No.68 AUTUMN 2013

Front Cover: ASEAN flag decorating a motorbike at the town of Chiang Khong, Thailand, close to border-crossing to travel to Huay Sai, Laos.
Photo Credit: Mario Lopez

No.68 Autumn 2013

Contents
Editorial

4

Special Feature: Southeast Asian Studies:
Crisis or Opportunity?
Southeast Asian Studies: Toward an Open Regional Networking
Caroline Sy Hau

6Southeast Asian Studies from the Perspective of the International Institutefor Asian Studies (IIAS), Leiden
Philippe Peycam
8Southeast Asian Studies in Southeast Asia: A View from Singapore
R. Michael Feener

11

The Development of Southeast Asian Studies in Korea
Park Seung Woo and Lee Sang Kook

13

Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand

Charnvit Kasetsiri

15

Hayami Yoko

18

Southeast Asian Studies in Japan

ArticlesExploring the East-West Cultural Corridor:
Historic and Modern Archaeology of Bago and Dawei, Myanmar
Elizabeth Howard Moore

21

Ethnoastronomy: The Sundanese of West Java andtheir Relation to Ethnoastronomy
Suhardja D. Wiramihardja

25

Conference Report: The Future of Southeast Asia Viewed fromHistorical Area Studies: in Memory of Professor Yumio Sakurai(1945-2012)
Ono Mikiko

28

Visiting Fellows

30

Publications

31

3

Editorial
This summer has been a busy one for the Center for South-

to reflect on how area studies from within and outside theeast Asian Studies (CSEAS). Over half our faculty attended­region can come to terms with the new arrangements andthe International Convention of Asian Scholars (ICAS) which

realities which are redefining its geopolitical and global­

was held in Macau, China between 24-27 June 2013. CSEAS

presence. It is both a time of crisis and opportunity wheresponsored a number of panels and roundtables, one of which

academics, scholars and intellectuals alike can continue to­stimulated strong attention and has been turned into a special­define the terms of academic engagement and create newfeature for this newsletter: a current overview of Southeast

agendas for study. This newsletter brings together an overview

Asian studies.

of the field to stimulate discussion on how the region will take

It goes without saying that in recent years, the economic

shape over the coming years.

crisis­caused by the Lehman shock in 2008 resulted in funding
cuts to area studies in various countries, and institutions, mostNews Update

notably in the U.S. and to a lesser degree Europe. The uncertainty created by these cuts led to a certain amount of nervous-

While this issue was going to press, Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda)

ness and anxiety over the future of area studies for our col-struck the Philippines on the 7 November 2013. This was one

leagues who are engaged in Southeast Asia in both Europeof the largest and deadliest typhoons on record and has devas-

and the U.S. However, the situation in these regions stands intated the central Philippines, particularly, Samar Island andstark contrast to that in East Asia, which has seen governmental

parts of Leyte, affecting millions. CSEAS offer its condolences toinvestment and promotion of the institutionalization of

the victims of this disaster and offers its support to survivors

Southeast Asian area studies from within the region. With everand our colleagues and friends in the region.

increasing recognition of the role the region will play in the
21st century, recent academic expansion has led to the founding of centers specializing in Southeast Asia in Thailand,
Mainland China and South Korea, in addition to those alreadyestablished centers in Singapore and Japan. This is in linewith deepening East Asian regional integration. In itself, this isindicative that the study of Southeast Asia is being undertaken
in multiple sites outside of the traditional American andEuropean­centers. And interestingly, it also points to a gradualshift towards the expansion of networks and deepening ofinstitutional ties within, across and beyond the region.
CSEAS sponsored a roundtable with a number of leading
intellectuals who have their fingers on the pulse to discuss
the changing context within which the study of Southeast
Asia takes place. The growing economic power of the region(represented in part by the putative establishment of theASEAN Economic Community in 2015), and subsequent investment by surrounding East Asian and Pacific Asian nations,have led academics to question how we can tap into theopportunities­represented by the rapid social change now
taking­place in the region. Southeast Asia is home to over 650
million people, and will soon form a new economic community
in 2015. It is more important than ever, not only as a sub-regionof East Asia, but also as the hub of East Asia and Asia-Pacific­region-making. In this special newsletter we offer a platform
4

The Editors

No.68 Autumn 2013

Special Feature

Southeast Asian Studies:In recent years, the economic crisis caused by the Lehman shock resulted in funding cuts to area studies in various countries,
notably America. This has led to a certain amount of nervousness and anxiety over the future of area studies. However, thesituation­in America stands in stark contrast to that in East Asia, which has seen governmental investment in promoting theinstitutionalization­of Southeast Asian area studies from within the region. With ever increasing recognition of the role the region

will play in the 21st century, recent academic expansion in the founding of centers specializing in Southeast Asia has grown apace
in Singapore, Thailand, Japan, mainland China, and South Korea, in line with the deepening East Asian regional integration. This in
itself is indicative that the study of Southeast Asia is being undertaken in multiple sites outside of the traditional American andEuropean centers. It also points to a gradual shift towards the expansion of networks and deepening of institutional ties within,across and beyond the region. At the International Convention of Asian Scholars (ICAS) held in Macau, China between 24–27 June
2013, CSEAS sponsored a roundtable to discuss the future of Southeast Asian Studies and brought together leading Southeast
Asianists based in Thailand, Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Europe in the interest of promoting multilateral dialogue about
the direction, challenges and future of Southeast Asian area studies. This feature issue pools together the discussions which wereshared between concerned scholars engaged in Southeast Asian Studies.

5Special Feature: Southeast Asian Studies: Crisis or Opportunity?

Southeast Asian Studies:
Toward an Open Regional Networking
Caroline Sy Hau
Professor CSEAS

M

ore than fifteen years ago, the distinguished scholar Ruth
McVey, in her Frank Golay Memorial Lecture at Cornell
University, noted that Southeast Asian studies in the UnitedStates of America were being marginalized at precisely the time
when Southeast Asia was becoming increasingly globalized,
and increasingly “real,” important, and relevant to Americans(McVey and Reynolds 1998, 37-38). In a time of budget cuts andpressure to demonstrate area studies’ relevance to other academic fields and to the state and the general public, McVey
called for rethinking Southeast Asian studies. To quote McVey,“It is not that Southeast Asia is the object of our study, butthat Southeast Asians are its subject” (ibid., 53). McVey wascritical of the setup of Southeast Asian studies programs in
America, in which programs competed for funds and prestige, and advocated greater cooperation instead, calling on
Southeast Asianists to think “in terms of networks rather than ofinstitutions, and these networks should in principle be global
and not just regional or national” (ibid., 54).
Nowadays, McVey’s vision of networking among Southeast
Asian studies institutions has been borne out, and, in fact, nolonger limited to developed countries. Indeed, an importantdevelopment of the past decades, particularly from the 1990s
onwards, has been what some area studies scholars have called
the “decentering” of Southeast Asian studies from their established bases in a few preeminent institutions in Western Europe
and, in particular, the USA, Australia, and Japan toward multiple
hubs spread out, and connected network-style, both globallyand regionally. New centers—with Southeast Asian studies
often included under Asia-Pacific or Asian studies—have been
set up not only in Mainland China, South Korea, Taiwan andHong Kong, but in Southeast Asia itself, starting in the 1970s
and increasing in the 1990s in countries such as Singapore,
Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines.
We are now seeing the fruits of this multi-sited growth, which
has not only produced high-quality scholarship undertaken by
Southeast Asian scholars based in the region, but also Southeast Asian scholars who are specializing on other Southeast
Asian countries beyond their own home countries or diasporiccommunities.
Although Southeast Asian specialists have long been awareof the constructedness of “Southeast Asia” as a geopolitical,
economic and multicultural system, as field of study and unitof analysis for asking questions and proposing methodologies,
and as an institutional space, there is no doubt that the reality

6of economic integration and increasing densities of flows andmovements, exchanges and interactions of people, goods,
ideas, and institutions within this so-called region have donemuch to strengthen regional awareness and identification, if
not necessarily consciousness nor identity, among its people.
Geographical proximity, however, is no guarantee that peopleof Southeast Asia know more, let alone ought to learn more,
about each other than about, say, Britain or the US or Australia.
And yet, Southeast Asian studies are becoming more globalized in the sense that there are greater possibilities not justfor people but for knowledge itself to “travel” (as Carlo Bonura
and Laurie Sears have pointed out [2007]). Moreover, historicaland contemporary international migration has created substantial communities in America and Europe with biographical,
symbolic, cultural, and material ties to Asia and Southeast Asia,
resulting for example in a close but also fraught relationshipbetween area studies and Asian-American studies in individual,
institutional and conceptual terms. The recent book edited by
Goh Beng-Lan, Decentring and Diversifying Southeast AsianStudies: Perspectives from the Region, called for nurturing formsof “thinking from and about Southeast Asia” (2011, 13) that candevelop “theoretical perspectives which can consider the simultaneity and interaction of the global and local, the insideand outside, the old and new, the centre and the periphery­,the stable and the unstable, and so on” (Ibid., 9).
This idea of Southeast Asian studies that can be undertaken
by both Southeast Asians themselves as well as committed
scholars from other regions in expanding and deepening networks of peoples and institutions that link up and undertake
activities at the local, national, regional and global levels has
become a reality. With the establishment of an ASEAN community in 2015, and the critical role of ASEAN as hub of­region-making in East Asia and Asia-Pacific, such institutional
and individual networking initiatives and efforts are likely to­increase rather than decrease. There is a need for us to consider
more closely the region-based impetus for promoting studies ofSoutheast Asia and the perspectives arising from the region itself.
As we get better connected with each other, we find ourselves learning from each other, and confronting similar challenges under different circumstances. Funding is always aproblem. Strengthening collaboration and exchange is another.
Identifying local, national, regional and global agenda forSoutheast Asian scholarship, located as it is now in multiple
sites across a far wider geographical swath, is still another.

Special Feature

From the start, we accept the fact that although we may
speak of common challenges and problems, we also speakfrom multiple locations, from specific histories, from heterogeneous cultures and societies, from different languages, andnot always convergent priorities and agenda. For somescholars, particularly in America, the marginalization ofSoutheast Asian studies is a reality, while for others working,for example, in Japan and Korea and Southeast Asia itself, newopportunities for obtaining funding and institution-building—including funding directly connected to region-building—havearisen in connection with state priorities and private-sector
investment in the region. While some scholars worry about
Southeast Asian studies’ contribution to universal knowledge,others seek better ways of engaging nationalist or what somecall “nativist” scholarship. For some institutions, Asia-Pacific or
Asian studies appears more institutionally viable as a geographical framework than Southeast Asian studies, while many
Southeast Asian scholars are rooted in national or sub-regional
studies and some lament the fact that they know more about
the debates and concerns of “Western” scholarship than about
the debates and concerns of their own neighbors. While someof us call for multidisciplinary and comparative approaches tothe study of Southeast Asia, others strive to cross not only thedisciplinary boundaries that separate the social sciences fromthe humanities, but also the disciplinary boundaries that separate the natural sciences from the human sciences. While someof us think of Southeast Asian studies in terms of its potential
for promoting oppositional thinking and practice, others see
the necessity of working with the state, for all its constraints
and limitations.
How do we step-up our institutional and personal networking efforts to make Southeast Asian studies viable? How do wenurture cross-disciplinary and comparative perspectives in our
respective “areas” of study in the process of learning from eachother and learning from the rest of the world? How do werethink­national studies to make the nation more open andinclusive­? What kind of cooperative, collaborative activities canwe undertake at both individual and institutional levels? This
special newsletter feature issue brings together a group of scholars who are representatives of their respective institutions toshare their experiences and ideas about the state of Southeast
Asian studies in their countries, the problems and challenges
that area studies scholars as well as programs or institutions areconfronting either by themselves or in common with other­institutions, and the initiatives and prospects for further collaboration and cooperation among area studies specialists and­institutions at the local, national, regional and global levels.

No.68 Autumn 2013

McVey, Ruth and Craig Reynolds. 1998. Southeast Asian Studies:
Reorientations. Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell
University.

References
Bonura, Carlo and Laurie J. Sears, eds. 2007. Knowledges that
Travel in Southeast Asian Studies. In Knowing Southeast
Asian Subjects. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Goh, Beng-Lan. 2011. Decentering and Diversifying Southeast
Asian Studies: Perspectives from the Region. Singapore:
Institute­of Southeast Asian Studies.
7Special Feature: Southeast Asian Studies: Crisis or Opportunity?

Southeast Asian Studies from the Perspectiveof the International Institute for AsianStudies (IIAS), Leiden
Philippe Peycam
Director, International Institute of Asian Studies

I

am an historian by training working on Southeast Asia, especially Vietnam, and later on Cambodia. In this latter country
I was involved in developing a capacity building institution,
the Center for Khmer Studies, both an international and a
Cambodian organization. Today, I am working as director of
the International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS), an institutewith a global reach but rooted in the Dutch/European academic context. In addition, I retained a position as a Visiting
Scholar at the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) in
Singapore. There are therefore many dimensions and angles
through which I should discuss the issue of Southeast Asianstudies.

Philippe Peycam, Director of IIAS
8

Concerning the challenges and opportunities for Southeast
Asian Studies (SEAS), I feel that we are currently at a majorcrossroads with major transformations taking place in theknowledge production process, both in terms of what wemean by Southeast Asian studies, and how we actually do it
institutionally. These changes are affecting the way SEAS has
been previously conceived. I see these changes both in termsof a process of decentering and re-centering of the field whichbecomes more “global,” with a multiplicity of actors both within
and outside Southeast Asia, and simultaneously, the possibilityof opening new intellectual and methodological boundaries
beyond the traditional “area studies” model with its old reference to nation-states as we have been used to. As we know,
the field has been dominated by a Western academic modelthrough Cold War “area studies,” and before it, the colonial“orientalist” tradition. The institutional model of production andtransmission of knowledge has also been characterized by thedominance of the West. If we take in the bigger picture today,
we see that we are living in a time where there are new spaces
and flows to approach human reality, that of the societies
which constitute “Southeast Asia.”
Of course, we could discuss the validity of “Southeast Asia”
as a term and concept, as it is still very problematic. As I workat IIAS, when I attempt to look at the region in the larger, global /“Asian” - perspective, I see that a great deal of attention in theWest is oriented primarily towards China and India. When people
often think about Asian studies, they mean China and Chinesestudies. That trend in itself reveals a current Western agenda
and anxiety with regard to the rise of China. This has led to anincreased marginalization of Southeast Asia as a subject of study
and a source of meaning. As Mario Lopez and Shimizu Hiromu
have pointed out, as managers of academic institutions, we see
SEAS in Western and Japanese institutions suffering because offunding cuts and a depletion of language training resources.
This process is only partially compensated by the development
of SEAS Centers in newly “rich” North-East Asian countries like
China and Korea, and in the “rich countries” of Southeast Asia
such as Singapore, which are building their own capacities,
usually following the same institutional “Western” model.
The fact that Southeast Asia, as a field of study, has been
fragmented in national and linguistic subtopics, at university
and national levels, has led to more financial cuts. In the neo-

Special Featureliberal age of commercialization of higher education, cuts arebound to occur with small subjects because they are unlikely
to attract a large demand from students. Of course, SEA languages such as Khmer or Burmese are exposed to these influences. In overall terms, this trend may not be deemed to be too
serious at an institutional level, yet it contributes to killing thediversity of knowledge production of a large and diverse areasuch as Asia (another complex notion in itself ). These aresometimes huge cuts, as the one experienced recently in the
US with the depletion of Title six funding. These are very sadsituations in the sense that they not only kill communities ofstudents and teachers, but they impoverish the overall knowledge foundation of any given institution.
Yet, these trends may be mitigated by increased interinstitutional collaboration, the definition of new thematic research and teaching subjects, and an increased connectivity
with other centers of knowledge: beyond the West and Japan,
outside and within Southeast Asia. This new situation may help
us to not only decenter, but actually re-center the process ofknowledge production of Southeast Asia. Such trends, I believe
are not bad for students and new scholars on the region. I see
an opportunity to frame new topics of study that can betterinterlace local and global experiences while offering scholars
and students a chance to go beyond their traditional “national”
academic system/approach, encouraging them to travel andwork in Southeast Asia with people of the region, as well as
elsewhere in the world – not necessarily in Western institutions.
For one thing, I believe that we – Western and Japaneseinstitutions – need to learn to work more in partnership with
Southeast Asian and Asian institutions. To me, the epitome of
traditional areas studies is the fact that, not only an Americanor European, but also an Indonesian or a Korean would need, if
they want to learn about Indonesia, to travel to Cornell University –and it is not my intention to offend anyone when I makethese comments — in the middle of a mountainous region of
the New York State, where, until now you had one the best
center of Southeast Asian studies. This is likewise with Burmese
studies at Northern Illinois University, the School of Africanand Asian Studies (SOAS) in London, or for Cambodian studies,in Paris. We have to ask ourselves why don’t we have centerscloser to Indonesia, Burma or Cambodia with more interactions
with local individuals and institutions, or else, why these centers of excellence are always in the West but not in Africa, Latin
America, China or even Korea. This situation is of course a resultof history, but it must change.
I therefore see a chance for the field to grow, though a process of knowledge production reclaimed by the people andinstitutions in the region – especially if they succeed in moving
beyond narrow national foci. This knowledge of Southeast Asia
can also be developed in other parts of Asia, and well beyond,in an increasing multipolar world. Present at this panel is Professor Webby Kalikiti, Secretary of the African Association for
Asian Studies (A-ASIA) and himself a “Southeast asianist.”
Southeast Asia is no longer just the domain of Western andJapanese scholars or even that of rich North-East Asian countries. It can now become the focus of academic enquiry fromscholars and students from hitherto unconnected regions of

No.68 Autumn 2013

the world like Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and soforth. This new range of international academic “actors” has notbeen traditionally involved in the intellectual dialogues thatpertain to the region. The same can be said about the multitude of new Southeast Asian institutes, local institutions, andyounger scholars, often from unprivileged countries in the region, or countries where the higher education system is weak,
who, thanks to the new fluidity of education and scholarshipongoing within the region, are now more likely to participate in
the knowledge production process.
Drawing from my own experiences in Cambodia where I was
involved in the training and promotion of young local scholars
following the tragic recent history there, I saw many of these
individuals who, despite the bad shape of the Cambodian university system, managed to find their way, in the country andabroad, and acquire a very high level of competency and acapacity to reach high levels of international scholarship.
Their numbers are fast increasing. This same process is true for
Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia and so forth.
While working in Cambodia, I often witnessed how these up
and coming young Southeast Asian scholars encounteredmultiple difficulties when they tried to access some establishedinstitutions overseas. Within the region, some mental barriers
are perpetuating: they are usually not interested in studying in
the Philippines, despite the high level of some of this country’s
institutions or; when they wanted to study in Thailand or
Singapore where they were restricted by high costs (Thailand);or the almost unattainable requirements put in front of them(Singapore). NUS, for instance, is a very good institution inSoutheast Asia. If you want a fellowship as a Southeast Asian
national, you have to have an almost Shakespearean commandof the English language (Michael Fenner from ARI interjects“it’s higher than that demanded from most U.S. institutions!”).
This is in Southeast Asia. There must be ways to improve thedecentering of knowledge production within the region whichmust start with easier access to institutions, more information,and the stronger will of the region’s governments to foster
education. In any case, this process of growing interaction
between different intellectual traditions in Southeast Asia
should be encouraged. This is also true at the global level.
Another point I should like to underline is that to movebeyond­the old Western dominated knowledge production
process, we also need to move beyond old categories inheritedfrom this model, such as the nation-states, or the old colonial /neo-colonial geographic constructions. We also need to think
about the institutional configuration of higher education itself
and the need to review the kind of over-specialization thattoday exists in “functionalist” Western academia. Among the
subjects that should be enhanced for Southeast Asian studies,
I think in particular of questions of trans-national/regional/pre
or post-national interests, including the existence of networks.
I can also think of subjects like material culture, local indigenous knowledge and so forth. These can contribute to change
rigidly framed disciplines that are continuing to fragment SEAS.
And as for changing the way we as scholars “specialize” in theuniversity architecture of today, I believe it is not only important
to move beyond disciplinary boundaries, but sometimes, to go
9beyond professional or specialization “sectors”: this means thatanthropologists should not only learn to work with historians,
but also with “practitioners” of the city (urban planners, architects), with artists and members of the craft communities, etc.
In other words, go beyond their ethnographic research.
To stress what I see is a need for a more de-centered, interdisciplinary and multi-sector field of Southeast Asian studies, I
should end thoughts by briefly describing what we are trying
to do at IIAS – even if our range goes beyond Southeast Asia.
IIAS is based in Leiden, Holland and we now see ourselves as a
global facilitator. We are aware of our Dutch/European background, but we want to incorporate a truly multi-centered andmulti-vocal approach to what and whom we study. We run
more activities outside Europe, notably in Asia, than we do inHolland or Europe, and we are very active in Southeast Asia.
All our activities are collaborative and we work on an equal
partnership basis, whether being major universities, small institutes, municipalities, NGOs or other social community groups.
Concretely, to only discuss Southeast Asia, we have forged astrong array of connections, in Singapore, Indonesia and in
Thailand. We aim to develop links in other countries and withother actors in the region.
We have identified three thematic clusters – the practiceand politics of culture and cultural heritage, Asian cities and the“urban factor”; connectivity in Asia and beyond, with what wecall “the global projection of Asia.” Under these three crossdisciplinary/sector themes, IIAS engages with global/Southeast
Asian scholars and partners. These themes enable us to interact
with people from different backgrounds, disciplines and evensectors of activity. We have, for instance, organized a numberof events involving different strands of activities: a roundtableon Indonesian coastal cities in Palembang (2011), a strategic
workshop with Nusa Tengara weavers, local governments andscholars of Eastern Indonesia (2012), a training program on
heritage management for city officials and members of the civilsociety of Yangon, Myanmar (2013), a planned summer schoolon craft and power in Chiang Mai (2014). Moreover, we makesure than in many of our activities dealing with anything related
to Asia – under the three clusters –, scholars and experts fromSoutheast Asia are involved. For instance, for our recent roundtable on old Taipei, in November 2012, we invited participantsfrom Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore. They positively, interacted with their counterparts from North, East andSouth Asia.
At ICAS held in Macau 2013, IIAS sponsored ten panels, manyof which include participants from Southeast Asia, or covered
aspects of Southeast Asia. One engaged city practitioners withscholars on cities. Another one brought together artists andsocial scientists. One involved textile craftsmen with politicalscientists and anthropologists. One more involves the development of partnerships between Asian/Southeast Asian institutions and their African counterparts. IIAS works not just with
universities, but also civil societies and local government partners. It adapts to the institutional landscape in a pragmatic way
to ensure that we reach out to new partners within the region
who can contribute to widening the knowledge base on
Southeast Asia. We are eager to forge new alliances both within
10

and outside the region serving an ever multi-centered andinclusive field of exchange of knowledge.
I believe in a process of affirmative action to help shape acritical mass of Southeast Asian scholars, especially from lesseconomically developed countries, capable of interacting with
their international counterparts, about Southeast Asia, and also
about other subjects (when will we have Vietnamese scholars
interacting with colleagues on Thai, Indonesian, French or
American studies?).
We have had similar discussions with our colleagues fromthe Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) in Singapore.
This institute, I believe, could play a major role in connecting
scholars from the region; likewise with the SEASREP program
based in Manila which links up scholars and institutions within
the region. To sustain an inclusive Southeast Asian studies
momentum in the region, institutions need to go beyond petty
national and administrative policies. A more interactive, transnational model can truly act as catalyst of change, with theactive participation of young scholars from countries not always
equipped to be part of this process.
We seek to contribute to Southeast Asia and beyond, by
encouraging scholars from the different regions of the world
to interact with their Southeast Asian colleagues. The January
2015 conference in Accra, Ghana, will see the first pan-African
conference on Asian studies. IIAS will hopefully partner withother institutes to encourage more comparisons and exchanges between SEA and Africa and to commit to furthering­
fruitful and productive collaborations.

International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS), Leiden, Holland.

Special Feature

No.68 Autumn 2013

Special Feature: Southeast Asian Studies: Crisis or Opportunity?

Southeast Asian Studies in Southeast Asia:
A View from Singapore
R. Michael Feener
Associate Professor, Asia Research Institute (ARI),
National University of SingaporeW

hat I want to do here is to reflect on the state ofSoutheast Asian Studies, and how it looks from Singapore
in the context of the questions asked at the roundtable held in
Macau.
Building upon its place as a regional infrastructure andeducational hub, for the past 50 years, Singapore has come toplay a major role in the development of Southeast AsianStudies in the region both at the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS).
NUS which was one of the first institutions in Southeast Asianthat really began to develop an international research profile in
the field by drawing in scholars from all across the region andbeyond who came to base their work in Singapore. However,
the rapid economic growth of Singapore in recent decades has
attracted new waves of migrants in all fields including a lot of
migrant academics. They have been drawn there by a range ofdifferent factors including relatively good resources and research funding and also, very importantly, close proximity to thefield. If you are going to work in Southeast Asia, it is a much
shorter commute from Singapore than most other places. But
also, importantly, it has become a real pull for the opportunities
it gives for interaction with an increasingly vibrant academic
community centered there.
I was happy to see some of my colleagues from NUS – inparticular from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and from
NUS Press, at ICAS in Macau. They are in a position to talk more
broadly as to how NUS has staked itself out in the field. So I will
try to keep my remarks focused on the Asian Research Institute(ARI) which is the unit within NUS where much of my work has
been focused. ARI has been around since 2001 and arose fromone of NUS’ myriad strategic initiatives the administration
throws up from time to time. But, I think that it is one of the few
initiatives that has grown its own legs. Over the past 12 years,
ARI has developed into a major site of not only regional, butalso global scholarly collaborations: we have just over 80 faculty
members and researchers from 24 different countries. We also
hold a large portfolio on MOUs and collaborative research programs with other institutions across Asia, as well as in North
America, Europe, and Australia.
One of the advantages of work at ARI is that it is interdisciplinary and we bring together scholars under clusters from different disciplines to look at different focused areas of research.
I am currently in charge of the unit that looks at religion in Asia,

which has been a very active unit within ARI over the past decade. Work at ARI has contributed to some significant studies inSoutheast Asia over the past few years. This has been significantly facilitated by both resources and location. Both of thesehave contributed to new configurations of research personnel
that have come together to work on projects that have served
to reshape some of the relationships between scholars and theobjects of their studies, in some very stimulating and productive ways.
One result of this has been a significant shift in the way inwhich work being done on Asia at NUS is framed. That is, thework of Southeast Asian Studies in a place like ARI is not primarily conceived so much of studies of Asia as an object, rather
than of studies of diverse social phenomena in Asia as a con-

R. Michael Feener. Source: Author
11text. This shift makes a huge difference in our approach to thefield and toward others in the environment. This shift is not justsemantic: it reflects a whole new kind of position for area studies scholars in relation to their field. In addition to this generalreconfiguration of the field, there is also some innovative conceptual work taking place locally that aims to try to develop
new models for understanding connections linking diverse
communities both within Asia and to the broader world beyond. With Prasenjit Duara as head of ARI, the current focus
on interactions within and across Asia has been very productive to bring scholars from around the region and beyond toenter into new kinds of conversations.
Another exciting new line of development that we haveseen at NUS over the recent years involves the way in which we
explore new frameworks for constructive interaction between
academics and professional practitioners from other fields. Thisis something that I started engaging with a few years ago withsome work on Islamic legal professionals in Asia. We started toorganize a series of workshops with participants that included
professionals from fields beyond academics - bringing in judges
and lawyers from Islamic jurisdictions from around the region
to come to work together. I am sure that you are all familiar
with the saying that working with academics is like herding agroup of cats; now think about throwing a bunch of lawyers
and judges into the mix. In terms of administrative issues ittakes things to a whole new level. But it has been possible to
do at NUS in a way that it would not be in many other places
due to its location. To get a dozen Shari’a court judges to aconference in the United States is in itself a major challenge,
starting with immigration issues. But, we can still manage todo that in Singapore. So to be able to bring in these regional
participants who aren’t academics by training, but are doing
very thoughtful work in the areas that we are interested in has
created a whole new set of conversations: something that isvery exciting. We are now doing this more systematically at ARI
as part of our project on “Religion and Development.”
It is, of course, also very challenging particularly in ways that
we can produce publications that can capture some of the
dynamics of the conversations we have there, and also how we
can also communicate these to broader professional audiences.
This is the thing NUS has being trying to do and it is buildingon these experiences. Some of the current work that we aredoing at ARI has moved to build these new frameworks andconversations in new directions. For example our project on“religion and development” and that has brought in practitioners from a number of international relief and development
agencies that have either regional offices in Singapore or thathave operations based in Southeast Asia. This is with the aim
to try to come up with a new series of conversations thatlook at major social phenomena within the social context of
Asia: but all the time focusing much more on Asia as a context
rather than as an object of study.
These developments are all very promising. There are more
people coming and new lines of research being developed. But
we still face challenges. Firstly, places like ARI are embedded ininstitutional contexts in Asia that have relatively underdeveloped traditions in the humanities and the social sciences, in12which usually more resources are dedicated to areas such as
the natural sciences and engineering. Some have attempted toestablish work in the humanities and social sciences as havingsome kind of direct policy relevance. Many academic institutions in Singapore and across the region are directly involved in
the work of consulting government on various matters. ARI is
unique in NUS in that it works without any such expectations.
Yet, this space for academic work does require constant justification to the higher administration of the university as to why
our work could be worth the time, energy, and resources that
goes into it. So this might also be a problem that other institutions in the region face which on the institutional context
where work from the social sciences and the humanities
doesn’t have the same kind of social prestige or historical trackrecord that we’d find in European or North American Univer­sities.
Another final significant challenge that we’ve seen at NUS isthat ARI is a completely post PhD institution. The university is
still not producing many leading doctorates in the field of Asianstudies. We have made some remarkable progress toward thisin recent years, but we still are seeing relatively few Singaporean students coming through NUS who are really attaining
global visibility in the field. Many of our students do their studies there and then go off to one of these legacy centers ofAsian Studies in Europe, North America, and Australia to gettheir PhD. So, we are faced with significant challenges in trying
to make NUS a place where not just well established scholars
will come to work late in their careers, but as a place where
you can foster an upcoming intellectual community. There aresome real institutional problems with this. For example theshort limits of having five years to complete a PhD; the relativelack of language training; and a relatively small window to do
fieldwork. In some of the more established programs abroad,
you can get good PhDs because you can teach them languages,
give them the years they need to do this, and to carry out extensive fieldwork. These are simply not options in a place like
Singapore, unfortunately.
So there are some real institutional constraints to producing
the kinds of scholars that you are getting in other places. How
can NUS be a place that attracts people coming in, and how
can in really work to more vigorously develop them and scholarship? These are the constant issues we face in what is a constantly evolving field and region. For the future development of
Asian Studies in Asia, however, it is imperative that we work
more on producing, and not just absorbing, the most productive and prominent scholars in the field.

Special Feature

No.68 Autumn 2013

Special Feature: Southeast Asian Studies: Crisis or Opportunity?

The Development of Southeast Asian Studies
in Korea
Park Seung Woo
Professor, Department of Sociology,
Yeungnam University

Lee Sang Kook
Assistant Professor, Institute for East Asian Studies,
Sogang University

I

n Korea, academic interest in Southeast Asia first arose in theearly 1960s, when some language programs were offered incollege education. It is also around this time that Korea enteredinto diplomatic relations with major nations in Southeast Asia.
However, very little research was done during the ‘60s and ‘70s.
What can be regarded as the first Southeast Asia area specialists only appeared in the ‘80s. Their emergence was related
to the government’s policies for liberalization and opening up
the economy. It was around this time that many Koreans began
to show an interest in other foreign countries, particularly inless well-known countries, including those in Southeast Asia.
Thus, by the early ‘90s South Korea had opened up to a muchwider and strong currents of “globalization” and “regionalization.”In this context, the majority of the first generation Southeast
Asianists who started their academic careers during the late‘80s and early ‘90s majored in political science and in particular,
in comparative politics and international relations. It wasaround this time that an important institutional development
in Southeast Asian Studies took place. In June 1991, the Korean
Association of Southeast Asian Studies (KASEAS), was established and started to publish its own official journal, the Southeast Asian Review, in 1992.
A Study Group on Southeast Asian Politics, the predecessorof the Korean Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (KISEAS), wasformed in December 1990 with eight political scientists. Lateron it began to recruit more scholars from other disciplines suchas anthropology, economics, and sociology. In 1992, this was
expanded into a Study Group on Southeast Asian Studies. Finally,
it was in 2003, that it was further expanded and reorganized
into the present day form of KISEAS.
From around the mid- ‘90s a new generation of Southeast
Asia area specialists began to join this academic field andSoutheast Asian Studies in Korea began to develop and mature.
Second generation researchers had a keen interest in the areaof Southeast Asia from the early stage of their academic careers
and received more systematic training both in undergraduate
and graduate schools. They were also stimulated by the enthusiastic academic atmosphere created by the proliferation ofacademic societies such as KASEAS and KISEAS. One of thes­ ignificant features of the second generation is that conducting
long periods of fieldwork became de rigueur for them.
At the beginning of the 2000s, more and more young scholars with Ph.Ds in various disciplines were entering the field ofSoutheast Asian Studies. They were more diverse in terms of
their academic backgrounds and the universities from which
they graduated. Above all, the number of anthropologists substantially increased compared to the past and other disciplines
during this period.
It may be premature to judge the first decade of the 21st
century to be the most fertile period in the history of Southeast
Asian Studies in Korea. But, it is nonetheless fair to say that it
was an era of very productive, progressive, and promising, academic work both in quantity and in quality.
One of the noteworthy characteristics of the last decade isthat many new research issues and themes have been developed and pursued. Firstly, there have been a series of studies
on regionalism in Southeast Asia and East Asia including suchthemes as regional cooperation, economic integration, and theEast Asian community. Secondly, more recently, many Korean
researchers have become more interested in trans-borderhuman exchange issues such as transnational migration, international marriage, migrant laborers, and resultant social problems that arise through human movement. Thirdly, “Hallyu,” or
the “Korean Wave,” in Southeast Asia has also become an issue
that has recently been studied and debated. Fourthly, the studyof connections and networks between Southeast Asia andother countries or regions have become another issue of research interest that has been frequently pursued by researchersinterested in the formation of the region. Another outstanding
feature of Korean Southeast Asian Studies in the last decade isthat collaborative research projects have proliferated. Many
researchers have formed their own research teams and­conducted research on common agendas and issues over anumber of years.
The first decade of the 21st century has also witnessed­notable progress in terms of institutional developments. The
KISEAS has now become more formalized academically andcontinues to play a role by providing an academic arena where13scholars and r­esearchers can regularly meet, discuss and exchange ideas.
At this point, we should mention the role the KASEAS has
played over the last 10 years. It has long held regular academic
conferences ­bi-annually since its inception. Since the early
2000s, it has also held regular academic conferences every two
years in cooperation with the ASEAN University network. It has
also organized joint conferences with Center for Southeast
Asian Studies (CSEAS) Kyoto University every two years since
2009.
Above all, the role of Institute for East Asian Studies, Sogang
University at Seoul merits attention as since 2008, it has been
conducting a grand-scale research project sponsored by the
National Research Foundation of Korea. It has become a central
institute for Southeast Asian studies in Korea and has attempted to globalize its research activities. This effort culminated in
the launch of a new English journal named TRANS: Trans–Regional and –National Studies of Southeast Asia in early 2013,
published by Cambridge University Press.
However, there are a number of problems and limitations
that Korean scholars need to tackle. Firstly, although we should
not underestimate what has been accomplished by ­Korean
academics, we need to develop more analytical and theoretical
approaches to Southeast Asia.

Secondly, we need to make a more serious effort to transcend ­disciplinary boundaries and to ultimately integrate theminto a unique and independent discipline of “Southeast AsianStudies” or “Southeast Asiology,” something that is still conspicuously lacking. What is needed is not just an inter- or multidisciplinary approach to the region but a trans-disciplinary andintegrative approach to the study of Southeast Asia, althoughthat might not be an easy task to accomplish in the near future.
Lastly, although more and more research results are being
published in English and other languages, most publications
on the region have been in the Korean language. This language
barrier has prevented them from being widely known, and as
a result of this they remain unknown to foreign audiences. So
that more research conducted by Korean Southeast Asianists
can reach academics in other countries, we need to increase
academic exchanges and collaborative research through acommon language to encourage communication.
Despite these limitations, arguably Korea has been emerging
as one of the leading countries in this particular moment whenSoutheast Asian studies has been downsizing in the earlyrunners such as the US and Europe. We hope that in the near
future, when Korea demonstrates quality research outcomes
and its own approach to Southeast Asian studies, then ourcontribution to the scholarship will more deeply appreciated.

TRaNS: Trans – Regional and – National Studies of Southeast Asia

The Southeast Asian Review (published by the Korean Association of Southeast
Asian Studies)

14

Special Feature

No.68 Autumn 2013

Special Feature: Southeast Asian Studies: Crisis or Opportunity?

Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand
Charnvit Kasetsiri
Emeritus Professor, Thammasat University

I

would like to talk about the state of Southeast Asian Studies
in Thailand, but before I do so, I would like to just bring to
your attention something that some academics have said
about Southeast Asian Studies. First let’s hear from Oliver
William Wolters (1915-2000). In 1993, at a workshop in Jakarta,
he said that “the major contribution of Southeast Asian studies
within the region itself could be the enhancement of one’s
self-awareness in order to assist one in reaching a better understanding of the present. Perhaps, in an age of great change,
there is more than ever a need for self-awareness” (Wolters
1993). To contextualize these comments, let us go back further
to 1977. Two years after the Communist’s victory in Cambodia,
Vietnam, and Laos, Thak Chaloemtiarana and Sombat
Chantornvong, two leading academics from Thammasat
University, Bangkok, Thailand, made the interesting observation
at a colloquium on Southeast Asian Studies at Kota Kinabalu,

Sabah, Malaysia that Southeast Asian studies in Thailand wasparochial, meager, and “at square one.” Hence, the implication
here was that Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand was nonexistent.
By the end of the ‘80s with the collapse of the Communist
regimes in the West and tremendous changes in the East,
Thailand was making record economic growth and was part ofthe so-called ‘Asian Miracles.’ In 1991, on behalf of my university,
I attended a Kyoto-Thammasat Core University conference:“In Search of a Collaborative Framework for Southeast AsianStudies.” There, I proposed that there was an urgent need andthat the time was ripe to take action on Southeast Asian studies for Thailand.
Let me jump to the ‘90s again. In 1995, a group of some 50
academics and students from Thammasat, Chulalongkorn, andSinlapakorn Universities, with support from the newly established Thailand Research Fund (TRF) held a discussion andtheir conclusion was the following:“Now that Southeast Asia has become more and more of aregional entity, and now that it has received full recognitionby universities in Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, and elsewhere,
is it too late for us to reconsider Southeast Asian studies as
an inter-discipline that deserves full academic attention...?
Are we too late to act?

Emeritus Professor Charnvit Kasetsiri. Source: Author

So, is it really too late for us Southeast Asianists to reconsider
Southeast Asian studies as an interdisciplinary field thatdeserves­our full attention? Are we too late to act? Let us fast
forward to the year 2000 for we can find one answer in thesudden­proliferation of studies on Southeast Asia at various
Thai Universities.
Chulalongkorn started with an M.A. program on AsianStudies, an ‘international program.’ But let us clarify that when
we say international what we really mean is that English is themedium of instruction, it admits 10-20 students per year mostly
from foreign countries, and tuition fees are very expensive.
Thammasat also came up with a B.A. program; one that is‘special’ with direct admission tuitions and high fees admitting
100 students per year. Thammasat also received support fromoutside donors, especially from Japanese government (via theJapanese Ministry of Education (MEXT)); Core University Program (Kyoto-Thammasat); Toyota Foundation, Japan; andSoutheast Asian Studies Regional Exchange Program (SEASREP)
which was established in 1994.
What the above proliferation suggests is that at present,
there seems to be a shift in Thailand from “Southeast Asian15

Table 1. Expansion of Student Population and Universities
Population of Thailand
1990

54 million

2000

61 million (up 1.10%)

2010

65 million (up 1.07%)
Students: High Schools Graduates

1990

271,0962000

292,244 (up 1.07 %)2010

629,768 (up 2.15 %)Universities

1990

16 (state universities)

2000

24 (state universities)

2010

164 all universities (including private ones)

Source: Author

Studies” to what we can call a ‘trendy’ “ASEAN studies”: a kindof brand change. There are at least five B.A. programs in Southeast Asian or ASEAN Studies and these are not just limited to
Bangkok, but also found in Chiang Mai, Phitsanulok, Nakhon
Sithammarat, and so forth. Interestingly, in some universities
the name of studies has been changed to ‘ASEAN’ Studies. Thisis meant to attract students and to also gear up toward thebirth of the ASEAN Community in 2015.
We also have a number of acronyms which have become
familiar all over Thailand. We have the Bangkok Declarations(5+5+1). If you are in Thailand now, you will find people discussing ASEAN’s ‘three legs.’ These are APSC (ASEAN Political
Security­Community), AEC (ASEAN Economic Community),
ASCC (ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community) with flags appearing
all over Thailand, in particular in Universities. It is jokingly said
that one can now make money from selling these flags...
In addition to the above B.A. programs, there are five more
M.A. plus one new Ph.D. program at Naresuan University in
Phitsanulok. This type of academic proliferation can also beseen at Thammasat. The university now has one B.A programin “Southeast Asian Studies” (2000); one new ‘international’
M.A. for ASEAN Studies (2013); one research program called
ASEAN Studies Center (2011); plus one research program inSoutheast Asian Studies (2013). So the question that arises here
is why has there been such an academic proliferation of thesecourses?
Firstly, there has been a big push from ASEAN with active
campaigning by the Secretary General Dr. Surin Pitsuwan(2008-2012). Secondly, there was a positive response from Thai
Government administrations. Initiated by the Abhisit’s (2010–11) and continued with Yingluck’s administration since 2011.
This was not the case with Thaksin’s administration (2001–
2006). Thus, we can see that ASEAN has become a trendy new
brand in Thai primary and secondary education and there is16

top down funding from the Ministries of Education and Culture.
Thirdly, this proliferation becomes a lot clearer if we look at thefollowing statistics (see Table 1.). The population has continued
to increase and what is interesting here is that from 2000 to
2010, the student population has also shown an increase. Yet,what is most notable is also the increase in universities.
Between­2000 and 2010 there has been an incredible proliferation of them in Thailand. This represents a change not just in
Thailand, but also in Cambodia and Myanmar where you can
see an increase in private universities, something that suggests
a regional phenomenon.
If we look at Thammasat University, the Faculty of Liberal
Arts has set up a Southeast Asian Studies program in 2000
(not funded by national/university budget). This program has
direct admission (i.e. not through a national entrance exam),with 100 students registered per year. It focuses on an interdisciplinary approach, and the study of one Southeast Asian
language (besides Thai) is compulsory. Tuition and fees are
35,000 baht ($1120) per semester. Therefore the cost for a four
year course amounts to 280,000 ($8,950) for 4 years.
The program has been rather successful with a good number of applicants. It has also made a good profit as well. Unfortunately, it is less successful in creating an efficient administration and foster sufficient teaching staff and academics, not tomention research work or publications. It depends primarily on
invited part-time or retired lecturers (like myself ) including‘borrowing’ regular Thammasat University teaching staff. The
program has only four junior lecturers per 400 students. Thisis the kind of situation that most universities are facing at the
moment.
The faculty of Social Sciences at Kasetsart University, also
has a Southeast Asian Studies program which it established in2007. As with Thammasat, it offers direct admission and has 100
students per year. The program focuses on an interdisciplinarySpecial Featureapproach but at its inception, it did not require another Southeast Asian language (besides Thai). Tuition fees are the sameas above. It does not have teaching staff of its own and therefore relies on regular faculty lecturers.
Walailak University, Nakhon Sithammarat offers a B.A. in
ASEAN Studies, Liberal Arts. The program was established in
2002, two years after Thammasat, and what is of interest here isthat at first it was offering area studies and due to its location in
the south placing a strong focus on Malaysia and Indonesia
with compulsory Bahasa language training. However, in 2011,its degree name was changed ASEAN Studies. The reason forthis is that under the area studies guise, student registration
dropped to 10 per year. However under the new guise it went
up to 80 with the new ASEAN label. Students are admitted
directly or through national entrance exams. Tuition fees aremuch less than in Bangkok, at 10,000 ($31,400) per semester,and the program seems to work, but as with Thammasat there
are issues with teaching staff.
To catch up with this trend, in Bangkok, the Faculty of
Humanities and Social Sciences at Rajabhat Ban Somdet­­Chaophraya (teacher training college) started offering a Southeast Asian Studies program. This started in 2012, with sevenstudents, and 10 the following year. Like most other teacher
training colleges it fails to attract students. So it has started tooffer ‘free’ admission and maintain low tuition fees. It employs
three junior lecturers.
Mahidol University has an international program that was­established in 2000. English is the medium of instruction and
it is oriented to foreign students for those who take their­semesters overseas. It offers Southeast Asian Studies and modern World History. At Chulalongkorn, we find that there is aSoutheast Asian Studies ‘international’ program aimed for foreign students, with the highest fees: 450,000 ($14,390) justfor tuition fees. Thammasat’s ASEAN Studies, ‘international’ program is 280,000 ($8,950) for tuitions and fees. At Chiang Mai
there is also a Southeast Asian Studies at 100,000 ($3,200) (forweekday classes) and 160,000 ($5,120) (for weekend) for tuition
fees; Walailak offers a Southeast Asian Studies, regular program;and Sinlapakorn, Nakhon Pathom offers a Southeast AsianHistory (mainly Thai oriented) regular program.
In terms of Ph.D and M.A. studies, the Faculty of Social Sciences, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok was newly establishedin 2013 and it presently has 10 M.A. and 6 Ph.D. students.
Tuition­and fees for M.A. is 30,000 baht ($960) annually, whilea Ph.D. is 60,000 ($1,920). We should note that these are rather
inexpensive when compared to the B.A. programs that are now
offered elsewhere. Interestingly, the program has five lecturers
all with Ph.D. degrees who are conducting ten research projects
funded by TRF.
So having looked at the increase of Southeast Asian Studies
across the country, in conclusion, why do we see this proliferation? Are many of the programs that are classified as ‘special’or ‘international,’ profit oriented and leading to the commercialization of education? It remains to be seen if “academic
knowledge” of Southeast Asian studies, now somewhat termed
as ASEAN studies, in Thailand, will take off or be, as we say in Thai,“Fai Mai Fang” (fire burning straw, i.e. it comes and goes quickly).

No.68 Autumn 2013

I am certain that from the above discussion we can hardly
say that Southeast Asian studies does not exist in Thailand. It
has been around despite being “parochial,” a by-product ofworld politics, and being pushed from the outside (by USA andJapan). I myself am a byproduct of American education. Nonetheless, as has been discussed above, whatever its origin was inthe ‘60s and ‘70s, Southeast Asian Studies by ‘90s has come to
be a localized Thai response, as can also be seen in other partsof the region. By 2000, we came to witness the phenomenonof a ‘proliferation’ of Southeast Asian or ASEAN studies in Thailand.
So we have come full circle to what Wolters raised. If the time
is ripe for self-awareness, as proposed by him, a genuine Southeast Asian studies in Thailand, or to a large extent Southeast
Asian studies in Southeast Asia, has to be collaboratively
worked out. There has never been a time where we have seen
shared common, cross-cultured boundary problems as we dotoday. Thus, we in Southeast Asia hold the potential to become
mirrors of one another. We can see problems but at the sametime we hold the key to finding solutions together.

Discovering Ayutthaya (Japanese version) written by Charnvit Kasetsiri and­Yoshikawa Toshiharu
17

Special Feature: Southeast Asian Studies: Crisis or Opportunity?

Southeast Asian Studies in Japan
Hayami Yoko
Professor CSEAS

For scholars situated in Japan, the immediate conditions
surrounding­Southeast Asian Studies today are perceived
not so much as a crisis, since interest and relevance is prettymuch sustained. If there is a crisis, I think it will derive from ourbecoming smug and inwardly self-satisfied within our country.
Ben Anderson used the term “ecology of scholarship” to referto the total effect of the language of scholarship, epistemological tendencies in the scholarly practices, as well as the institutional set-up of academia. To these, we can add the geopolitical mapping of powers and the economics supporting
the academic institutions. Social science disciplines are coming
to a turning point as geopolitical delineations as well as intellectual challenges have been redrawn in the age of globalization, bringing to question area studies and its perspectives onregions and states. Having seen the end of the Cold War, on
the one hand, scholars from the west are de-constructing andquestioning the idea of “Southeast Asia” itself. Yet paradoxically,
there is rising interest from within the region itself. What we see
today is not a convergence towards global standardization ofSoutheast Asian studies, but towards exchange of ideas in aconsortium of different traditions and perspectives.
In Japan, “Southeast Asia” (Tonan Ajia) had already been in
use in the context of imperialist expansion. Studies on the­region began under systematic state interest under the propaganda of “The Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” inthe internecine decades. Many state agencies for research andtraining were founded for the study of the colonies, such as theresearch division of the Manchurian Railway Company among

CSEAS Monographs (in Japanese). Published between 1966 and 199118

others. After defeat and occupation, Japan re-imported “Southeast Asia” as a regional concept from the US. Since then, government as well as private agencies have funded and supported studies on various aspects of Southeast Asia, and with all
this, interest in the region has been sustained.
The Japan Society for Southeast Asian History was founded
in 1966 and renamed in 2006 as Japan Society for Southeast
Asian Studies, and now has a membership of over 700. This
does not include a further large number of scholars in various
disciplines who work in the region. For the general public,
there are innumerable publications and information sources on
Southeast Asia, its culture, language, literature, economy,
politics, travel, cuisine, arts and crafts, etc. There is substantial
Japanese-language market for all kinds of information on theregion i.e. plenty of incentives from within the country to writeand publish in Japanese on various topics related to Southeast
Asia.
Institutional foundations for research developed since themid- ‘60s. The Center for Southeast Asian Studies at Kyoto University was founded in 1963, recognized by the government
with funding from the Ford Foundation in 1965. The founding
was itself instigated internally, by participants in informal seminars held by scholars of varied disciplines. Its distinctive feature
was the inclusion of natural scientists: agronomists, foresters
and biomedical specialists. The Institute for Asian and African
Language and Culture at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
was founded in 1964.
Field-based research began to take off in the late- ‘50s.

Special Feature

Systematic­funding for overseas research by the ministry ofeducation­began in 1963, and scholarships for sending graduate students for long-term research in 1968. Long-term fieldwork by individual scholars, and multi-disciplinary projects
took place on varying scales. While most scholars were trainedin particular disciplines, they gained cross-disciplinary mutual
stimulus in field trips, research and discussion there and backhome. Our center is an example of how area studies in Japanwas institutionalized without being based in any discipline ordepartment. It was from the start, a multi-disciplinary institution.
Characteristic in Japanese scholarship is the emphasis on the
researcher’s groundedness in the local context based on language skills and long-term fieldwork, enabling sound empiricalresearch. The flip side of this has been the tendency for weaker
theoretical contributions. Japanese scholarship pursues research with conceptual frameworks closer to observations fromthe field. Perhaps this epistemological habitus, in addition to
the language barrier, partially explains the low acceptance andlow profile of Japanese scholarship in the English language academia. The kinds of data and arguments presented by Japanesescholarship do not necessarily answer the theory-driven interests of the English language audience. Moreover, while information in English and vernaculars of the region are consumed
in Japan, there is much less effort to produce output available
to non-Japanese audiences. With abundant opportunities inpublishing within the country, there is less incentive to overcome the language hurdle and venture beyond.
If these are the weaknesses in our scholarship, by contrast,
Ben Anderson criticized the discipline-based area studies in theUS, where Southeast Asian studies was designed as programs
across, but based on, disciplines and departments. The disciplines were always prioritized, both institutionally and in research, which he argues is “the institutional and intellectual
weakness of area studies in the post-war US.” Post-war areastudies in the U.S. was carried out against the background of
discipline-based academic professionalization and the habitus/
practice of modern academics.
Since the foundation of ASEAN in 1967, area studies fromwithin the region itself began to gradually develop. By the ‘80s,
the region was undergoing rapid economic growth and political changes. By the ‘90s, the up-and coming actors on the stageof Southeast Asian studies were scholars from the region itself.
Just as western scholarship began to deconstruct and dissolve“Southeast Asian studies” and “Southeast Asia” as a regional
concept in Southeast Asia itself, the region was becoming
more “real,” and its study becoming institutionalized. Scholars in
the region began to reconsider some of the hitherto unchallenged official national and regional histories, concerns of theperiphery such as minorities, as well as topics across nationalboundaries into other locales within the region. Another big
rise, especially in the past two decades, is scholarship on Southeast Asia from Taiwan, China and Korea.
There has been discussion on the insider and outsider position in research. Scholars from the region are involved as primary actors, they have close vantage points, and have theadvantage in gathering information, yet are at times constrained from expressing their ideas. Euro-American scholars

No.68 Autumn 2013as outsiders define academic practice, set up the issues andconcepts, conduct objective analysis, yet are disadvantaged indata collection. Euro-American strength in discipline-based
theorization may have been related to physical, cultural andsocial distance and outsider position. Because they are distantfrom the immediate realities and issues brewing in the region,
there is space to theorize, based on intellectual drives. Contrarily,
as my colleague Caroline Hau pointed out, “for those in Southeast Asia, Southeast Asian studies is what people in the region
are already doing: thinking about themselves.” Japan stays “outside” this insider/outsider dichotomy. We find ourselves insomething like a “neither here nor there” space. We neither
constitute a visible part of the western scholarship, nor are we
within Southeast Asia.
However, I think what is actually taking place now is far
more complex and multifarious than an “insider-outsider” dichotomy. There is global re-mapping of multilateral research
directions, where western theorizing is no longer the only
significant voice in Southeast Asian area studies, and scholars
from the region as well as in other mostly Asian countries participate. Scholars from different backgrounds cross the boundaries of these academic traditions with ease. In this multilateralintersection of perspectives, Southeast Asia is not the “other,”the object of the hegemonic gaze, or of unidirectional theorizing. These perspectives cross each other where research,education and mutual discussion is all going in many directions.
For those of us in Asia, while it is true that academic traditionin each country has its own historical relationship with the region, different socio-economic basis, institutionalizing process,and different ecology of scholarship, still, the immediacy ofissues, such as (for example) coping with disasters, sustainable
development, energy-sources, demographic changes, etc. areshared, and we are together involved in the real issues of theregion. Multilateral discussions in Asia will allow us to set theagenda from region-based perspectives. Our discussion anddebates derive from questions and concerns that are importantin the region. While we continue to learn from debates in theEuro-American Southeast Asian studies, we should develop
ways of agenda-setting from within the region that can engage
in fruitful dialogue with the former.
Today, Japan’s relationships with ASEAN is becoming evenmore crucial. In 1990, ASEAN-7 was about 10% of Japan’s economy. In 2012, it was 38% and according to IMF estimates, it will
be 67% by 2018. The ASEAN community 2015 promises a more
institutionally integrated and harmonized regional economy,
with rising middle classes and expanding markets. In the past
several years, Japanese businesses learned the political risks ofinvesting in China, and now find in ASEAN expanding consumer markets with far less political risk. The Japanese government,
in a tense relationship with China over territorial issues, is pursuing partnerships with ASEAN not only in trade, investment
and finance, but also in security and foreign policy towards
building the regional architecture. We, as academics, cannot
but be affected by such political and socioeconomic trends.
Southeast Asian studies in Japan becomes as important as ever.
There is the strong possibility, in view of Japanese government
policy for university reform and internationalization, that South19

east Asian studies, (rather than area studies in general), will
emerge as one of the “focus fields” for government funding.
This trend constitutes an opportunity not only for us in Japan.
There is a sizable foundation or a potential network between
Southeast Asia and Japan, in varied disciplines and fields, fromthe hard sciences to the humanities. Southeast Asian scholars
trained in Japan, as well as Japanese researchers, businesspeople, journalists, etc. who work on/in Southeast Asia withscholars in the region (without necessarily being Southeast
Asianists). This creates a broad base or constituency for Southeast Asian specialists to coordinate and for bringing disparate
fields and people together. This could become the basis for
multilateral exchange through international networking andcollaboration, including Northeast Asia, America and Europe.
I mentioned that in the founding days of our Center, disciplinary boundaries were overcome through joint research involving field trips and observations, discussion there and backin the seminar rooms among scholars from different disciplines
with widely-defined interests, towards new framework of understanding. Such academically fertile settings for dialogues havebecome more difficult to stage today due to diversification ofinterests and deeper specialization. Yet our predecessors havedemonstrated that the effort is worthwhile, and we might emulate the spirit of it towards dialogue not only across disciplines,
but across different academic traditions, in a global multilateral
network especially among scholars of the upcoming generation.
Recognizing that each stands in a different position withina different ecology of scholarship, dialogue or “multi-logue” inthe multilateral network among these different traditions
promises to be productive. This should be facilitated by thefollowing activities:
1) Flow and exchange of researchers and scholars, and beyond
academia.
a) Focus on education no longer limited to undergraduate
and graduate education. Postdoctoral training and networking among upcoming generation of scholars.
b) Creating interfaces between Southeast Asian scholars on
the one hand and governments, businesses, NGOs etc on
the other.
2) Joint projects and programs among scholars from different
academic traditions and disciplines. The challenge is how to
go beyond Japan and beyond academia, and create platforms for conversations and collaboration with ASEAN counterparts as well as East Asian and global partners.
3) Improving ways of sharing information, data and material.
a) Catching up with varied forms of material that are becoming available.
b) Not only in the central archives of each country, but frommultiple local vernacular perspectives.
c) Alter the hitherto one-way flow of local language information, stalling resources in local librariesd) Digitizing information to make available varied forms of
information to scholars from both within and outside theregion.
204) Joint effort to strengthen the impact of our outputs/publications. There is nothing we can do about the dominance ofEnglish language in the global academe but we need tomake available more of the works and materials from theregion towards a fair exchange of ideas and information.
In conclusion, it has come to a point where, Southeast Asianist scholars, whether in Southeast Asia, or in other parts of Asia,
Europe, Australia, or the US, must re-position ourselves tochanging academic maps: to reflect on our respective positionsin the evolving “ecology” of the global academic endeavor.

Exploring the East-West Cultural Corridor: Historic and Modern
Archaeology of Bago and Dawei, Myanmar
Elizabeth Howard Moore
Former Visiting Researcher CSEAS

The East-West Cultural Corridor and the Southern
Coastal Zone
The East-West Corridor is a conceptual tool for identifying
common cultural processes across mainland Southeast (Ishii
2009). Our research group has drawn upon this model to study
the past histories of sites and their continuities with present
traditions. My role in our group has been adding Myanmar toour database of Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos andwidening our discussion of the East-West Cultural Corridor
concept. Our ‘sites’ vary in size, at times end-points, and atothers, connectors along routes that over many centuries haveconnected Myanmar to capitals such as Sukhothai (13th–14th),
Ayutthaya (14th–18th) and Angkor (9th–15th) (Shibayama 2013).1
The ‘routes’ include walls, moats, streams, paths and special
purpose roads used by man, ox-carts and elephants to move
within, between, and beyond sites (Im Sokrithy 1998, 101; Surat
Lertlum and Im Sokrithy 2013).
We follow Ishii's example in using ecological zones rather
than dynastic lines to divide Myanmar into three regions as ourprimary framework:

1. Upper Myanmar: the broad Ayeyarwaddy (Irrawaddy)
basin (c. 650–1250 mm rainfall per annum)
2. Lower Myanmar: the plains bordering the Gulf of Muttama(Martaban) (c. 5000 mm)
3. The Southern Coastal Zone: the 600 km long peninsula(c. 5000 mm) with river valleys sandwiched between the
Andaman Sea and the 700 m high Tanintharyi (Tennasserim)
Range
While we have identified links between sites in Upper Myanmar,
Yunnan and south to Thailand, our focus is Lower Myanmar andthe Southern Coastal Zone, two regions of vital significancewhose early and later archaeology has been little studied. Twosites are compared here, Bago (Pegu)2 in Lower Myanmar
and Dawei (Tavoy) 3 in the Southern Coastal Zone. Each is thewestern terminus of routes east: Bago leads to Haripunchai,Sukhothai and Chiang Mai in Northern Thailand and Dawei via
multiple passes over the mountains to Kanchanaburi and
Ayutthaya.4
In the historical sketches below, a 9th century traditionalfounding is followed by a millennium of conquest by greater
powers: at Bago to establish a new capital and at Dawei to lay

Fig. 1: Map showing Bago, Dawei and sites in Thailand. Courtesy of Mamoru Shibayama
21

Fig. 2: Bago in 1942, Williams-Hunt Collection, Geo-referenced courtesy Surat
Lertlum, CRMA

Fig. 3: Bago in 2002, IKONOS, Geo-referenced courtesy Surat Lertlum, CRMA

claim to the seaward side of the Tanintharyi peninsula. The
process internationalized Bago but in Dawei, apart from a few
stupas said to be ‘Thai-style,’ the isolation and conquest as aregion rather than a center, encouraged an insular pride with astrengthening of local modes and styles. The historical sketches
end with World War II images from the Williams-Hunt Collection
as comparison of these with present day images can help us
contrast the rapid expansion of Bago and the relatively stable
Dawei landscape.5

The 16th century rulers brought artisans from Ayutthaya, conquered in 1548, including goldsmiths, painters, cooks and cloth
dyers. Trade from the interior to the port was encouraged, sothat Bago was active in 16th century European and Japanesemarkets (Tun Aung Chain 1999: 43). In the 17th century, however, the ruling dynasty moved the capital back to Upper
Myanmar and the land base of Bago dwindled while depositsof alluvium narrowed the Bago River and destroyed its accessto the sea.
In 1757, much of Lower Myanmar was devastated by Upper
Myanmar rule, Alaungpaya and in 1852, the British took control
of Lower Myanmar. With World War II, British troops took extensive cover of Bago including a mosaic of the ancient city on 20
March, 1942, two months after the Japanese took Dawei. The
outline of the 16th century wall and moat is strikingly clear, as is
the absence of a dense population apart from the northwest
corner of the site adjacent to the Bago River. Lines of rectangular vegetation are the only remnants of the once-renowned
palace and the lively 16th century capital described above.

Bago: 9th to 16th Century Capital
The chronicle history of Bago (Ussā-Hanthawaddy) dates
the original rectangular walled site (120 ha) to 825 (Moore and
San Win 2014). In the 11th century, Bago was dominated by
the Upper Myanmar capital at Bagan6 but in the 14th century it
ended up being ruled by a succession of eleven Mon kingsfrom nearby Martaban (Muttama) (Tun Aung Chain 1999: 38).
Among these was Dhammaceti (1470–1492), whose reign, freefrom invasion from the Upper Myanmar capital at Ava (Inwa)7
brought expanded trade. Gifts sent by on a religious mission
to Sri Lanka in 1476 included cloth from China, betel boxes
from Haripunchai and carpets from Inwa – all indicative of a
trade network stretching from the Gulf of Martaban (Muttama)
to Yunnan. Bago reached its peak in the 16th century under aline of rulers from the Upper Myanmar capital of Toungoo8 with
its geographical position giving it maritime access to goods
from South Asia and the river valleys on its landward side thatlinked it to inland trade (Tun Aung Chain 1999, 42, 37). It wasat this time that a vast new moat and wall (571 ha) were built
by King Bayinnaung (1552–1581) lying just southeast of theoriginal site. As noted by Ralph Fitch in 1586;‘It is a Citie very great and populous, and is made square withvery Faire walls and a Ditch round it full of water with many
Crocodiles in it…there are also Turrets for Centinels to watch,made of wood, and gilded with Gold very faire’ (Fitch 2004, 170).
22

Dawei and the Southern Coastal Zone
Dawei’s chronicle history begins in 707 at Kaleinaung, 60 km
north, and its royal lineage in 754 with the walled site of Thagara(176 ha).9 As with Bago, Dawei’s location attracted conquest bya succession of more dominant powers: not only Upper Myanmar,
but Lower Myanmar and Thailand. The latter included a 10th
century line of Thai princes from Tak and Ayutthaya rule from1350. Thai links are seen also at Mokti (c. 150 ha), a walled site
9.6 km south of Dawei dated to 1417. A bronze bell was donatedto Mokti in 1432 by Wikara Orada, a Thai person of high status.10
During the 16th and 17th centuries, Dawei rule moved between Upper Myanmar and Ayutthaya including a successful
attack in 1593 by King Nareusuan. The 1757 present walledcity was soon seized by Upper Myanmar with Tanintharyi(Tennaserim) ranked as a second level city within four levels by
the Ayutthaya monarch in the 1805 edited ‘Law of the ThreeNo.68 Autumn 2013

Fig. 4: Lead coin (10 cm), Collection Than Swe (Dawei)

Seals’ (Kotmai Tra Sam Duang) (Ishii 1998). In 1826, Lower
Myanmar and Tanintharyi Division were ceded to the British
who were quick to document routes to Thailand and demarcate the border. An 1826 map of Dawei, for example, includes
Kaleinaung of the Dawei chronicle, the starting point fromwhich the Dawei River is navigable, and a route to Thailand.
Kaleinaung is also marked on a 19th century Siamese royalmilitary map and a 1917 geological survey (Hearn 1917, Pasuk
Santanee 2004). By the early 20th century, the British administrative documents focused on the isolation of the region, documenting routes east to the disputed border and Siamese elephant stealing (NAD 1919).
Dawei was invaded on 18 January, 1942, with the battle being the first clash between British and Japanese troops inside
Myanmar. The Williams-Hunt Collection photographs of Dawei
include the elaborate Japanese expansion of airport runways
taken in December 1944 during the British campaign to re-takethe country (Defence Surveyors Association: 216, 237).

Conclusion
This article has shown how, in the 16th century, Bago wasinternationally renowned as a port linking South Asia to theinterior of the mainland overland. Its power waned after thesilting up of the Bago River and Upper Myanmar rulers returned
the capital to the north. The Department of Archaeology excavated Kambawzathadi Palace in the 1990s, included it in the1996 UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List11 and in 1999 inscribed it on the Ministry of Culture’s Notified Zones of Cultural
Heritage Regions and Buildings. Today, however, the moats are
thick with vegetation and refuse on the eastern side at the
Shwe-yaung-ye pagoda where the massive 16th century wall
curves around this stupa, a clear note of the ancient respect for
its earlier construction (Pyiet Phyo Kyaw 2013).
The famed beauty of its wide streets and gilded turrets

Fig. 5: Dawei airport in 1944, Williams-Hunt Collection

can be glimpsed in the reconstructed palace buildings, stillvenerated pagodas, and the vibrancy of its ceramic artefacts.
However, the population of over 300,000 in the immediate
metropolitan zone has obscured the ancient cultural landscape,a process that will accelerate with the completion of theHanthawaddy International Airport in 2017.12 This comparison
is particularly vivid in a geo-referenced comparison of a 1942
aerial photograph of Bago from the Williams-Hunt Collection
and an IKONOS satellite image of the site (Lertlum andShibayama 2009, 549).
In contrast to the fame of Bago, Dawei was a medium-size
port and territorial prize traded between kings of Upper Myanmar, Thailand and from 1824, under British rule. Local styles canbe seen in 7th to 9th century images of the Buddha to 15th–18th
century brown and green glazed wares and large (10 cm­diameter) lead and tin coins. The Dawei dialect, a variant of
the Myanmar language, has survived in orally transmitted folksongs (Winn Myintzu 2011). The ecology, again in contrast to
Bago, has remained constant, with major change only with the
expansion of tin and lead mining in the colonial era. In addition, rather than being a single massive walled site as seen at
Bago, Dawei was a series of smaller fluctuating sites north andsouth of the 1754 town of present Dawei.
Unfortunately, the area has not been without cultural destruction, as in the long period of insurgent activity following
1948 independence, the walled site of Weidi (114 ha) became
an insurgent camp and its rich supply of large lead coins dating
to the 15-17th century were melted down for bullets. For themost part, however, the ancient sites of Dawei are intact. The
23

region is in the process of change, and has come to international attention with the development of a large deep-sea port
project, but this has catalyzed local attention, with the 2012
inscription of Thagara (Thargaya) on the Ministry of Culture’s
list of Notified Cultural Zones, the first site from the entire
Tanintharyi Division.
At Bago and Dawei, the archaeological remains of the firstmillennium data provide the foundation from which to compare later cities. Conversely, the networks identified in the historical period provide a template through which to explore theearlier communication systems. There has been little attempt
to weave synchronic site studies such as these into a wider
frame that gives credibility to both continuities into the pastand into the present (Aung-Thwin 2013, 97). It is hoped that
this study may contribute to our appreciation of this duality.

References
Aung-Thwin, Michael. 2013. Continuing, re-emerging, andemerging trends in the field of Southeast Asian history.
TRaNS: Trans Regional and National Studies of Southeast Asia,
1: 87-104.
Defence Surveyors Association, N.D. Maps and surveys, Chapter
VIII. Southeast Asia.
http://www.defencesur veyors.org.uk/world-war-2/
item/211-maps-and-survey-contents.html (accessed 18 August, 2013).
Fitch, Ralph. 2004. An account of Pegu in 1586-1587. SOAS
Bulletin of Burma Research, Vol. 2, No. 2: 167-179.
Hearn. A.W. 1917. Notes on Zinba Chaung Route from Tavoy to
Siam. A/C NAD 97, Vii-123a. National Archives of Myanmar,
Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development.
Im Sokrithy. 1998. Réseaux routiers et moyens de transport àl’époque angkorienne sde l’IXème aux XIVème siècles [Roadand transportation networks: Angkor 9th to 14th century].
Unpublished MA Thesis, École des Hautes Études en
Sciences Sociales.
Ishii, Yoneo. 1998. Tai Kinseishikenkyu Jyosetsu [Introduction toThai early modern history] Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Ishii, Yoneo. 2009. Sukhothai wo Tsuka Suru ‘Tozai Kairo’ ni
Kansuru Oboegaki [A note on the East-west corridor
passing through Sukhothai]. Tonan Asia: Rekishito Bunka[Southeast Asia: History and Culture], 38: 5-12.
Lertlum, Surat and Im Sokrithy. 2013. The Living Angkor Road
Project (LARP): A Cross-border Archaeological Research
Project. Paper presented at the 1st SEAMEO SPAFA Inter­national Conference on Southeast Asian Archaeology, 7-10
May 2013, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.
Lertlum, Surat and Shibayama, Mamoru. 2009. Application of
Geo-informatics to the Study of the Royal Road from
­Angkor to Phimai. Southeast Asian Studies, 46(4): 547-563.
Moore, Elizabeth Howard and San Win. 2014 (forthcoming).
Sampanago: ‘City of Serpents’ and the First Muttama(Martaban) in Before Siam was Born: New Insights on the
Art and Archaeology of Pre-Modern Thailand and its Neighbouring Regions, edited by Nicolas Revire and Stephen
Murphy. Bangkok: River Books.
24

National Archives of Myanmar. 1919. Meeting between the
British and Siamese officials at Baumti (Ac Accession 104,
no 94-107 reel 7). Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development.
Phasuk, Santanee. 2004. Royal Siamese Maps: War and Trade in
Nineteenth century Thailand. Bangkok, River Books.
Pyiet Phyo Kyaw. 2013. Bago Hamsavadi Ancient City Walls andMoats. Presentation, Department of Archaeology, Yangon
University.
Shibayama, Mamoru. 2013. An Examination of the East-west
Cultural Corridor. Paper presented at the 1st SEAMEO SPAFAInternational Conference on Southeast Asian Archaeology,
7–10 May, 2013, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.
Snodgrass, John. 1827. Narrative of the Burmese War. London:
John Murray.
Tun Aung Chain. 1999. Pegu in Politics and Trade, Ninth toSeventeenth Century. In Recalling Local Pasts: Autonomous
History in Southeast Asia, edited by Sunait Chutintaranondand Chris Baker, pp. 25-52.

Notes
1

Mamoru Shibayama (Kyoto), Surat Lertlum (Chulachomklao
Royal Military Academy), Pongdhan Sampaongern (FineArts Department, Thailand), Surapol Natapintu (Thailand
Research Fund), Im Sokrithy (APSARA, Cambodia), Tran Ky
Phuong (Danang, Vietnam)
2
Bago 17°17’58.38 “N, 96°28’59.81”E; Sukhothai 16.951169°N,
99.855425°E; Ayutthaya 14°21’11.65”N, 100°34’8.28”E;
Angkor 13°25’55.42”N, 103°52’18.72”E3
Dawei 14°10’23.99”N, 98°10’0.58”E
4
Haripunchai 18.577107°N, 99.006826°E; Kanchanabui(13.996865°N, 99.555616°E) via Pilok (14.681037°N,
98.362935°N), Sangklaburi (15°16’25.74”N, 98°17’52.30”E),
and the Amya Pass (13.888381°N, 99.075318°)
5
The Williams-Hunt Collection is an archive of 5000+ 1942-1955
aerial photographs of Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar,
Singapore and Vietnam. The online site is a collaboration
between Mamoru Shibyama and Yasuyuki Kono (Kyoto),
Surat Lertlum (CRMA) and Elizabeth Howard Moore (SOAS).
See http://gdap.crma.ac.th
6
Bagan 21.124613°N, 94.922275°E
7Inwa 21.856932°N, 95.981813°E
8Toungoo 18.933333°N, 96.433333°E
9Kaleinaung
14°37’28.95”N,
98°08’13.79”E;
Thagara14°10’22.91”N, 98° 9’57.85”E
10
The bell inscription includes the words kara (king) and orada(a royal rank) (Surapol Natapintu, pers.comm. 22.12.12)
11
1996 UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List. 
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/ (accessed 13 Aug,2013)12
In 2012, 284,179 with 5,739,344 in the metropolitan area; See
Myanmar to Build largest airport. 
http://www.mizzima.com/business/investment/9843myanmar-to-build-largest-international-airport (accessed
14 Aug, 2013)

Ethnoastronomy: The Sundanese of West Java andtheir Relation to Ethnoastronomy
Suhardja D. Wiramihardja*
Former Visiting Research Fellow

Introduction
Nothing in nature has intrigued humans more than gazing
at a spectacularly star-lit sky. While all people on Earth haveobserved the same primitive objects in the sky, i.e. the sun,moon, and stars, all cultures have developed their own interpretations of these heavenly bodies within different culturalcontexts. There are many different ways in which people havewoven concepts and knowledge of sky phenomena andobjects they watched into the fabric of their lives. But it isimportant to realize that in most cultures there was nothingthat was thought of as “astronomy.” The phenomena andobjects in the sky were merely part of the whole complex of
the surrounding world. I use the word astronomy for anything
related to what we think of as astronomy in our present context. This article is a preliminary exploration of the Sundanese,an ethnic group in West Java and how they express their perceptions of the universe through ethno-astronomy, the studyof knowledge, interpretation, and practices regarding celestial
objects or phenomena of specific cultures.
Knowledge of the starry sky and its constellation was indeed
common in many ethnic groups inhabiting the Indonesianarchipelago. Many studies have already been conducted especially in Central Java and Bali. But to date, only a few havebeen done in West Java – sometimes known as Tatar Pasundan(the land of Sunda) by local people. Some of them were written
by Sastramidjaja (1991) from Bandung and Igarashi Tadataka(1980, 1987, and 2008).1 Much more material exists which has
yet to be clearly researched and documented. Yet recently,
there have been moves to better document Asia’s relationshipto ethno-astronomy.2

and length of twilight are approximately the same all year
round.3 These indicators (more than 20 in number) in effect,
represent smaller parts of time segments of a 24 hour day
segmented into the morning, noon, afternoon, and evening
respectively.
For example, in Salamungkal, a small village in a hilly area
about 50 kilometers to the south of Bandung city, people still
use these time indicators in their daily social life. In conversations among locals in expressing something related to times,
instead of saying “I return home at 6pm,” they will say “I return

Sundanese and their Relationship to TimeIn the past the Sundanese used natural indicators in understanding traditional time to determine or to name the times ofthe day. This was based on natural phenomena through what
they felt, saw or heard, and in tandem with the effect of the
sun’s positions. They used terms which corresponded to specific times of the day, for example, such as Wanci Tumorek(wanci = period of time, tumorek = deaf ) for around 00:30 a.m.,
Wanci janari leutik (literally the time after midnight) for 1:30 a.m.
and so on. Other terms indicating time were used based onwhat they felt: Wanci haneut moyan (haneut = warm, moyan =sunbathing) meant the time of day where it begins to warm or
good for sunbathing at around 08:00 a.m. These indicators
are a few of many which were applicable throughout the year.
The Sundanese live near the equator and the time of sunset

Menhir (lingga, in Sundanese) found in the former Sunda Kingdom in Kawali
which might function as a gnomon (like a triangular part of a sundial).

*Astronomy Research Group, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
25One of the artifacts in Kawali (dating back to 1045 AD), where the former Sunda
Kingdom is located showed a calendar (kolenjer in local language) in the formof matrix.

At one of the annual meetings for the forum of former Kingdoms and Sultanates in Indonesia held in Bandung in November 2012. On this occasion I promoted the importance of conducting research in ethnoastronomy in their former Kingdoms and Sultanates regions.

home on the period when I can hardly see someone’s face” or“I return home when the Sun goes down behind the mountain” instead of saying “I return home at 16” to name but a few.4

Surakarta (Central Java) on 22 June, 1856. In Pranatamangsa,
the days in a month (more exactly mangsa) varied from 23 days
to 43 days, depending on specific observable environmental
elements. Ammarel (1996) and Salmun (1956) confirmed thatevery mangsa have their own characteristics. Names of themonth (mangsa) in Pranatamangsa and the length of theperiods have now been standardized in agreement with the
Gregorian Calendar.
With Pranatamangsa, all farmers conducted all phases ofcultivating rice exactly at the same period of time otherwise
rice would be exposed to crop pests. When rice was flowering,insects were eating in other areas. However, if farmers were too
early or too late at any phase of cultivation, pests would afflictthe crops due to a lack of other food sources. Though recently
the climate does not exhibit the same patterns as before, tosome extent Pranatamangsa is still in use in some remoteplaces in West Java, e.g. Cisolok-Sukabumi, Kampung NagaTasikmalaya, and Baduy area (Adimihardja, 1990). This suggeststhat historically Pranatamangsa was used by all agricultural
people on Java island.

Pranatamangsa: the Agricultural Cycle
Agricultural people like Sundanese were deeply concernedwith calendrical observations. These were crucial in gauging
the time of planting and harvesting to insure successful crops.
The appearance and disappearance of certain stars correlatedwith the seasons of the year, and reminded observers when toplough, sow, hunt, fish, and celebrate other annual events. The
Sundanese agricultural cycle is known as Pranatamangsa (time/
season-keeping system)
The most important seasonal markers for Sundanese werethe Orion Belt (Bentang Wuluku) and Pleiades (Bentang Kerti
or Bentang Ranggeuy). The dawn rising of the Orion Belt and
the Pleiades in mid-May marked the coming of the dry season.
For about forty nights before sunrise the Pleiades was said todisappear from view. This event, usually noted in an almanac,
was called ngerem in the local language which means to hideitself. The heliacal rising of the Pleiades and the Orion Belt in
the evening sky was also important to farmers as a sign of thewet season and the beginning of rice-planting.
Another constellation which is familiar to Sundanese is theSouthern Cross (Crux), whose Sundanese name is Bentang
Langlayangan (the Kite). These stars are also very important
for local fishermen since they indicate a Southern direction andfor farmers because the appearance of the Southern Cross inthe East at sunrise was a sign of the beginning of the dry season. Another local name for the Southern Cross is Bentang
Saung Genjot (leaning Hut).
Van den Bosch (1980) in his study on the Javanese calendar
found that Pranatamangsa/Pranotomongso was recognized byJavanese farmers, and although this agricultural tradition waspracticed for almost two thousand years, Pranatamangsa
was officially declared by Sri Susuhunan Paku Buwana VII in
26

Folklore
Human understandings of the sky were expressed in many
forms, and celestial lore and storytelling formed a core component of this. I found some examples of the diverse and wonderful ways in which Sundanese people described specific objects
or phenomena in the sky in lore. Most older Sundanese werefamiliar with tale of Nini Anteh. There are variants, but the mostwell-known one relates how Nini Anteh (grandmother Anteh)
lived in the Moon with her spinning wheels accompanied byher cat. When she was a little girl she lived with her step motherwho mistreated her. She then subsequently escaped and flew
to the Moon, helped by a ray of light coming out of it. To thisday, when the Moon is full, people say that one can see Nini
Anteh, sitting beside a spinning wheel accompanied by her cat.
By way of comparison, we have celestial lore of the ancientNo.68 Autumn 2013

people from both North America and the Far East, including
Japan, where the rabbit appears in the moon: the lunar disk
presents the same shape and is identified as a rabbit.
For all ancient peoples, the Sun and the Moon are probably
the best documented sky objects amongst other celestialbodies, in particular the eclipses of both have always been impressive to all people. The Sundanese also possessed their own
celestial lore about these spectacular events. There is an oral
story in some parts of West Java which explains the lunar
eclipse.
“In heaven Batara Guru (the god of gods), shot a fake godwith a bow and arrow, separating his body from his head.
The body fell down to the Earth and changed into a ricemortar but the head was still alive in the sky. The head ate
everything in the sky including the Moon. Yet when he ate
the Moon, an eclipse occurred. Since he had no body, theMoon went out from the bottom of the head and the eclipse
ended.”The solar eclipse however, was seen as a couple in love. People on Earth beat rice mortar with pestles and the noisy soundlike two annoyed lovers who separated from each other.
Sundanese people did not generally separate phenomena
which we currently classify as meteorological from what we
now think of as astronomical. The phenomenon of rainbows,which is called Katumbiri was regarded as the angels fromkahyangan (heaven) coming to Earth to take a bath. The rainbow itself symbolized a golden ladder used by angels to descent to earth and to return to heaven.
No feature of the sky was more amazing than the Milky Way:
the sky consists of darkness as well as light, a bright splash oflight broken by dark separations. This specific object which isobservable during the dry season in West Java was known ascatang bobo or catang which means rotten tree trunk full ofholes (Igarashi, 2013), while in Javanese in Central and EastJava it is described it as Bima Sakti (a hero in wayang story).
To the south-east of Southern Cross stars (bentang langlayangan – the Kite) two bright stars α Centauri and β Centauri areobservable almost at the same period of time during the dry
season. The Sundanese story of these constellations relates thata younger brother, β Centauri flew a kite in a rice field. Due tostrong winds he was drawn up by the kite. The elder brother,α Centauri, helped by holding him from behind. However,
the wind was so strong that both of them were drawn up into
the sky. It is fortunate that some celestial lore are still remembered and can be recorded, but many may have been lost or
not yet revealed and need to be further explored.

Appraising our Rich Ethno-astronomical Past
I have briefly touched upon the ethno-astronomical historical of the Sundanese and every attempt has been made to include as many relevant materials as possible. However, I cannot
claim to have given a complete and comprehensive account of
their ancient astronomy-related culture. Yet, I hope that mywork will stimulate research interest into exploring ethnoastronomy in other regions of Indonesia; not only on the mainislands (Java, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Papua) but also inmany smaller island regions. To do so will allow us to start theconstruction of an encyclopedia of Indonesian ethno-astronomy
which can simultaneously contribute to the ongoing project of
documenting the ethno-astronomy of Asia.

References
Adimihardja, Kusnaka. 1990. Ph.D. Dissertation, Kajian khusus
Human Ecology. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaya (in Indonesian).
Ammarell, Gene. 2005. The Planetarium and the Plough: Interpreting Star Calendars of Rural Java. Republished in Songs
from the Sky: Indigenous Astronomical and Cosmological
Traditions of the World, edited by Von Del Chamberlain,
John B. Carlson and M. Jane Young. College Park: Ocarina
Books. Pp. 320-335. (Original in Special issue of Archaeoastronomy (1996) 12-13: 320-335).
Igarashi, Tadataka. 1980. Change in Daily Activity Patterns
During the Ramadan in an Islamic Society. Proceedings of
the Second International Symposium on Asian Studies,p. 467.
————. 1987. Agricultural Operations, Seasonality, and Stars:
Annual Cycle of Upland Cultivation in a Sundanese Village,
West Java, Southeast Asian Studies, 25(1): 85-108.
————. 2008. The Balinese Calendar: The Lunisolar System
and Historical Change. Southeast Asian Studies, 45(4): 497538.
Salmun, Mas Ace. 1956. Kandaga. Ganaco. NV: Bandung-JakartaAmsterdam. p.22.
Sastramidjaja, Ali. 1991. Kalangider Lima Kala, (in Indonesian)(unpublished).
Van den Bosch, F. 1980. Der Javanische Mangsakalender. In
Bijdragen tot de taal-, land-en volkenkunde [In Contributions
to Language, Geography and Ethnology], 136: 248-282.

Notes
1

I wish to thank Dr. Igarashi Tadataka for sharing much unpublished data and information and for many productive
discussions.

2

Norio Kaifu, the President of the International Astronomical
Union, is collecting Asian stories and histories relating tostars and universe in collaboration of fourteen Asian countries into a book called “Stars of Asia.”

3

These times are different in northern and southern latitudes.

4

Private communication.
27

Conference Report:
The Future of Southeast Asia Viewed
from Historical Area Studies: in Memoryof Professor Sakurai Yumio (1945-2012)
Ono Mikiko
Assistant Professor CSEAS

On 19 April 2013, a conference, “The Future of Southeast Asia
Viewed from Historical Area Studies: in Memory of Professor
Sakurai Yumio” was held in honor of Sakurai Yumio, former visiting professor at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS).
To the sadness of many, Sakurai suddenly passed away on 17
December 2012. He was a leading Japanese expert in historicaland area studies, and many scholars both young and oldgathered to give presentations in his honor.
Held at Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall, almost 80 participants from all over Japan gathered, among them retired CSEAS
faculty members, colleagues from academic societies and research groups who had been associated with the late professor,
and current Southeast Asian postgraduate students.
Two sessions were held in his honor, “Historical Studies andthe Fieldwork: Viewed from Historical Studies of Vietnam,
Southeast Asia and Asian Waters” was hosted by Momoki Shiro(Osaka University) and Okamoto Hiromichi (Prefectural University of Hiroshima). The second, “Area Studies and Historical Area
Studies: Viewing Southeast Asia from its Ecological Foundations
and Rural Communities” was hosted by Emeritus Professor
Takaya Yoshikazu (Kyoto University) and Yanagisawa Masayuki(Center for Integrated Area Studies (CIAS)) all paid tribute to
Sakurai’s achievements.
All paid tribute to the trajectory of Sakurai’s research withparticipants reflecting upon the various perspectives and thewide range of fields that he explored over his productive­academic career.
The late Sakurai began his career as an assistant at the Center
for Southeast Asian Studies, the predecessor of CSEAS in 1977,
before assuming the position of associate professor at the De28

partment of Oriental History in the Faculty of Literature at Tokyo
University in 1990. After retiring in 2007, he rejoined CSEAS as avisiting professor.
Sakurai’s own background was in oriental history and heoriginally studied the history of villages in Vietnam based oninvestigations of texts, mostly written in classical Chinese.
However on joining CSEAS, he was heavily influenced by theCenter’s unique approach to area studies, and came to expand
the sphere of his research interests to cover Southeast Asian
history. He combined his knowledge attained through fieldwork and historical studies based on the investigation of texts
in order to integrate area studies methods learned at CSEAS.
Thus, Sakurai played no small role in strengthening both thefields of historical studies and area studies.
In recent years, he started to show an interest in Information
Science (IS) and began to participate in the HistoricalGeographical Information Analysis Project which utilizes GIS(Geographical Information Systems Science), a joint research
project and approach conducted in collaboration between
CSEAS and the Center for Integrated Area Studies (CIAS). At theconference, former academic colleagues came together to exchange thoughts on the legacy of his broad research activities
and their impact on the current situation of area studies.
Hamajima Atsutoshi (National Taiwan University) reflecting
on Sakurai’s impact on historical studies in the early 1980s,
explained how, in a “Symposium on Culture of Rice Cultivationin Jiang Nan” Sakurai held in 1984,1 his influences had a major
impact on oriental history studies which had hitherto simply
relied on textual analysis and investigation. Sakurai’s researchinspired Hamajima to rethink his own research style.

No.68 Autumn 2013

Fukami Sumio (Momoyama Gakuin University) paid tributeto Sakurai and the influence he had on textbooks. He discussed
how a Japanese high school text book (published by Tokyo
Shoseki and compiled by Sakurai) on world history came todeal with history of Southeast Asia as an independent issue
and incorporate it as part of a broader view of history.
Visiting Professor Kato Tsuyoshi (Research Institute for
Humanity and Nature, (RIHN)) spoke about Sakurai’s recognition of Southeast Asia. Sakurai was inclined to categorize
Southeast Asia’s history and argued that its development stage
theory arose from terms originating from the region, such as“Negara” and “Pura.”2 He had come to argue the differences ofcultures and civilizations across certain periods of time andKato noted how the fundamentals of Sakurai’s research might
have been greatly influenced by postwar historical studies inJapan. This led him to development stage theory, inflected byhistorical materialism as well as the history of villages in Vietnam which all influenced his descriptions of the overall historyof Southeast Asia as a region.
Takaya Yoshikazu shared a moment by revealing that Sakurai
had recently intended to write a novel titled “The Vietnamese”
by assuming the persona of one of them, and that he aimed
to go as far as anecdotally explore both the method and stanceof area studies, as well to test the limits of area studies achieved
as a researcher.
When Sakurai was first at CSEAS, there was not yet a momentum toward establishing cross disciplinary exchanges
among different areas of interest; however, there were people
who were already regarding this as an issue of importance,
people such as Tsuchiya Kenji, Yano Toru, and Murai Yoshinori.
We will never know if Sakurai had reached a point where heidentified himself with the Vietnamese, yet his straightforward
attitude in achieving his goals is worthy of praise.
Professor Shibayama Mamoru (CIAS) commented that S­ akurai’svast accumulation of data for starting his research on Bach Coc
villages in the Red River Delta in 1993 was an indication of his
desire to stick to facts so as to understand his subject matter.
As such, Sakurai’s more recent approaches to Area Informatics(AI) also reflected his ongoing efforts to overcome the difficulties in capturing different realities within a broad field throughthe application of the latest Information Science (IS) technology.
Toward the end of the conference one poignant question
was raised by a younger scholar, a graduate student at theGraduate School of Asian and African Studies (ASAFAS) who did
not know Sakurai;

of his research and brought into sharp relief the issues whicharea studies now faces. It also brought gave us an opportunity
to bring together both new and old area studies researchers forfurthering the field.
Sakurai Yumio leaves behind his wife Mieko and two children
Shizuho amd Koshi.

Notes
1

Watabe Tadayo and Sakurai Yumio. 1984. Chugoku Konano
no Inasaku Bunka: Sono Gakusaiteki Kenkyu [Rice Culture in
Jiangnan, China]. Tokyo: Hoso Shuppan.

2

Ishii Yoneo and Sakurai Yumio. 1985. Tonan Ajia Sekai no Keisei(Sekai no Rekishi Bijuaru Ban 12 [The formation of theSoutheast Asian World]). Tokyo: Kodansha.

“With research interests, there are two stances. One is to stayclose to the area, and the other is to take a step back tosecure objectivity. I wonder if area studies today has become
too academic.”
The Director of CSEAS, Professor Shimizu Hiromu responded, inthe light of his own career in anthropology, spurred by hisdesire to escape from the afterglow of U.S. military occupationand his own postwar experience of growing up in Yokosuka,
that “area studies teaches us how to maintain distance as thefocus of our interest,” finishing with a call to the next generationof area studies students. The conference covered over 50 years
29Visiting Fellows
CSEAS is accepting applicants semiannually for about 14­ ositions for scholars and researchers who work on SoutheastpAsia, or any one of the countries in that region, to spend 3 to 12
months in Kyoto to conduct research, write, or pursue other
scholarly activities in connection with their field of study. Since
1975, more than 300 distinguished scholars have availed
themselves of the Center’s considerable scholarly resourcesand ­enjoyed the invigorating atmosphere of scenic Kyoto, the­ancient capital of Japan and the main repository of the country’s cultural treasures, to pursue their interests in Southeast
Asian Area Studies. The Center’s multi-disciplinary characterand the diverse research interests of its faculty offer visiting
scholars an ideal opportunity for the exchange of ideas andthe cultivation of comparative perspectives. The highly competitive selection process has brought to the Center in recent
years researchers from Southeast Asian countries, Bangladesh,
China, Korea, and western countries including the United Statesand France. The visiting fellows represent various basic disciplines in their study of Southeast Asia, and their official posts

Namein their home institutions include teacher, researcher, librarian,journalist, and NGO worker. Information and Technology (IT)experts who conduct research on Southeast Asia are also
joining the Center, not only to manage various database systems but also to construct academic networks for area study
throughout the world. Successful applicants receive an appropriate stipend to cover international travel, housing, and living
expenses in Kyoto. Research funds will also be provided to facilitate his/her work. Funds will also be allocated for domestic
travel, subject to government regulations, and a number ofother facilities are available to visiting scholars. Fellows will be
expected to reside in Kyoto for the duration of their fellowshipperiod. Fellows are normally invited to deliver a public lectureduring their term at the Center and encouraged to submit anarticle for possible publication in the Center’s journal, Southeast
Asian Studies and to contribute to the online journal Kyoto
Review of Southeast Asia. CSEAS also received researchers,
both Japanese and foreign, who visit on their own funds or on
external fellowships.

PeriodAffiliation/Position

Research Title

Sylavong, Latsamay

1.6.2013~30.11.2013

Country Representative, International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

REDD, National Policy and Local Livelihoodsin Developing Countries: Development ofInstitutional Arrangements and Mechanisms
to Distribute Benefits

Dasgupta, Swapan Kumar

1.4.2013~30.9.2013

Director, Project Division, Bangladesh
Academy for Rural Development (BARD)

Rural Development in Bangladesh:
Experiences of GOs and NGOs

Setiawan, Boni

1.4.2013~29.6.2013

Associate, Institute for Global Justice (IGJ)

Political Economy of the Supply Chain

Widiyoko, Darmaji

10.2.2013~28.6.2013

Student of Development Studies at Bandung
Institute of Technology (ITB)

A Study on Eco Airport in Indonesia

Kimura, Ehito

3.1.2013~8.31.2013

Assistant Professor, Department of Politcal
Science, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

Justice and Reconciliation in Comparative
Perspective

Kong, Jianxun

2013.8.1~2014.1.31

Professor, Institute of Southeast AsianStudies, Yunnan Academy of Social Sciences

Outbound Labor Migration and Changing
Agricultural Life in the Ethnic Minority Areasof Southern Yunnan Province

Diffloth, Gérard Felix

2013.7.1~2013.12.31

Associate Member, École Française
d’Extrême-Orient, Cambodia branch, Siem
Reap

Linguistic History of the East-Khumuic(Austroasiatic) Languages

Pokhrel, Chandra Prasad

2013.9.1~2013.12.31

Lecturer, Central Department of Botany,
Institute of Science and Technology,
Tribhuvan University

Impact of Climate Change on Mountain and
Hill Agriculture

List of Visiting Research Fellows, Visiting Researchers, and Visiting Project Researchers at CSEAS

30

Publications

Kyoto Area Studies on Asia Vol. 23

Politics of Ethnic Classification in Vietnam

Preah Vihear: A Guide to Thai-Cambodian
Conflict and Its Solutions

Ito, Masako. 2013. Kyoto University Press

Charnvit Kasetsiri, Pou Sothirak and Pavin Chachavalpongpun.
2013. Bangkok: White Lotus

Kyoto Area Studies on Asia (in Japanese) No. 26

Querida: An Anthology

Homesteads and Indigenous Knowledge:
Rural Life and Women in Bangladesh(in Japanese)

Caroline Sy Hau, Katrina P. Tuvera and Isabelita O. Reyes.
2013. Manila: Anvil

Yoshino, Keiko. 2013. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press

31

Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, 46 Shimoadachi-cho, Yoshida, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan
Tel: +81-75-753-7302 Fax: +81-75-753-7350
京都大学東南アジア研究所 〒606-8501 京都市左京区吉田下阿達町46 Tel: 075-753-7302 Fax: 075-753-7350

Editors: Mario Lopez, Ishikawa Noboru

Date of Issue: 30.11.2013〈編集〉
マリオ・ロペズ 石川

登
ISSN 2185-663X