Convergence or divergence_

Asia Pacific Viewpoint,Vol.38,No.2,August1997

ISSN:1360-7456,pp101–105

Editorial:Convergence or divergence? Indigenous peoples on the borderlands of Southwest China

John McKinnon

This issue of Asia Pacific Viewpoint presents a collection of articles in which the authors explore aspects of language,history,land use,culture and education of the ethnic minority peoples of Southwest China and the northern borderlands of the countries of Mainland Southeast Asia.Each contributor focuses on an area of disciplinary interest in which they have recently conducted research,most of it involving fieldwork.

The ethnolinguistic complexity of the region does not,in an issue of this length,lend itself to comprehensive cover.There are three major language groups,the Sino-Tibetan,Austro-Thai and Austro-Asiatic which between them account for a plethora of languages.Many of the multitude of specific language groups in any one of these Superstocks(Matisoff,1983:65)are scattered through at least two or three nation states and often have very little to do with one another.

The language maps indicate the nature of the intricate patchwork of cultures scattered over the wider border area.Figure1provides an overview of the distribution of the major indigenous language groups which like all the Figures which follow stops arbitarily at the Burma Bangladesh/Indian border.The classification‘indigenous’automatically excludes native speakers of Sinitic (Chinese)languages,most of whom speak Southern Manadarin.

This exclusion of non indigenous peoples is also arbitary.The language map may indicate the distribution of the various ethnic groups but it should not be mistaken for them.Ethnicity is a dynamic phenomenon and speakers of Chinese languages have,off and on,at least since the Tang Dynasty exercised a powerful political and economic influence in the region.Given some encouragment,many Chinese families whose ancestors were settled in Yunnan before the twentieth century could produce a family genealogy with a sprinkling of indigenous forebears.Just as in China today the one child per Han family policy has encouraged Chinese citizens with indigenous connections to claim minority status:so,in the premodern past when the question of ethnic Author:Dr John McKinnon,School of Geography,Geology and Geophysics,Victoria University of Wellington,P.O.Box600,Wellington,New Zealand.E-mail: John.McKinnon@https://www.360docs.net/doc/301468769.html,

identity was much more muted there were always advantages which flowed

from cultivating an allegiance with the dominant group.

Placing these caveats aside Figure 1which shows the Distribution of Major

Indigenous Language Groups indicates the broad pattern with Tibeto–Burman

speakers (Sino–Tibetan Superstock)to the west,Mon–Khmer (Austro–Asiatic

Superstock)to the east and Austro–Thai Superstock speakers in between.The

bigger picture shows the wider distribution.The Tibeto–Burman family remain

largely to the west but speakers are found from East Tibet to the headwaters of

the Yangtze,Brahmaputra,Irrawaddy and Mekong rivers.The language

families of the Austro–Thai Superstock discussed here (Thai-Kadai and Miao-

Yao)are largely restricted to southwest China and mainland Southeast Asia but

the Superstock also includes the large Austronesian family (Malayo-

Polynesian)which is spread to the southwest across the Indian Ocean and

southeast across the Pacific.The Mon–Khmer family as part of the Austro–

Asiatic Superstock is more concentrated in mainland Southeast Asia but

linguistic relatives can be found to the west in both India and the Nicobar

Islands and south along the Malay Peninsula.

What is most relevant to this collection of essays is the way in which

outlying,easterly concentrations of speakers of Tibeto-Burman languages find

themselves strung out along the Thai–Burma,Laos–Burma,Laos–China,and

China–Vietnam borders.It is as if these populations established themselves

along lines of optimum retreat from dominant groups and that it was through

these relatively remote and lightly populated areas that colonial surveyors

subsequently chose to draw international borders.Figure 2,Distribution of

Tibeto–Burman Language Speakers reveals that these border people,

principally speakers of Loloish subgroup languages also figure prominently

in the the articles which follow https://www.360docs.net/doc/301468769.html,hu and Lisu (Bradley),Akha/Hani

(Sturgeon,Hansson and

Cai).

Figure 1.Major Indigenous Language Groups

Asia Pacific Viewpoint Volume 38No 2

Figure 3,Distribution of Austro–Thai Speakers shows the riverine,serpentine

distribution of the Tai (Dai)along waterways in China (Dai Shi)which lend

themselves to growing irrigated rice,and forming what are shown as large

concentrations of settlement in Burma (Shan),Thailand and Laos (ie.Tai Noi,

Khon Muang,Lao),China (Zhuang)populations which on the ground are far

from homogeneous.Scattered throughout this largely Tai world is the

relatively bold distribution of the Miao-Yao.In this issue of Asia Pacific

Viewpoint Jean Michaud examines French documents which provide nine-

teenth century observations on the migration of the Miao which throws some

light on the widely scattered nature of their distribution.

Figure 4Distribution of Mon–Khmer Speakers is included to round off the

series of maps and identify other relatively isolated groups such as the Palang–

Wa on which it would be interesting to obtain

reports.

Figure 2.Distribution of Tibeto–Burman Language

Speakers

Figure 3.Distribution of Austro–Thai Speakers

August 1997Editorial

The original question which prompted this special issue invited the growing

number of scholars working in the region to consider what impact this

separation has had,and continues to have on the coherence or divergence of

indigenous groups.It is these smaller,relatively isolated groups which look

more vulnerable.Do small groups look for support to those with whom they

share an ethnic identity or are they prepared to take opportunities across a

wider front as they come up?How has isolation on one hand and increased

contact with the infrastructure of the state on the other influenced their way of

life?There are many more questions that can be asked than can be answered.

How did contributors choose to address these matters?

Contributors responded in quite different ways.David Bradley addresses the

matter very directly and shows how the introduction of writing systems for

Lisu and Lahu combined with the use of standard dialects has if anything

enhanced ‘transnational unity’.Jean Michaud reminds us that for some groups

such as the Hmong (Miao)migration which served to scatter people was

relatively recent and conducted under duress.Janet Sturgeon points out that

whether in Sipsongpanna,P.R.China or North Thailand the principal concern

of Akha is to secure a livelihood rather than perpetuate an identity.

Authors contributing research notes also address the question.Inga-Lill

Hansson reminds us that if we want to explore the question of convergence and

divergence with reference to indigenous knowledge that there is a potential

mine of information embedded in the Akha oral literature.Ken Kampe points

out that even in these days,when there is much talk of indigenous knowledge,

those in charge of state systems of education maintain an attitude which can at

best be described as one of benign neglect.Access to either mulitilateral or

bilateral assistance barely off-sets this trend.Cai Kui’s straight forward

account of a district in Sipsongpanna (Xishuangbanna)which is home to three

different ethnic communities tells us that while everybody has become more

Chinese there has been no intermarriage between the Dai,Hani and Jinuo,and

the better off groups like the Dai have made little effort to learn the language

of

Figure 4.Distribution of Mon–Khmer Speakers

Asia Pacific Viewpoint Volume 38No 2

August1997Editorial their neighbours.Distinct identities have been maintained by a tradition of opposition.

However we definite this world of Greater Burma(Leach,1960)the first observation must be to acknowledge its complexity.A great deal of work remains to be done and in the current political climate this task has been made much easier.It is only recently that it has become possible for foreigners to carry out fieldwork in the region and this has resulted in a growing dialogue between indigenous,national and international researchers.A Yao group has met several times over the past decade.In May of last year an international Hani-Akha group met for the second time.A group of scholars working with the Department of South-East Asian Studies at The University of Hull is currently planning the First International Workshop on the Hmong/Miao in Asia.In China there is a growing interest in anthropology and in January1997 at the conclusion of Advanced Seminar for Social Anthropology held in Kunming the President of Yunnan University announced his intention to open a Department of Anthropology.

A great deal is happening.I hope this issue of Asia Pacific Viewpoint serves to provide readers with a modest sample of research underway in a very interesting part of the world.

References

Leach,E.(1960)The Frontiers of‘Burma’,Comparative Studies in Society and History3(1): 49–68

Matisoff,James A.(1983)Linguistic Diversity and Language Contact.In John McKinnon and Wanat Bhruksasri(eds),Highlanders of Thailand pp.56–86

Copyright of Asia Pacific Viewpoint is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.