加藤久美子(KATO Kumiko)

Professor, Asian History, Graduate School of Letters, Nagoya University

Education:

・ Bachelor’s Degree from Nagoya University, School of Letters (1988)
・ Master’s Degree from Nagoya University, Graduate School of Letters (1990)
・ Studied at Chiang Mai University, Thailand (1991-93)
・ Completion of Doctoral Program at Nagoya University, Graduate School of Letters  (1993)
・ Ph.D. from Nagoya University, Graduate School of Letters (1996)

Work Experience:

・ Assistant Professor (1993) and Associate Professor (1997) at Nagoya University, School of Letters
・ Associate Professor at Nagoya University, Graduate School of Letters (2000)
・ Professor at Nagoya University, Graduate School of Letters (2010-).
・ Visiting Fellow in the School of Culture, History and Language, The Australian National University (October 2014-January 2015).

Research Interests:

・ History of Southeast Asia
・ Tai polities in Yunnan Province of China, northern Thailand, northern Laos, Shan State of Myanmar and northwestern Vietnam
・ History of Sipsongpanna (Xishungbanna Autonomous State of Yunnan Province)
・ Tai Historiography

Main Publications:

1) Bonchi sekai no kokka ron: Unnan Sipusonpanna no Tai zoku shi. (in Japanese) (Tai Polities in Intermountain Basins: History of Tai at Sipsongpanna, Yunnan.) Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. April 2000

2) ‘Tributes and Corvée Imposed by Moeng Cheng Hung of Sipsongpanna in the First Half of the 20th Century: Analyses from a Tai Manuscript’, Journal of the School of Letters, Nagoya University 8: pp.1-17. March 2012.

3) ‘Tai zoku zenkindai seitai no touchi sisutemu: chugoku unnan syou sainanbu sipusonpanna no jirei’ (in Japanese) (‘Premodern Administrative Systems of Tai Polities: The Case of Sipsongpanna in the Southernmost part of Yunnan, China’), in Rekishi to chiri: Sekai shi no kenkyu (History and Geography: Research of World History) 235. Tokyo: Yamakawa. November 2011.

4) ‘Mun rengou Sipusonpanna ni okeru Mun Tsuen Hun kara mita sho mun no ichizuke’ (in Jananese) (‘Ranking the Moengs by Moeng Cheng Hung, the Capital Moeng in Sipsongpanna’) in Nenpo Tai kenkyu (The Journal of Thai Studies) 11, pp.21-45. July 2011.

5) ‘Salt Production and Salt Trading by Villagers in the Southern Part of the Vientiane Plain’, Journal of the School of Letters, Nagoya University 6, pp.1-15. March 2010.

6) ‘Shio to cha no koueki shi’ (in Japanese) (‘History of Trade of Salt and Tea’) In Monsun ajia no seitai shi 2: Chiiki no seitai shi (Eco-History in Monsoon Asia 2: Eco-History of Areas), edited by Christian Daniels, pp.55-80. Tokyo: Kobundo. May 2008. (Written under joint authorship with Atsushi Masuda and Mabumi Kojima.)

7) ‘Bienchan kinko ni okeru ryutsu to kokan’ (in Japanese) (‘Distribution and Exchange in Vientiane’s Environs’) ,in Monsun ajia no seitai shi 2: Chiiki no seitai shi (Eco-History in Monsoon Asia 2: Eco-History of Areas), edited by Christian Daniels, pp.121-142. Tokyo: Kobundo. May 2008. (Written under joint authorship with Isra Yanatan and Akiko Ikeguchi.)

8) ‘Vienchan heiya no shuraku: iju ni yoru mura zukuri’ (in Japanese) (‘Villages in the Vientiane Basin: Creating villages by settlers’), in Vienchan heiya no kurashi (Life in the Vientiane Basin), edited by Nonaka, Kenichi, pp.51-69. Tokyo: Mekong. March 2008. (Written under joint authorship with Isra Yanatan and Akiko Ikeguchi.)

9) ‘Vienchan heiya no dentouteki seien’ (in Japanese) (‘Salt Making in the Traditional Way in the Vientiane Basin’) ,in Vienchan heiya no kurashi (Life in the Vientiane Basin), edited by Nonaka, Kenichi, pp. 111-131. Tokyo: Mekong. March 2008. (Written under joint authorship with Isra Yanatan.)

10) ‘Sipusonpanna ni okeru ichi to mun kenryoku: mun tsenhun no jirei’ (in Japanese) (‘Markets and Moeng Political Power in Sipsongpanna: The case of Moeng Cheng Hung’) Nenpo Tai kenkyu (The Journal of Thai Studies) 7: pp.1-26. July 2007.

11) ‘Zyukyu seiki nakaba no Sipusonpanna to Ratanakosin cho: Muan pon no Mahachai no shogen kara’ (in Japanese) (‘Sipsongpanna and the Ratanakosin Dynasty in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century: The Statement of Mahachay of Muang Phong’) Nenpo Tai kenkyu (The Journal of Thai Studies) 6, pp.21-40. July 2006.

12) ‘Sipusonpanna no Shu Onrai kinenhi’ (in Japanese) (‘The Monument in Commemoration of Zhou Enlai in Sipsongpanna’) in Kiroku to kioku no hikakubunka shi (Comparative Cultural History of Records and Memories ), edited by Wakao, Yuji, and Shoji Haga, pp271-295. Nagoya: Nagoya University Press. January 2005.

13) ‘Sanchi Tai zoku kokka’ (in Japanese) (‘Tai Polities in the Intermountain Basins’) in Iwanami Kouza Tounan ajia shi 3: Tounan ajia kinsei no seiritsu (History of Southeast Asia 3 : Formation of Early-Modern Southeast Asia ), edited by Ishii, Yoneo,pp.291-317. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. August 2001.

14) ‘Sipusonpanna mun kenryoku no koueki e no kakawari: goyou shonin nai hoi wo megutte’ (in Japanese) (‘How did the Political Power of Moeng Polities Take Part in Trade Activities? Concerning “Nai Hoi”, the Traders Patronized by Moeng’), Nagoya daigaku toyoshi kenkyu hokoku (Journal of Asian History, Nagoya University) 25: pp. 388-403. May 2001.

15) ‘Sipusonpanna ni okeru sanchi kyozyu min touchi: sipuson kuen ni tsuite’ (in Japanese) (‘Rule over Hill people in Sipsongpanna: Sipsongkhwaen’), in Tonan ajia ni okeru ‘kyouzon’ , ‘kyousei’ no shosou (Various Aspects of ‘Coexistence’ and ‘Symbiosis’ in Southeast Asia), edited by Kurihara, Hirohide, pp.19-58. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. March 1999.

16) ‘The Main Trade Routes between China and Burma through Sipsongpanna before the 1950s’, in Linguistic & Anthropological Study on the Shan Culture Area (Final Research Report of JSPS Project “Linguistic & Anthropological Study on the Shan Culture Area”, Principal Investigator: Shintani, Tadahiko), pp.199-222. March 1999.

17) ‘Tai zoku bonchi seiken rengo kokka, Sipusonpanna no tochi no arikata ni kansuru ichi kosatsu: niju seiki nakaba ni okeru “kazei” houhou no bunseki’ (in Japanese) (‘Taxation Systems in Sipsongpanna in the middle of the 20th Century’), The Journal of the Faculty of Letters, Nagoya University. History 45, pp.117-146. March 1999.

18) ‘Control of Irrigation by Muang Political Power: The Case of Muang Chiang Hung (Mong Cheng Hung) of Sipsongpanna’, Tai Culture vol.Ⅲ No.2, pp.49-70. Berlin. December1998.

19) ‘Sipusonpanna no koeki ro’ (in Japanese) (‘Trade Routes in Sipsongpanna’), in Ogon no shikaku Chitai: shan bunka ken no rekisi, gengo, minzoku (Golden Quadrangle – History, Language, Ethnic Groups in the Tai Cultural Area), edited by Shintani, Tadahiko, pp.222-261. Tokyo: Keiyusha. April 1998.

20) ‘Changes in Sipsongpanna in the Eighteenth Century: focusing on 1720s and1730s’, The Journal of the Faculty of Letters, Nagoya University. History 43: pp.1-18. March 1997.

21) ‘Muang Polities in Sipsongpanna: A Comparison of the Categories of Land and People among the Muang’, The Journal of the Faculty of Letters, Nagoya University. History 40: pp.25-50. March 1994.

22) ‘Muan seiji kenryoku no suiri soshiki e no kanyo wo megutte’ (in Japanese) (‘Muang Political Power and Irrigation: The Case of Muang Chiang Rung, Sipsongpanna’ ), Nagoya daigaku toyoshi kenkyu hokoku (Journal of Asian History, Nagoya University) 18: pp. 141-165. March 1994.

23) ‘Sipusonpanna Tai zoku ni okeru dentouteki noumin touchi no chikei teki bunrui’ (in Japanese) (‘Rule in Chiang Hung, a “Basin Polity” of Sipsongpanna-Tai; From Physiographic Point of View’), Tounan ajia: rekishi to bunka (Southeast Asia: History and Culture) 20, pp.3-34. May 1991.

24) ‘Making Salt’, in An Illustrated Eco-history of the Mekong River, edited by Akimichi, Tomoya, pp.79-82. Bangkok: White Lotus. March 2009. (Written under joint authorship with Isra Yanatan.)

25) ‘Shio’ (in Japanese) (‘Salt’), in Zuroku Mekon no sekai: rekishi to seitai (An Illustrated Book, The World of the Mekong: History and Ecology), edited by Akimichi Tomoya, pp.72-73. Tokyo: Kobundo, March 2007. (Written under joint authorship with Isra Yanatan.)

26) ‘Tam moji shiryo’ (in Japanese) (‘Historical Material written in Tham Scripts’) ,in Iwanami kouza tounan ajia shi 10: tounan ajia shi kenkyu annai (History of Southeast Asia Supplementary Volume: Guidance on the Research of the History of Southeast Asia) , edited by Hayase, Shinzo and Shiro Momoki, pp.132-138. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. January 2003.

27) ‘Tam moji no sekai’ (in Japanese) (‘The world of Tham Scripts’), in Moji wo yomu (Reading Characters and Letters), edited by Imanishi, Yuichiro, pp. 113-127. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press. March 2002.

28) ‘Sathanaphap pacuban khong ekasan papsa nai Sipsongpanna’ (in Thai) (‘Present State of Pap-sa Documents in Sipsong Panna’) ,in Kaan Suksa Prawatisat lae Wannakam khong Krum Chatiphan Thai (Studies of History and Literature of Tai Ethnic Groups), edited by Sarasawadee Ondsakul and Yoshiyuki Masuhara, pp.145-150. Chiang Mai: Amarin. January 2002. (Written under joint authorship with Isra Yanatan.)

29) ‘Qing China’s View of Its Border and Territory in Southernmost Yunnan in the 1830s: Analyses of Historical Sources Concerning Sipsongpanna’ Journal of the School of Letters, Nagoya University, Vol 11, March 2015.

Details of the most recent and important publications:

a) ‘Tributes and Corvée Imposed by Moeng Cheng Hung of Sipsongpanna in the First Half of the 20th Century: Analyses from a Tai Manuscript’, Journal of the School of Letters, Nagoya University 8: pp.1-17. March 2012.

Sipsongpanna was a Tai state that existed in the southernmost part of present-day Yunnan in China until the Chinese Communist Liberation in 1950. The Mekong River ran through its center, and its tributaries made intermountain basins and small alluvial flats, where Tai people were the main residents. On the other hand, non-Tai people mainly lived on the hills.

Sipsongpanna consisted of approximately thirty principalities, or autonomous political units, called “moeng.” Each moeng was governed by its own prince. The prince of Moeng Cheng Hung was also the “king” of Sipsongpanna.

In Sipsongpanna, the taxes were divided into three categories; rice, the other tributes, and corvée. This paper is a discussion on the tributes and corvée given by people to the king from a Tai manuscript written in Tham letters as a source of information.

The analysis shows that the descriptions of tributes and corvée in the manuscript include many cases of non-Tai hill people and people of other moengs, although it also refers to corvée for Tai villages in Moeng Cheng Hung. According to the manuscript, the political power of Cheng Hung could exercise influence not only on Tai people in Moeng Cheng Hung but also on hill people and certain people in other moengs.

However, when the political power of Cheng Hung imposed tributes or corvée on them, it did not divide them into Tai and non-Tai people, but instead recognized all of them by the concept of “phai moeng.” Similarly, they did not divide tributes from corvée, but instead recognized them under one concept of “Nguat Chao.” The most common taxable unit in the manuscript was baan or village, which was the only taxable unit for the Tai people in Moeng Cheng Hung. In addition, kawn, a hill people’s unit, was the next most common taxable unit in the manuscript.

b) ‘Mun rengou Sipusonpanna ni okeru Mun Tsuen Hun kara mita sho mun no ichizuke’ (in Jananese) (‘Ranking the Moengs by Moeng Cheng Hung, the Capital Moeng in Sipsongpanna’), in Nenpo Tai kenkyu (The Journal of Thai Studies ) 11, pp.21-45. July 2011

Tai states, which were located in present-day Thailand, Laos, Shan States in Myanmar, Southwestern China, or Northwestern Vietnam, consisted of several principalities or autonomous political units called moeng or muang. The power relationship among the principalities and the capital moeng can be understood by discussing how the capital moeng ranked the principalities politically and ritually.

This paper analyzes Sipsongpanna as a case of Tai states. It was located in the southernmost area of Yunnan and became a part of China after the Chinese Communist Liberation in 1950. Some of the principalities in Sipsongpanna were given official titles as governors by the Qing Dynasty in the first half of the eighteenth century. This paper uses, as sources of information, Tai manuscripts written in “Tham” letters as well as the reports of the investigations conducted in the 1950s for land reform.

Analyses show that the principalities given high titles by Moeng Cheng Hung, the capital moeng of Sipsongpanna, were divided into two categories:

1.old and autonomous principalities that appeared by the first half of the fifteenth century in Cheng Hung Chronicle — most of these were ranked relatively low in the accession ceremony and parades for the king

2.principalities that were rarely referred to in Cheng Hung Chronicle before the eighteenth century, when the Qing Dynasty bestowed upon them the highest title of indigenous rulers (except Moeng Cheng Hung) in Sipsongpanna — most of these were ranked relatively high in the accession ceremony and parades for the king

The appointment of indigenous rulers with different official titles in the first half of the eighteenth century by the Qing Dynasty may have significantly affected the power relationship among the principalities. Both Moeng Cheng Hung and the other principalities attempted to use this to their own advantage.

c) ‘Zyukyu seiki nakaba no Sipusonpanna to Ratanakosin cho: Muan pon no Mahachai no shogen kara’ (in Japanese) (‘Sipsongpanna and the Ratanakosin Dynasty in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century: The Statement of Mahachay of Muang Phong’), Nenpo Tai kenkyu (The Journal of Thai Studies) 6, pp.21-40. July 2006.

Sipsongpanna had paid tribute to both Chinese and Burmese Empires since the latter half of the 16th century. In the middle of the 19th century, contact with the Rattanakosin Dynasty also appeared. Mahachai, the Lord of Muang Pong, which was a powerful principality in Sipsongpanna, as well as

Suchawanna succeeded to the throne and was officially appointed as the monarch of Sipsongpanna by the Chin Dynasty in 1834. From 1847 to 1850, another member of the royal family attempted to seize the throne, with assistance from Burma and Chiang Tung. In 1848, during this intermittent warfare, Suchawanna’s mother and younger brother (the viceroy) moved to Bangkok and stayed there for several years. Mahachay, the lord of Moeng Phung, also went with them.

Most previous studies argue that this implies that Sipsongpanna relied on the Rattanakosin Dynasty and sought help in internal warfare against the usurper. However, there is not sufficient evident yet to prove this.

This paper examined a record of Mahachay’s statement made to Bangkok in 1852. It was found that Sipsongpanna’s deepening relations with the Rattanakosin Dynasty could not be interpreted to mean that Sipsongpanna asked for help from the Rattanakosin Dynasty of her own accord. Instead, it is better to be interpreted that Sipsongpanna was forced to create relations with the Rattanakosin Dynasty by way of aggressive leading of the Rattanakosin Dynasty, Nan and other northern tributaries.

d) ‘Qing China’s View of Its Border and Territory in Southernmost Yunnan in the 1830s: Analyses of Historical Sources Concerning Sipsongpanna’ Journal of the School of Letters, Nagoya University, Vol 11, March 2015.

This paper discusses Qing China’s view of its border and territory in Southernmost Yunnan in the 1830s by analysing historical sources such as Pu’er Fu Zhi, the official account of Pu’er Fu, written in the Dao Guang Period (1821-1850) and Captain McLeod’s 1837 Journal. In Yunnan’s southernmost borderlands, twenty-odd Tai principalities called moeng (muang) formed ‘Sipsongpanna’, where the lord of Moeng Cheng Hung, held the position of supreme ruler. Sipsongpanna had paid tribute to both the Chinese and Burmese dynasties.

It was found that the understanding of what constituted ‘Chinese’ territory in this region was still vague, but at least in 1837, Moeng Cheng Hung was considered to be on the edge of Chinese territory and functioned as a barrier. The Chinese view of where exactly the border was situated was also not clear, but, in practice, the line that China had to protect was Jiulong Jiang or the Mekong River, which flowed next to Moeng Cheng Hung. Here, the entry of ‘foreign’ officials across the ‘border’ was very strictly controlled, whereas merchants had far easier access.