frontier Service stationed amongst the Kachin, and Henry Noel Cochrane Stevenson (24) in both the Chin and Kachin Hills. The latter impacted significantly on the way Leach was orientated to his Kachin fieldwork and, during the Second World War, like Leach, he was seconded to the military. In 1943, he wrote, perhaps the very first professional, theoretically focused ethnography for Burma. This prefigured in fact a good part of Leach's later and more famous Kachin book. After demobilisation, he completed a D. Phil. in social anthropology at Oxford with a distinguished thesis on the Indian caste system.

It is, however, only after the Second World War that we find the start of truly academic work in Burma. Leach began this work on the Kachin but the research began as an LSE thesis project just before the Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia. He continued his work during his military service with the Kachin. This was really the first anthropological attempt to get a larger picture of Burma, (25) or a part of it, because Leach's argument related the Kachin ethnicity to their long-term connection with the Shan. In this, Leach set the stage for a more comprehensive understanding of Burma as a system of inter-ethnic relations over and beyond the Theravada Buddhist civilisation of Burma proper. This related to Furnivall's notion of Burma as a 'plural society'. But, ultimately, mainly in my own work as both anthropologist and historian, this perspective finally gave pre-colonial depth to Furnivall's idea that saw ethnic plurality as embedded and motivated by the colonial regime.

I first adopted Leach's perspective in my early fieldwork amongst the Haka Chin, later the southern Chin, and subsequently the Kayah between 1957 and 1962, followed by the Shan (in Thailand on the Burma border 1967-68). My work was based on my earlier background in a family of gem traders on the Burma-China border. I mention this bit of personal background simply to reinforce the observation that much of the most serious work on the anthropology of Burma as a larger system has been derived from mixed interests and motivations, which often allow for a depth and breadth not common in more ordinary, single-community-focused ethnography.

Leach's work was a turning point in the history of the anthropology of Burma. On the one hand, it was an ethnography of a particular conger of peoples, the Kachin. On the other hand, it also began the construction, because of its new explicitly theoretical framework, of a picture not merely of Burma as a whole, but of the entire region of northern mainland Southeast Asia as a system of inter-group / inter-ethnic relations, held together by a network of nodal thrones. Perhaps Leach himself did not make this explicit, but he made the Kachin connection with the Shan thrones or principalities a centrepiece of his analysis. In fact he could have gone farther and made it clear that not only the Kachin but the system of Shan polities also related more widely both to a Burmese nodal throne and to that of China. For example, the northern Karen-speaking Pa-O traditionally rejected being characterised as a kind of Karen; they were and are Theravada Buddhists like the Shan and maintained a Shan-style system of principality. It was in fact a Shan state under Burmese hegemony and then placed under British colonial administration). Yes, they are Pa-O, and have been for centuries at least, but when they move about on both sides of the Thai--Burma border, often as traders, they are content to be known as Tongsu, the Shan-language version of the Burmese name Taungthu, 'mountain persons', if only because this makes them known as a 'kind of Shan'. In any case, with the exception of China, the Southeast Asian thrones were Indianised monarchies built upon conceptions or ruler-ship based on a Hindu-Buddhist cosmography. This elaboration of the Leachian perspective was adopted first by the anthropologist S. J. Tambiah (who did not work in Burma but in Thailand), especially in his book of 1976 26 and then by historians such as Michael Aung-Thwin (1985) and Oliver Wolters (1982 and subsequent editions). (27) The key word in these elaborations of Tambiah's idea of 'galactic polities', was the word mandala, a Sanskrit-Pali word meaning a ritual, even magical, diagram.

This elaboration could have been undertaken by Leach himself simply within the Kachin context. A letter in the archives in London by Colonel Sladen, the British officer in charge of the occupation of Mandalay in 1885, says, it is possible that, had the British not entered Mandalay when they did, the Kachins, already moving south, might themselves have reached Mandalay, taking advantage of the increasing weakness of the Burmese throne. So the network was more reticulate than Leach had noticed, for there was a Kachin perspective centred not only upon the Shan but also upon, for instance, the major Burmese throne itself. In any case, from the point of view of this line of work, it became clear that ethnicity itself and the categories of 'peoples' were not, as previously contemplated, a primordial essential fact for any community but rather always a product of inter-group relations. This is one of the contexts in which the anthropology of Burma has impacted on general, anthropological theory. (28) On the Shan between the Burmese and the Chinese nodal major thrones, see the 2007 work of the historian Jon Fernquest. (29)

Yet another way of making a similar set of arguments is to explore the sources of academic anthropology in, or of Burma that began only after the Second World War (the end of the 1940s through mid-1950s). Academic anthropology originated in a couple of ways: on the one hand, Burmese independence broke the hold of British colonial interest on the development of anthropology in and of Burma (in fact I can think of no important work done thereafter by British anthropologists), and the Americans and the French continued the work, based now on developments in academic anthropology outside of British social anthropology--although Leach's modified British structuralism continued to exert influence. On the other hand, and again for the first time, much of this new work was based upon a comparative and inter-disciplinary perspective engendered largely in Southeast Asian area studies programmes, from which so many young American anthropologists received training. For various reasons, some of the most relevant programmes centred on field stations or bases mainly in Thailand (the Cornell Program). This produced, for instance, Charles Brant's first-ever actual community ethnography for Burma--Tadagale, then a village suburb of Rangoon. He then went on briefly to study the Shan. There was also David Pfanner's work in lower Burma on rural Buddhism. (30) But these efforts went unnoticed, mainly because at that time (the early to mid-1950s) Burma was in chaos and research could not proceed. But mention must be made here of the work of the missionary-ethnographer William Hackett, (31) whose Cornell Ph.D. dissertation was the first ever general ethnographic work on the Pa-O, the northern Karen-speaking people of the southern Shan state (see below for further description on this people). The Yale programme, however, made more headway initially, owing to its direction by the linguist, W. S. Cornyn. He had begun his work on the Burmese language for the American army during the Second World War. His sometime student John Musgrave was for many years a fairly active Burma anthropologist, though he never conducted any extended field research. (32) Lucien Hanks (33) was also affiliated with Cornell and its Thailand research. He joined after his wartime service in Arakan, on the basis of which he had written a paper, concerning Burmese social psychology (34)--a paper I still find useful, and one that in some respects sets the stage for a part of Melford Spiro's later work on Burmese social and psychological organisation, though Spiro seems not to acknowledge the relationship. The first extended, comprehensive and modern ethnographic field study in Burma was the work of Manning Nash, and his wife, June Nash. (35) Both of them were distinguished anthropologists of Latin America, he being already a leading economic anthropologist. (36)

Meanwhile, French scholars became interested in Burma, and entered, as it were, by the back door. Lucien Bernot, a prominent French sociologist of the 1950s, a student of Levi-Strauss and his wife, Denise, one of the major linguists of Burmese and subsequently teacher of all the later French anthropologists of Burma, worked on the Arakanese communities (37) in the Chittagong Hill Tract of what was then East Pakistan and is now Bangladesh. His monograph (with several technical papers on other Burma-related populations there) was perhaps the very first ever full-length professional ethnographic study of a Burman population, and contributed in a serious way to our understanding of Burman society, for instance the kinship system (especially his observation that elder same-sex siblings are parent surrogates for their younger same-sex siblings). This again laid the groundwork for Spiro's work on Burman kinship and marriage.

But it is with Leach's Kachin work (38) (undertaken before and during the outbreak of the Japanese war) that ethnographic facts peculiar to at least the Burma area impacted upon theoretical anthropology itself. (See now the collection of papers from a 2005 Paris conference on Leach and his Kachin model in regional applicability, edited by M. Sadan (Oxford historian) (39) and Francois Robinne (40) (Paris anthropologist and student of Mademoiselle Bernot). It led to a whole revolution in the anthropological theory of ethnicity-politics and inter-ethnic systems, which itself meant or implied a genuine synoptic 'interpretation' of Burma as a socio-cultural system. (41) Not to be overlooked is the Danish anthropologist (42) who worked on the Karen and on ethnicity in Burma generally. The last mentioned work (Gravers) is the first comprehensive study on ethnicity and ethnic politics in Burma, dealing with Karen, Kachin, Chin and Shan. In this same connection, the work of Maran (43)--deserves mention. He was my Ph.D. student, friend and former colleague, a native Kachin (Jinghpaw) anthropologist and linguist (not a mere 'native informant', but a serious anthropological and linguistic theorist in the modern sense). This work was based on both current and past fieldwork and on his standing as a Jinghpaw aristocrat. (44) And, from the Chinese side, mention must be made of the Taiwanese ethnographer of the Jinghpo, Ho Tsui-p'ing. (45) Likewise, Spiro's late 1950 research in the villages round Mandalay on Burmese Buddhism, (46) became a major reference for Buddhalogical specialists outside anthropology. In a somewhat similar way, ethnographic work on Burmese and Thai Buddhism, and also peasant economics, has since set themes for the further work on the Shan in the surrounding areas by the anthropologists E. P. Durrenberger (my doctoral student), his students Nicola Tannebaum, (47) and Nancy Eberhardt, (48) the latter also my doctoral student even though ethnographic research in the Shan state itself has not been possible for many years. Yet, it is at once remarkable and sad that the ethnographic work done on the Shan in Thailand (and also in southwestern China under the Thai-Yunnan Project of the Australian National University with its mainly Thailand focus--see Wijeyewardene--did not take the Shan in Burma into consideration, except quite marginally). (49) This omission was also characteristic of Thai and Chinese ethnographers of the Shan just over the Burma-China border. (50) This is a failure to understand the fact that these inter-ethnic relational systems are also inherently cross-border and cross-polity systems as well. It is hardly an accident that in both China and Thailand, Shan monks in large numbers tend to train in Burma!

There are also other complications. The work of yet another major and seminal figure, E Michael Mendelson, reveals an interesting intersection of American, British and French anthropological lines of work. Mendelson was part French and part English. He was trained in French anthropology before he completed a doctoral degree in the same discipline at Chicago (with research on central America). Then he went to Burma to work on Burmese aspects of religion, namely, the cult of Thirty-Seven Lords at Mount Popa and a whole range of beliefs, practices and religious organizations related to the weikza. (Weikza were basically millenarianist Buddhist figures and their followers.) He began publishing on these subjects after the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London as, in effect, a British social anthropologist, but his papers (51) show a lovely blending of the three national traditions of his training. This work motivated or inspired American and French scholars to work on similar themes. The American, Juliane Schober (52), my student, studied hitherto unrecognized doctrinal and practical aspects of Mendelson's materials. She was especially interested in the notion of htwet yat pauk as a domain in which the weikza cult virtuosi, after their death will remain until they can be reborn during the dispensation of the next Buddha, Maitreyya / Ariyametteya, in order that they may enter Nibbana through hearing Him preach His doctrine. Another of my students, Mark R Woodward, worked with Schober in Burma on the organization and proceedings of the Sixth Council at Rangoon, as well as on a charismatic semi-monastic figure who funded important shrines on Mandalay Hill. Mendelson's studies also influenced the work of the Cornell trained anthropologist, John Ferguson, founder of the Burma Studies Foundation. With Sarah Bekker from the Northern Illinois University's Center for Burma Studies, they worked on messianic Buddhism, Buddhist sectarianism and the pervasive process of Theravada Buddhist monastic reform as a central aspect of Buddhism's relations with traditional Burmese monarchies. This theme was further exemplified in the book on Pagan by historian Michael Aung-Thwin. The latter made it clear that monastic reform movements (in Burma, Ceylon, Thailand and so on) served the interests of the state and king through their role as patron--protector of the monastic order (the Sangha inter alia. This happened by the movements' control over the religious establishments that tended to sequestrate wealth and resources away from state control. Note that the history of monastic movements in Burma was also the subject of Ferguson's doctoral dissertation (53), and Ferguson also edited Mendelson's Sangha and state in Burma. (54) Notice also the connection between anthropology's communities of interpretation and the communities of interpretation by the historians and the Buddhalogists. This is seen also, perhaps, in my own work on technical maters of anthropology (and linguistics) with Michael Aung-Thwin during his writing on the relation of Mon to Burman culture and history. (55) In a similar connection, see my review articles on W. Koenig's book on the history of the Konbaung dynasty (1991) and of Lieberman (2004) on the broad history of mainland Southeast Asia. It is interesting that both Schober and Woodward have long since left anthropology for the academic world of comparative religion, within the context of Arizona State University's programme in Southeast Asian Studies.

French scholarship benefited from the language and cultural training by Mme. Bernot. The following deserve mention: E. Guillon (56) published on the Mon. Benedicte Brac de la Perriere worked on Nat cult practices and organisations as well as gender and sexuality, (57) Guillaume Rozenberg (58) recently worked on weikza and related subjects. Much of this work also constitutes something of a critical commentary upon Melford Spiro's work on Burmese religion. In particular, French scholars put his work on Burmese supernaturalism (dealing with Nats and related subjects) into a closer relationship with Buddhism and thus questioned Spiro's 'two religions' hypothesis about Burmese religion as a whole. I addressed this subject also from the standpoint of a cognitive anthropology of religious and related social and intellectual systems, in my Encyclopedia of religions article on 'Burmese religion'. (59) In connection with the ethnography of the nat cults, one cannot omit mention of the work of Sarah Bekker. (60) Although she was a social psychologist, she also worked as an ethnographer during the years she and her husband were stationed at the United States Embassy in Burma. Her work on aspects of these cults has been cited by recent anthropologists, French and American alike. Sadly, her 1963 unpublished doctoral thesis on the social- and interpersonal-centric notion of a-nade is ignored, though still valuable.

However, the French entry into the field was more complicated and comprehensive. There was also significant field research and publication. Examples include Francois Robinne (61) on both aspects of social and familial life amongst the Burmans and on some Kachin subjects (62), as well as a paper on Burman cuisine and taste, an especially Levi-Straussian theme in anthropology and work by the cultural geographer Guy Lubeigt (63) on a whole series of subjects cutting across the disciplinary boundaries of ethnography, geography and history, and in more than one region of the country. And, of course, the unique fieldwork on the Moken / Selon, the boat people of the Tennaserim coast, (64) by Jacques Ivanoff and his father Pierre, must not be forgotten although this study at the margins of the Burmese field, seems to have little connection academically with the other French work in Burma and in fact connects better with the ethnology and historical significance of the boat peoples all round the Andaman and South China Seas. Overall, a useful entree into the French research can be found in P. Richard and Francois Robinne, (65) a work that also documents the connection with the older and larger tradition of the Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient and its roots in the French Indochinese colonial system. There is also the recent work in Arakan by Alexandra de Mersan (who defended her thesis only recently), which connects anthropology with historical studies, for example by M. Charney. (66)

With regard to much of the post-Second World War ethnographic work in Burma, more needs to be said here. For example, having referred to the work of Spiro and myself on Burman themes, account must be taken of the very different intellectual motivations and backgrounds. Spiro is an anthropologist working in a framework of neo-Freudian psychological theory. I am a cognitive scientist, linguist, anthropologist and historian not only of Burma but of Southeast Asia more generally. I mention this in order to dispel any notion that there is an anthropological community of interpretation in the singular.

I want now to follow up on the theme of anthropology's interaction with the work of the historians, political scientists and religious studies scholars. I take note first of the recent work of Jason Carbine. (67) The latter was a student of Frank Reynolds of Chicago but he was also my student. Reynolds was also a teacher of both Mark Woodward (who went on to be a major figure in the study of Indonesian and Javanese Islam) and Julianne Schober (see above). Carbine is, I think, the only ethnographer of a Burmese Theravada monastic 'sect' (Shwegyin). Although not an anthropologist by training, he brings an ethnographer's perspective to the study of the relationship between monastic organisation and practice with the scriptural canon, both Pall and Burmese. And then there is the related work by the Buddhalogist Patrick Pranke (68). The latters doctoral dissertation focused on the history of Buddhism, including its sects in Burma. Another work to note is that of the anthropologist Ingrid Jordt (69) who wrote on Women in Burmese and Thai Buddhism, and on lay meditation movements. She was a student of Stanley Tambiah, (70) the eminent anthropologist whose work also had a major impact on authoritative historians like Michael Aung-Thwin with respect to Buddhist states in Southeast Asia including Burma.

I should point now to the connection between serious theoretical socio-cultural anthropology and history and political science. Here we get the first systematic work that was also produced by international cooperation as in, for instance, the volume edited by Gommans and Leider on The maritime frontier of Burma. For a glimpse of how the history (of Arakan) is imbued with insights from anthropology and related human sciences, see especially the chapter by M. Charney entitled, 'Beyond state-centred history'. At the same time, we begin to learn how anthropology intersects to explain the current political ideology in Burma in the environment of SOAS as a centre of Burmese language and literature. There, in the company of such prominent figures as John Okell and Anna Allott, anthropology is concerned with ideological-conceptual analysis and field ethnography comes to the fore to create a new 'community of interpretation' of Burma, (here, of the Burmans but also of the state, including its relations with its minority ethnicities). I think especially of Gustaaf Houtman, (71) who has also worked on more traditional anthropological themes such as the system of personal naming amongst the Burmans; (72) it is a measure of the importance of anthropology amongst the disciplines within Burma Studies and its vital connections across such disciplines that Houtman was the organiser of the Burma Studies Conference of 2000, in Goteborg, Sweden. I also take note especially of another cross-community link with political science in the United States, especially in the major work by Josef Silverstein (73) on current and recent problems of inter-ethnic relations and politics.

Apart from Bastian in the late nineteenth century, Germans have not figured in anthropology in Burma, except, as it were, on the periphery. I have in mind the work by the anthropologist and sinologically trained linguist Lorenz G. Loffler who published studies on the Marma (Arakanese), (74) Khumi and Mro (Chin related peoples also found in the Arakan Hill Tracts of Burma)--e.g. Pardo and Loffler. (75) His students include, above all, Hans-Jurgen Spielmann, (76) the ethnographer of the Bawm-Zo Chin. This work has in fact impacted the anthropology of the Chin and Arakanese of Burma itself.

I think finally of a good deal of recent ethnography / anthropology of Shans in Thailand and China, and Kachins in China: much of it by my own students--recent and past--such as the eminent economic anthropologist E. Paul Durrenberger, (77) and Nancy Eberhardt, (78) and Durrenberger's student Nikki Tannenbaum, (79) all on Shan (see earlier comments in this paper). For work on Kachin, the most prominent scholars were the late Wang Zhusheng (80) who was my student, his wife Yang Hui, my external student Ho Ts'ui-p'ing, and Zhang Wenyi, (81) my current advisee at Illinois). Considerable research is being carried out on peoples of Burma by studying their same people residing outside Burma. There has been a great deal of work on various Karen peoples in Thailand, as seen in the book edited by C. F. Keyes, (82) Ethnic adaptation and identity: The Karen on the Thai frontier with Burma (1979). That book contains two chapters by anthropologists who also have worked in Burma: I wrote one chapter on Karen identity in the light of technical ethnicity theory as follow up on an earlier paper of mine on the latter subject for Burma, (83) that first began what has come to be modern studies of ethnicity on a theoretical basis. Theodore Stern wrote the second chapter. As a Fulbright instructor at Rangoon University in the mid-1950s, he carried out work on the central Chin and then with Karen on the Thailand border. (84) Similarly, another Fulbright lecturer, the anthropologist E. Pendleton Banks worked on the Pau Cin Hau messianic cult of the central Chin. In a similar way, though there is no ethnographic status on Wa in Burma, there is an ongoing anthropology of Wa in China. This was the work of Magnus Fiskesjo, now of Cornell, and a graduate student at Illinois, Liu Tzu-k'ai (from Taiwan). I worked with him in the summer of 2001, and intend to follow up on my discovery of a new, Burma-Shan based form of charismatic Buddhism as part of my larger project on cross-border inter-ethnic systems of culture and social organisation. And I cannot omit mentioning the anthropologist James Scott of Yale University, well known for his work on peasant rebellions. Originally a Burma scholar, he is now returning to this field with a book in progress on the state and its dialectical relations with ethnicity, centreing upon Burma and its neighbouring regions. I think it can be said that Scott's Burma orientation has had a considerable impact on his more general and well-known work spanning anthropology and political science.

Finally, on the Chinese in Burma, I have at least begun work, during my 11 months of field research on the China--Burma border (see above), using my connections with Chinese trading families in Yunnan that had branches in Mandalay and Myitkyina, and my subsequent, if brief, work in those latter places and Lashio, in the northern Shan state). That research is now progressing in the hands of my then field assistant, Walter Yuan Jianwei, (85) now a doctoral student at Hong Kong University, who is planning a return to Burma later this year and his presentation at the Conference on Burma Chinese education). For all the literature on the Chinese in Southeast Asia, this is the first ethnographic study on the Chinese in Burma.

(1) Ethnic adaptation and identity: The Karen on the Thai frontier with Burma, ed. Charles F. Keyes (Philadelphia: A Publication of the Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1979).

(2) In this connection, see my remarks on certain nominal Siamese 'kingdoms' in the western mountains found in my contribution, 'Who are the Karen, and if so, why? Karen ethnohistory and a formal theory of ethnicity', Ethnic adaptation and identity: The Karen on the Thai frontier with Burma, ed. Keyes, pp. 215-53.

(3) On Pagan archaelogy, refer to Bob Hudson, 'The origins of Bagan: The archaelogical landscape of upper Burma to A. D. 1300' (Ph.D. diss., University of Sydney, 2004); On Pyu archaelogy, refer to Janice Stargardt, The ancient Pyu of Burma (Cambridge: Publications on ancient civilization in South East Asia, 1990); Elizabeth Moore, 'Bronze and iron age sites in Myanmar', SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, 1, 1 (2003): 24-39. For the connection between social science and history, refer to: Recent developments in the archaelogy of Myanma Pyay (Burma): An introduction: An article from Asian perspective, ed. Michael Aung-Thwin and Miriam T. Stark (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005). 'Non-state centred' history is emphasised in The maritime frontier of Burma: Exploring political, cultural and commercial interaction in the Indian Ocean world, 1200-1800, ed. Jos J. L. Gommans and Jacques Leider (Leiden: KITLV Press, 2002).

(4) Adolf Bastian, Die Volker des Oeslichen Asien, Studien und Reisen: Reisen in Birma in den Jahren 1861-1862 (Adamant Media Corporation, 2001); facsimile reprint of a 1866 edition by Otto Wigand, Leipzig.

(5) Max Ferrars and Bertha Ferrars, Burma (London: Sampson Low, Marston & Co., 1900; 2nd edn 1901).

(6) G. E. R. Grant Brown, Upper Chindwin District, Burma Gazetteer, Volume A (Union of Burma: Superintendent, Government, Printing and Stationery, 1960, reprinted from 1911).

(7) Harry Ignatius Marshall, The Karen people of Burma, Athens: Ohio State University Bulletin, 26, 13 (1922), contributions in history and political science, no. 8.

(8) Rev. J. Wade, Thesaurus of Karen knowledge: Comprising traditions, legends or fables, poetry, customs, superstitions, demonology, therapeutics, etc. alphabetically ... illustrating the usages of every word (Burma: Karen Mission Press, 1847).

(9) Ola Hanson, The Kachins (Rangoon: American Baptist Mission Press, 1913).

(10) Chester U. Strait, 'A history and interpretation of Chin sacrifice' (Ph.D. diss., Berkeley Divinity School, 1933).

(11) Robert Halliday, The Talaings (Rangoon: Government Printing, 1917).

(12) Ruth M. Armstrong, The Kachins of Burma (Bloomington, IN: Eastern Press, 1997).

(13) Mandy J. Sadan, 'History and ethnicity in Burma: Cultural contexts of the ethnic category "Kachin" in the colonial and post-colonial state, 1824-2004' (Ph.D. diss., University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, 2004).

(14) Paolo Manna, 'I Gekho Milan', trans. (1966) Charles Frank Emmons (M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1922).

(15) Fr. Charles Gilhodes, The Kachins: Religion and customs (Calcutta, 1922).

(16) Leslie Milne, The home of an eastern clan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924).

(17) Leslie Milne, Shans at home: With two chapters on Shan history and literature by the Rev. Wilbur Willis Cochrane (London: J. Murray, 1910).

(18) Also on the Shans, refer to: Archibald Ross Colquhoun, Amongst the Shans (New York: Paragon Book Reprint, 1970).

(19) Wilber Willis Cochrane, The Shans (Rangoon: Superintendent, Government, Printing and Stationery, 1915).

(20) There is more to say here, really, because American Baptist missionaries amongst several of the upland peoples of far northern Burma did in fact practised a good deal of systematic ethnography, even when it was not official. And much of this work, some published, some only in the form of extensive notebooks and archives, had been fundamental to anthropological work on these same peoples across the Thai and China borders. Thus, for example, recent ethnographic work on the Akha, by my student Cornelia Kammerer, and by the late Leo Althing von Geusau, carried out in Thailand during the 1980s, made considerable use of the summary of Akha data by Paul Lewis when the latter lived with the Akha (the 2 volume HRAF 1969-70). Also, for example, the work on the Lahu by the Young family (who were missionaries in Burma, China and Thailand, and published both popular and more scholarly works--e.g. Young (Gordon Young, Tracks on an intruder (London: Souvenir Press, 1967)) was used. In particular, see the recent monumental work on the social and religious culture of the Lahu in Thailand and China by the anthropologist Anthony R. Walker (Anthony R. Walker, Merit and the millennium: Routine and crisis in the ritual lives of the Lahu people (New Delhi: Hindustan Publishing Corporation, 2003). This work also made considerable use of Lahu connections with the Shan in all three countries, and is a major contribution to our understanding of the system of inter-ethnic relations throughout mainland Southeast Asia, and Burma's position in that regional system.

(21) James George Scott, The Burman: His life and notions by Shway Yoe (Arran, Scotland: Kiscadale Publications, 1989), reprint of revised edition published (London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd, 1910).

(22) James George Scott and J. P. Hardiman, Gazetteer of Upper Burma and the Shah States in five volumes compiled from official papers part 2, vol. 2 (AMS Press: New York: AMS Reprint from the 1901 First Rangoon edition).

(23) William James Sherlock Carrapiett, The Kachin tribes of Burma: For the information of officers of the Burma Frontier Service (Rangoon: Superintendent, Government Printing and Stationery, 2004).

(24) Henry Noel Cochrane Stevenson, The economics of the central Chin tribes (Bombay: Times of India Press, 1943).

(25) In fact, Leach's 1946 doctoral thesis was a fairly comprehensive overview of the 'tribal' minorities of Burma with regard to cultural change. It was really the first modern anthropological overall perspective on this subject, and thus a serious attempt at establishing an anthropological interpretation of Burma as such. See Edmund Ronald Leach, 'Cultural change with special reference to the hill tribes of Burma' (Ph.D. diss., University of London, London, 1946).

(26) Stanley leyaraja Tambiah, World conqueror, world renouncer: A study of Buddhism and polity in Thailand against a historical background (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976).

(27) See Michael Aung-Thwin, Pagan: The origins of modern Burma (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1985); O. W. Walters, History, culture, and region in Southeast Asian perspectives, rev. edn. (Cornell University Southeast Asia Program Publications, 1999).

(28) F. K. Lehman, 'Kayah society as a function of the Shan-Burma-Karen context', in Contemporary change in traditional societies, vol. 1, ed. Julian Haynes (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1967).

(29) Jon Fernquest, 'Crucible of war: Burma and the Ming in the Tai frontier zone (1382-1454)', Bulletin of Burma Research, 4, 2 (2007).

(30) David E. Pfanner, 'The Buddhist monk in rural Burma', in Anthropological studies in Theravada Buddhism (papers by) Manning Nash (and others) (New Haven, Yale University [distributor: Cellar Book Shop, Detroit, 1966). pp. 77-96.

(31) William Dunn Hackett, 'The Pa-O people of the Shan state, Union of Burma: A sociological and ethnographic study of the Pa-O' (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1954).

(32) John K. Musgrave, A Burmese voluntary association (Rangoon: United States Educational Foundation in Burma, 1955), 29 pp.; mimeographed.

(33) Lucien M. Hanks, Jr, 'The quest for individual autonomy in Burmese personality', Psychiatry 12 (1949): 285-300.

(34) Information according to Hazel Marie Hitson, 'Family patterns and paranoid personality structure in Boston and Burma' (Ph.D. diss., Radcliffe College, Harvard University, 1959).

(35) June C. Nash, 'Living with the Nats: An analysis of animism in Burman village social relations', in Anthropological studies in Theravada Buddhism, ed. Manning Nash et al., Cultural Report Series no. 13 (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, 1966), pp. 117-36.

(36) M. Nash, 'Ritual and ceremonial cycle in Upper Burma', in Anthropological studies in Theravada Buddhism, pp. 97-115; M. Nash, The golden road to modernity: Village life in contemporary Burma (New York: Wiley, 1965).

(37) Denise Bernot, Bibliographie Birman, Armies 1950-1960e (Paris: CNRS, 1968); D. Bernot, Bibliographiie Biirmane, Annees 1960-1970 (Paris: CNRS, 1982); D. Bernot and Lucien Bernot, Les Khyang des Collines de Chittagong (Pakistan Oriental): Materiaux pour l'etude linguistique des Chins (Paris: Plon, 1958); L. Bernot, 'Ethnic groups of the Chittagong Hill tracts', Social Research in East Pakistan, 1 (1960): 113-40; L. Bernot, Les Cak (Paris, 1967); L. Bernot, Les paysans arakanais du Pakistan Oriental (Paris and The Hague: Mouton, 1967).

(38) See E. R. Leach, 'Cultural change with special reference to the hill tribes of Burma'; E. R. Leach, Political systems of highland Burma: A study of Kachin social structure (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954).

(39) Mandy J. Sadan, 'Leach and the integration of historical and anthropological data' in Social dynamics in the highlands of Southeast Asia: Reconsidering political systems of highland Burma by E. R. Leach (Leiden and Boston: E. J. Brill, 2007).

(40) Francois Robinne, 'Transethnic social space of clans and lineages: A discussion of Leach's concept of common ritual language', in Social dynamics in the highlands of Southeast Asia.

(41) F. K. Lehman, The structure of Chin society: A tribal people of Burma adapted to a non-western civilization (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963); F. K. Lehman, 'Kayah society as a function of the Shan-Burma-Karen context'; U Chit Hlaing, 'Remarks on the ethnography of the Chinese in Burma' from the China Burma Studies Conference, Northern Illinois University, 2004; U Chit Hlaing, 'The China-Burma cross-border multi-ethnic (gem) trade', field research project, 1 Feb. to 21 Nov. 2003); U Chit Hlaing, 'Some remarks upon ethnicity theory and Southeast Asia, with special reference to the Kayah and the Kachin', in Burma: Ethnic diversity past and present, ed. Mikael Gravers (Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, in press).

(42) Mikael Gravers, 'Cosmology, prophets, and rebellion among the Buddhist Karen in Burma and Thailand', Mussons, 4 (2001): 3-31.

(43) LaRaw Maran, 'On the continuing relevance of E. R. Leach's political systems of highland Burma to Kachin studies', in Social dynamics in the highlands of Southeast Asia.

(44) It may be worth mentioning that Maran has been a considerable contributor to the development of Tibeto-Burman linguistics, both phonological and syntactic. He was originally trained at Rangoon University in mathematical economics (the foundation for his algebraic work on Kachin ethnicity and marriage systems), went on to be Cultural Affairs Officer in the Kachin State where he began his first extended ethnographic fieldwork. In 1962, he arrived in the United States for graduate work, completing a 1971 Ph.D. dissertation on Jinghpaw and comparative Tibeto-Burman phonology.

(45) Ho Ts'ui-ping [He Cuiping], 'Rethinking Kachin wealth ownership [references to her other papers on Kachin-Shan relations and the system of Manao feasting]', in Social dynamics of the highlands of Southeast Asia: Reconsidering political systems of highland Burma, ed. Francois Robinne and Mandy Sadan (Leiden and Boston: E. J. Brill, 2007).

(46) M. E. Spiro, Buddhism and Society (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982).

(47) E. Paul Durrenberger and Nicola Tannenbaum, Analytical perspectives on Shan agriculture and village economics (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, Apr. 1991).

(48) Nancy Eberhardt, Imagining the course of life: Self-transformations in a Shan Buddhist community (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2006).

(49) Gehan Wijeyewardene, 'The little world of Dehong', in The Tai world, ed. Nicholas Tapp and Andrew Walker (Canberra: Australian National University, Tai Yunnan Project, Department of Anthropology, 2001).

(50) Zhu Liangwen, The Dai , or, the Tai on their architecture and customs in south China (Bangkok: D. D. Books, 1992); Yos Santasombat, Lak Chang: A reconstruction of Tai identity in Daikong (Canberra, Australia: Pandanus Books, 2001).

(51) E. Michael Mendelson, 'Religion and authority in modern Burma', World Today, 16 (1960): 110-18; E. M. Mendelson, 'The King of the weaving mountain', Royal Central Asian Journal, 48 (1961 a): 229-37; E. M. Mendelson, 'The uses of religious skepticism in Burma', Diogenes, 41 (1963): 94-116.

(52) Juliane S. Schober, 'Cosmology and religious domains in the Theravada Buddhist tradition of upper Burma' (Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1988); Juliane Schober, Sacred biography in the Buddhist traditions of South and Southeast Asia (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997); J. S. Schober, 'Religious merit and social status among Burmese Buddhist lay associations', in Merit and blessing in mainland Southeast Asia in comparative perspective, ed. Cornelia Ann Kammerer and Nicola Tannenbaum (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1996).

(53) John Ferguson, 'The symbolic dimensions of the Burmese Sangha' (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1975).

(54) E. Michael Mendelson, Sangha and state in Burma: A study of monastic sectarianism and leadership (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975); John P. Ferguson and E. Michael Mendelson, 'Masters of the Buddhist occult: The Burmese Weikzas', Contributions to Asian Studies, 16 (1981): 62-8.

(55) Michael Aung-Thwin, Myth and history in the historiography of early Burma: Paradigms, primary sources, and prejudices (Athens, OH: Ohio University Center for International Studies, Monographs in International studies, Southeast Asian Studies no. 102, 1998); Michael Aung-Thwin, The mists of Ramanna: The legend that was lower Burma (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005).

(56) Emmanuel Guillon, The Mons: A civilization of Southeast Asia, trans. James V. Di Crocco (Bangkok: The Siam Society, 1999).

(57) Benedicte Brac de la Perriere, 'Le nora personnel Birman: Son choix et ses usages', l'Homme, 1999; De la Perriere, 'Le cycle de fetes de naq en Birmanie central: Une circumambulation de l'espace birman', in Etudes birmanes, ed. P. Pichard and F. Robinne, (Paris: Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient, 2000); De la Perriere, 'Chamanisme et bouddhisme en Asie', in Denise Aigle, B. Brac de la Perriere and Jean-Pierre Chaumeil, eds., La Politique des Esprits: Chamanismes et religions universalistes (Nanterre: Societe d'Ethnologie, 1999), pp. 17-25; De la Perriere, 'Les rituels de consecration des statues de Bouddha et de naq en Birmanie, Purusartha, 25 (2006): 201-36.

(58) Guillaume Rozenberg, 'How giving sanctifies: The birthday of the Thamanya Hsayadaw in Burma', Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10, 3 (2004): 495-516; Rozenberg, 'What is a "weikza"?', 2004 manuscript; Rozenberg, 'On believing in the land of Buddhism', 2005 manuscript; Rozenberg, 'Le saint qui ne voulait pas mourir: Notes autour du deces du grande moine de Thamanya en Birmanie', 2006 manuscript.

(59) F. K. Lehman, 'Burmese religion', in The encyclopedia of religion, vol. 2, ed. M. Eliade et al. (New York: Macmillan, 1987), pp. 574-80.

(60) Sarah M. Bekker, 'The Burmese concept of A-Nade: Its function and meaning in interpersonal relations' (Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 1963).

(61) Francois Robinne, 'Habitat et parente: Essai d'analyse combinatoire entre differentes pratiques sociales des birmans', Technique et Cultures, 19 (1992):103-37; Francois Robinne, 'La notion de reste dans la choix

du nom personnel en Birmanie (Myanmar)', Aseanie, 1(1998): 91-105.

(62) Francois Robinne, Savoirs et saveurs: L'identite culinaire des birmans (Paris: EFEO, Monographie no. 175, 1994).

(63) Guy Lubeigt, 'Ancient peninsular trade roads and rivalries over the Tenasserim coasts', in Commerce et navigation en Asie du Sud-Est, XIVe-XIXe siecle, ed. Nguyen The Anh and Y. Izhizawa (Paris: Harmattan, 1999), pp. 44-76; Guy Lubeigt, La Birmanie: l'Age d'Or de Pagan (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2005).

(64) It is somewhat interesting to note that the first introduction to Southeast Asia as an ethnological subject by my teacher, Professor Heine-Geldern, in many ways the academic founder of the ethnology of Southeast Asia, was his brief look at the Moken from shipboard at the start of the twentieth century (see his foundational work Sudostasien in 1923, the very first general anthropology of the Southeast Asian area).

(65) Etudes birmanes en hommage a Denise Bermot, ed. Pierre Pichard and Francois Robinne (Paris: EFEO, Etudes Thematiques no. 9, 1998).

(66) Michael W. Charney, 'Beyond state-centered histories in western Burma: Missionizing monks and intra-regional migrants in the Arakan littoral, c. 1784-1860', in The maritime frontier of Burma: Exploring political, cultural and commercial interaction in the Indian Ocean world, 1200-1800, ed. Jacques Leider and Jos Gommanser (Leiden: KITLV Press, 2002).

(67) Jason A. Carbine, 'An ethic of continuity: Shwegyin monks and the Sasana in contemporary Burma / Myanmar' (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2004).

(68) Patrick Pranke, 'Treatise on the lineage of elders (Vamsadipani): Monastic reform and the writing of Buddhist history in eighteenth-century Burma' (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2004). In this dissertation, Pranke explores the Burmese-Pali literature in the context of the history of Burmese Buddhism.

(69) Ingrid Jordt, 'Bhikkuni, Thilashin, Mae-Chii: Women who renounce the world in Burma, Thailand and the classical Pali Buddhist texts', Crossroads, Special Burma studies issue, 4, 1 (1988): 31-9; Ingrid Jordt, 'The mass lay meditation movement and state--society relations in post-independence Burma' (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2001).

(70) S. J. Tambiah, World conqueror, world renouncer. A study of Buddhism and polity in Thailand against a historical background (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).

(71) Gustaaf Houtman, 'Traditions of Buddhist practice in Burma' (Ph.D. diss., University of London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1990); Gustaaf Houtman, Mental culture in Burmese crisis politics: Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1999).

(72) Gustaaf Houtman, Burmese personal names: A critical survey of choice, Tyes and some functions of names (Rangoon: Department of Religious Affairs, 1982); Gustaf Houtman, 'The novitiation ceremony in Theravada Buddhist Burma: A "received" and an "interpreted" version', Journal of South Asia Research, 1984.

(73) Josef Silverstein, Burmese politics: The dilemma of national unity (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1980).

(74) Lorenz Georg Loffler, 'A note on the history of the Marma chiefs of Bandarban', Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan, 13, 2 (1968): 189-201; Lorenz Georg Loffler, 'A diachronic view of Burmese kinship terminologies', Proceedings of the 8th international congress of anthropological and ethnological sciences, 2 (1970): 99-102.

(75) S. L. Pardo and Lorenz Loffler, Shifting cultivation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, East Pakistan, Jahrbuch des Sudasient-Instityuts der Universitat Heidelberg, 1968 / 69, Bd. 3: 66.

(76) Spielmann continued to do ethnographical work amongst the Lahu Sheleh in northern Thailand.

(77) Paul E. Durrenberger and Nicola Tannenbaum, Analytical perspectives on Shan agriculture and village economics (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, Southeast Asia Studies Monograph series, 1991).

(78) Nancy Eberhardt, Imagining the course of life: Self-transformation in a Shah Buddhist Community (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2006).

(79) Nicola Tannenbaum, Who can compete against the world? Power-protection and Buddhism in Shah worldview (Ann Arbor: Association for Asian Studies, Monograph and Occasional Paper Series no. 1995); Nicola Tannenbaum, 'Blessing and merit transfer among lowland Shans of northwestern Thailand', in Mainland Southeast Asia in Comparative Perspective (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, Monograph no. 45, 1996), pp. 181-96.

(80) Wang Zhusheng, The Jingpo: Kachin of the Yunnan Plateau (Tempe: Arizona State University Program, Southeast Asian Studies Monograph Series, 1997).

(81) Zhang Wenyi, 'The circulatory marriage: Kinship systems of the Jingpo in Jinzhuzhai, Yunnan, China' (MA thesis, Peking University, China, 2003); 2006.

(82) Ethnic adaptation and identity, ed. Keyes.

(83) F. K. Lehman, 'Ethnic categories in Burma and the theory of social systems', in Southeast Asian Tribes, Minorities and Nations, vol. 1, ed. P. Kunstadter (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), pp. 93-124.

(84) Theodore Stern, 'Language contact between related languages: Burmese influences upon Plains Chin', Anthropological Linguistics, 4, 4 (1962): 1-28; Theodore Stern, 'Ariya and the Golden Book', Journal of Asian Studies, 27, 2 (1968): 297-328; Theodore Stern, 'The cult of the local lord among the Karen' (Paper for the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, 1968); Theodore Stern, 'Drum and whistle languages: An analysis of speech surrogates', American Anthropologist, 59, 3 (1976): 487-506.

(85) Walter Yuan Jianwei, 'Assimilation and reconstructing a Chinese ethnic identity in contemporary Myanmar', 2006 manuscript.

U Chit Hlaing is a Professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign. Correspondence in connection with this article should be addressed to: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 8th International Burma Studies Conference, Singapore. It was organised by The Asia Research Institute and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore. The original draft version was presented at a panel, preparatory to the Singapore conference, sponsored by the Burma Studies Group at the 2006 annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Cambridge University Press
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hlaing, U. Chit
Publication:Journal of Southeast Asian Studies
Geographic Code:9MYAN
Date:Jun 1, 2008
Previous Article:Finding the political in Myanmar, a.k.a. Burma.
Next Article:Communities of interpretation in the study of religion in Burma.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters