Tai Cultural Heritage in Northeast India:
A Study of the Tai-Ahoms
Lipi Ghosh
Reader, Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies
University of Calcutta, India
Abstract
This paper studies the impact of three basic components of an ancient and rich Tai culture on the present-day Tai-Ahom community living in Assam State, India. These are -- language, religion and socio-cultural institutions. An in-depth study of the different aspects of the Ahom language, religion and a few social and cultural institutions throws light on the interesting question of the Tai origins of the Ahoms. It examines the nature and extent of their assimilation into or separation from the mainstream Indian culture which is basically Hinduised and Sanskritised.
How did the interchange or the melding of cultural traits happen? How were the different aspects borrowed or transferred from one group to the other, i.e., the Ahoms hailing from South China and the Assamese, the indigenous people in the area? This article looks into the above mentioned phenomena and analyses the way that their different cultural features interacted in the course of historical evolution.
Introduction
Throughout Asian history, ethnic politics inevitably calls forth images of conflicts between indigenous peoples and the larger migrant groups. One such dominant migrant ethnic group, which is found across South, Southeast Asia and China, is the Tais. They moved into South and Southeast Asia from China mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries. They are one significant ethnic group which resides close to or across various borders of a number of nation-states in the region.
This study examines the case of the Tai-Ahoms - the largest Tai community in the Assam State of India - against the themes of ‘ethnic groups’ and ‘borders of nation-states’ and the ‘construction of an identity’. There are two schools of thought on the matter, one of which does not believe in the theory of evolution of cultural characteristics and practices. Under this framework, societies and cultures are attributed a spurious coherence and integration.1 The other school which does subscribe to this concept, believes in changes and transformations.2 This article seeks to respond to this debate -- taking the Ahoms as a test case.
It is appropriate at this juncture to define culture and its related phenomena.
Culture is not something which is immediately bequeathed. Rather, it develops through a process of interaction between symbolic structures and historical circumstances. Thus, the culture of an ethnic group is constructed via a discourse of identity in a historical process. In this case, the importance of history and tradition is celebrated. Language plays a prominent role in the development of a culture, in shaping a unified political identity. It provides a strong reflection of the cultural identity of an ethnic group of people. The roles of religion and social customs in defining culture are also critical. When a community preserves its ancient religion, lore and rituals, they are involved in conserving their traditional heritage-culture. Here lies the importance of investigating ethnicity at the level of culture. Thus, the objective of this paper is to study the present-day cultural components of the Tai-Ahom community in Assam, India and to analyze and examine their traditional Tai roots. A review of the literature on the subject shows a dearth of materials on the Tai-Ahoms. There are likewise no analytical studies undertaken as far as the question of their cultural heritage is concerned.
There are a few foundations under which this article has been conceived. The first is the academic issue of the history of the people and their language. The second is the concept of religion and its practices among people across the borders of nation-states. The third are the various socio-cultural institutions and their common characteristics that transcend national boundaries. The purpose of this paper is to determine the extent of Tai cultural heritage in India and the aspect of its assimilation, if any, into the local Assamese culture. One seemingly neglected area in Southeast Asian studies is the culture of the Ahoms when viewed against its Tai cultural components. An important landmark in the history of the Ahoms happened in 1931 when the term ‘Ahom’ was deliberately dropped from the official Census by the colonial British rulers in India to destroy the identity of the former ruling class people of Assam. Since then, all Ahoms in India have been referred to as ‘Assamese.’
The Ahoms are an important branch of the Tai people. The Tai-Ahoms entered the Brahmaputra valley from the east (initially from Moung Mao in China through the Shan states of Burma) in the early part of the thirteenth century. They established a small kingdom in its easternmost corner after having conquered the Morans and the Borahis, two small Mongol tribes in the area. By the first half of the sixteenth century, this kingdom had grown in size and number after the conquest of many indigenous communities like the Chutiya kingdom on the northeast, that of the Kacharis in the southwest and the Bhuyan chiefs in the west and the northwest. In the seventeenth century, the kingdom was further enlarged by the annexation of Kamrupa – the southernmost part of the Assam valley.3
After settling in India, the Ahoms would be gradually assimilated into the Sanskritic Hindu culture over time. The question regarding their cultural identity comes to the fore. A study of the three important components of culture - language, religion and socio-cultural institutions - helps examine the crucial issue of their cultural identity.
Language
A common language is a primary factor in defining the identity of a particular group of people. Maintaining a group’s heritage through language means preserving all the symbols, ideas and ideologies of a group and their civilisation.
As the Tai-Ahoms came from Muong Mao during first part of the thirteenth century, they might have brought to the Brahmaputra valley a Tai language spoken in the Muong Mao region of the present-day Dehong Dai-Jingpow Autonomous Prefecture in Yunnan, China and the nearby areas inside Myanmar. Initially, it was somewhat advantageous for Siu-kha-pha (the first Tai migrant to the Assam valley who later became its ruler) and his followers to keep the Tai language alive. After the first settlements were established, Siu-ka-pha used to send envoys to his brother Chao Siu-khan-pha at Moung-Mao. Chaopha Siu-Dang-Pha said in 1382 that eighty years had passed without any exchange of embassies between Muong-Mao and Muong-Dung-Shun-Kham.4
From 1557, the political power of the kingdom of Muong-Kong (Tai/Shan Kingdom in Burma ) began to weaken and by 1683, it virtually ended due to Burmese pressures. Since then, the mutual exchanges of embassies between Muong-Kong and Muong-Dung-Shun-Kham ceased. Besides, the Ahom kingdom also became involved in the civil wars which largely contributed to the decline of the Tai language and culture. Above all, the overpowering influence of Hinduism was another major factor in the lapse of the use of the Ahom language.
In spite of these negative factors, however, there were occasional Ahom exodus from their original homeland on a number of important social events and diplomatic missions.
In the course of time, more Assamese words came to be commonly used along with Ahom words. For example, poi an-ka kin dap taruwal mau- nai-le kha-ti-kao meaning “let the sword on which I swear kill me” can be cited. Here the Ahom word “dap” is used with the Assamese word - “Taruwal”. Again, Poi-la-dun-ha cham ban-khut chao-chong kula ban humbar, is another example where the Assamese word humbar (Monday) is used along with Ahom words. The former sentence was written in 1670 while the second one was in 1772.5 There are many other examples to bring home the point as to how the writings of Ahoms or of other Tais gradually changed from pure Tai to a mixture of the styles of two cultures.
After the Burmese invasion and during the British rule, the Ahoms and the later groups of Tais drifted apart under the forces of historical circumstances. With the conquest and consequent expansions of the kingdom, the Tais were outnumbered by the non-Tai subjects of the kingdom. However, the Tai language did not totally die out and it continued to be used until the nineteenth century in limited areas. The Deodhai and the Bailung pandits (the Ahom priestly class) were instrumental in keeping the Tai-Ahom language alive. However, because these priests lost their influence in the royal courts, the Tai language gradually became neglected and was no longer used in polite society. The Ahoms leaned more towards Hinduism and the Assamese language, while the later groups continued to use the Tai language and to practice Buddhism. From the style of the Tai language used in the Ahom historical chronicles and other traditional Tai-Ahom manuscripts, it can be assumed that for at least two hundred years after the arrival of the Ahoms in the Brahmaputra valley, no major changes took place in the Ahom language. Later, however, the language started to evolve as it adjusted to different political and sociological factors. This process continued until the last days of the Ahom kingdom.
The historical records that show changes in the names of the Ahom kings provide further information about the evolution of the Ahom language. Siu-Tam-La (1648-1663 A.D) was the first Ahom king to receive the formal Sanskrit name Jayadhwaj Simha sometime after his coronation. This was the Hindu name recorded in the Assamese Chronicles, in addition to his formal Ahom name. He was also called Bhaganiya Raja, an epithet given to him in the Assamese language chronicles after his disastrous defeat and flight from the capital after its capture by Mir Jumla, the Mughal general. Starting with Siu-Tam-La’s successor, Siu-Pung-Mung, the kings were given Hindu names together with their formal Ahom names at the time of their coronation. Henceforth, all the kings, except those four who ruled during the troubled period from 1675 to 1679, had two official or formal names each, one Ahom and the other Sanskrit. Interestingly however, the last two Ahom kings, namely Purandar Simha and Jogeswar Simha, did not have Ahom names and were known by their Hindu names alone.6
Of course, some of the more popular names indicate the king’s association with certain places but such names as Khora Raja, Burha Raja and Naria Raja appear to be crude and rustic. Interestingly enough, scholars and other historians used to give more emphasis to such names at the expense of the official Ahom names. This was particularly so during the British rule and even after this period in all the historical works which, perhaps, is a historical anathema, if one may say so.7
The absence of Assamese nicknames for the first twelve kings confirms the historical fact that during this period, the Tai-Ahom kingdom did not include too many Assamese-speaking subjects. The Morans and the Borahis had their own language. The episode of Siu-Dang-Pha being brought up in a Brahmin family of Habung and given the name Bamuni Konwar, a typical Hindu name, may signal the first major Ahom contact with a large sector of the Assamese population. 8
The process accelerated during the reign of Siu-Hum-Mung (1497-1539). The assimilation of the newly- conquered population gave birth to a pluralistic society, with the non-Tai subjects finding the Tai-Ahom language totally alien and unintelligible. This led to the use of Assamese popular names both for the kings and his functionaries. From this time onward, the process of using popular Assamese names in place of the Ahom names began. 9 Besides, the growing influence of Hinduism could not be ignored and the adoption of the formal Hindu/Sanskrit name of Jayadhwaj Simha by Siu-Tam-La was but a natural consequence of the process. This, in turn, reduced the need to use popular Assamese names for the Ahom kings. That the last two Tai-Ahom kings no longer had formal Ahom names was, undoubtedly, the result of the Hinduisation vis a vis the Assamisation process. By this time, the use of the Assamese language by a majority of the Tai-Ahom people became an established fact.
After India gained its independence in 1947, the movement of the Tais from upper Burma to Indian territory finally ceased. Thus, the Tais of Northeastern India were cut-off from the mainstream Tai culture in Burma, Thailand and elsewhere. Moreover, these Tai-speaking people in time also had their own problems arising out of the three-language formula of the government’s educational policy. There was no school where to learn their mother tongue, Tai, either in the primary level or thereafter. They had to learn Assamese at the primary level, then English and Hindi at the secondary level. Further, they had to learn Pali because most of them were Buddhists. The difficulties of learning all these languages and scripts at almost the same time, coupled with economic pressures, may have caused the Ahoms to show apathy towards learning their own mother language and script. For these reasons, the younger Ahom generations are more inclined to speak Assamese than their own Tai language or to learn the script.
It has become imperative to devise a common and scientific system to make the Tai language intelligible to all the Tai people in India. The Shans of Myanmar have adopted the more progressive and modern Shan scripts without encountering any difficulties. The current efforts of Ban-Ok-pub-lik- Moung-Tai (an organisation of Tais in Northeastern India) in the upper Assam to keep alive the Tai language are quite remarkable. The question that remains to be resolved in the future is -- Can the Tais of Northeastern India adopt the appropriate measures needed to preserve their language in India?
Religion
In many modern Tai societies, Buddhism is followed as a practical religion. But as far as the elements of Tai religious traditions are concerned, Buddhism is mixed with spirit beliefs and other old Tai religious rituals. In almost all Tai societies, the most significant aspect is the notion of ‘Phii’ (spirit) and ‘Khwan’ (life essence). Phii refers to a spirit cult and the Tais believe in different types of Phiis-phii-faa (sky spirits), phii naa (spirits of the rice fields), phii nam (water spirits ), phii ban (village guardian spirits), phii-muang (town spirits), phii puu-jaa or phi puu-taa (ancestor spirits), etc. This belief in phii is accompanied by rituals. Next to Phii, the phenomenon which can be used as a reference for purposes of comparison is the concept of khwan and its ceremonial phases. Khwan is an ancient Tai belief – one that is older than Buddhism. The original meaning of the word khwan in ancient Tai society is a “spiritual essence” which resides in the body temporarily because of shock or sickness but can be called back. In other words, Khwan may simply mean the element of vitality either of a human being or of an object. 10
It is a well-known and a largely accepted fact that before the great exodus of the Tai-Ahoms to Assam in the thirteenth century, almost all of the Tais lived in Southern China and others in the northern end of Burma. It is not unlikely that during this period all held similar religious beliefs, customs and traditions.
When the Ahoms arrived in what is now known as India, the process of Hinduisation was already in progress in Northeastern India since the days of the Kamarupa rulers. At that time, a large number of Brahmins were patronized by the people. Sanskritization was also on-going, leading to the development of the Assamese language. For the first two hundred years, there was no appreciable departure from the religious practices of the Ahoms, who continue to follow their own traditions. The transition to Hinduism came slowly – there were no large-scale conversions. 11
The disappearance of the Kamarupa kingdom and the absence of a strong centralized authority delayed the forces of Hinduisation. However, in the Bhuyan chiefdoms and in the Chutiya kingdom, the process continued to unfold and Aryanization or Sanskritization did not lose ground. It was proceeding slowly in Upper Assam and when the Ahoms arrived, an Ahomisation process also started. However, with the annexation of the Chutiya state and the Bhuyan chiefdoms, Ahomisation had to give way to the Hinduisation process.
This initial process of giving way to Hinduism gained momentum with the revival of the Hindu Vaishnavism by Sankardeva in Assam in the mid-15th century. Neo-Vaishnavism is a religion of the masses and this school of Hinduism was able to spread easily down to the grassroots level. It reached every corner of the Ahom kingdom and many Ahoms who were attracted by its new philosophy turned to this Hindu sect. The Vaishnava philosophy avers – ‘Eka Deva, Eka Seva, Ek Bine Nahi Keba’ (i.e., One God, One Worship and that is the single way to Salvation). The new religion had popular/mass appeal and as a result, there was a gradual but more systematic “conquest” of the Ahoms by the Vaishnavite philosophy.
Many scholars attempt to equate some Ahom gods and goddesses with Hindu deities. B J Terwiel condemned these attempts. To quote Terwiel - “At first sight, such a large number of equivalents seem to point to strong Indian influences in the composition of an Ahom pantheon. But a closer examination reveals a different picture.” 12 It has often been stated that Lengdon is the Indian God Indra or Yaa Sing Phra is Swaraswati but Terwiel arrives at the conclusion that Ahom Buranjis suggest many un-Indra like activities of Lengdon. The concepts of Phayun for Varuna (God of Air), Cha- Kia for Sukra (Venus) and Tyani for Sani (Saturn) are nothing but false translations of Indian concepts. 13 At present, the worship of Phra-Lung (Tai god) is performed and the ritualistic functions are conducted by the Deodhais and Bailungs - the two Ahom priestly classes. 14
Thirdly, side by side with these traditional Ahom religious rituals, the people also performed Hindu religious practices. The present day Ahoms worship both Tai and non-Tai Gods, and some historians refer to them as ‘Hinduised Ahoms.’ One interesting feature is that members of the Tai priestly class who perform traditional religious rites also take an active part in the Namkirtan of the Vaishnavite religion with the same enthusiasm. Again, this can be considered as part of the ‘localisation of Tai culture.’
From the religious aspect, it can be concluded that much interaction took place among the Ahoms and the indigenous Aryans. What finally emerged is an extensive process of Aryanisation, based on Hinduism and the Sanskrit language, which although forceful did not totally replace the Ahom people’s religious traditions. In accord with the theme of this article, it can be said that the Ahoms in Indian society still preserve their Tai cultural heritage. With religion being one of the more important aspects in defining the identity of a group of people, the degree of assimilation may be resolved in favor of the Ahoms in India. They were able to preserve their religious practices and rituals in much the same way as their Tai counterparts did in other parts of Asia. However, the culture has lost some of its vitality under a more forceful and dominant Hinduisation process.
Tai-Ahom socio-cultural institutions
The Tai-Ahom socio-cultural institutions share many common features with the original Tai culture. In this study, some of the more significant aspects are taken up for purposes of comparison. These are:
(1) Marriage
(2) Kinship and family system
(3) Cultural ceremonies concerning birth and death
(4) Festivals
Ahom marriage rituals can be found in the midst of the Sanskritised Hindu culture. Reference to Chaklong marriage is important in this respect, which corresponds to an exogamous marriage between the clans. In other words, no marriage is permissible within the clan but one can marry someone from another clan within the community. As far as the community is concerned, the marriage should be endogamous. The Ahoms do not marry outside of the community. Ahom marriage is not favoured within seven degrees of consanguinity of the bride, that is, if the bride is related to the groom within seven degrees in descent from common parents. 15 A basic difference between a Chaklong marriage and a Hindu one is the non-practice of Saptapadi in the former - , i.e., the groom and the bride walking seven steps together.
The issue of ethnic inter-marriages is an important phenomenon in examining the Tai-ness of the Ahoms. In fact, ethnic inter-marriages are notable on both the analytical as well as the practical levels. Analytically, they bring forth the different practices of two groups and, upon observation, when looking at the forms of such unions, they may explain the dynamism that exists between and among the various groups. For the parties involved, an ethnic inter-marriage brings a stronger awareness of the spouse’s culture. For Ahoms in India, ethnic inter-marriages with the Hindus expedited the process of their assimilation into the indigenous culture of India. However, in spite of this, the preservation of their old Tai rituals is equally important. 16
Tai kinship and family system
The Ahom kinship system gives extensive recognition to family relationships. According to Indira Barua, their kinship system gives extensive recognition t
(1) Generation and relative age
(2) sex
(3) Age
(4) Criteria of affinity
(5) Criteria of polarity
The primary unit in a Tai village society is the family household. In this setting, it is morally incumbent upon the young to render honor and offer homage to their elders. Although the outward expression of authority comes from the man in his role as the head of the family, in the husband-wife relationship, the wife’s opinion is often consulted. In the Tai family, parents are not only the child’s most important kinsmen, but they are also the focal points for the rest of the kinship system. If the father is viewed more as a figure of authority, one who must be treated with deference, the mother is viewed more as a nurturing figure and as a source of affection. Second in importance only to the parent-child bond is that between siblings. The sibling relationship is a special one among the Tais. Siblings are expected to come to each other’s assistance in time of need. 17
Cultural ceremonies concerning birth and death
With respect to birth rites, it has been established that the ancient Tais have the custom of lighting a fire for a woman who has just given birth. Severing a child’s umbilical cord with a sharp piece of bamboo is also common. For the Ahoms, one of the strongest means of facilitating a delivery is to make the expectant mother drink water mixed with powdered rhinoceros-horn. 18
The burial customs of the Ahom priestly classes provide an excellent example of how a traditional Tai custom has survived and evolved. Traditionally, the Ahoms inter their dead, but now, under Hindu influence, they sometimes practice cremation.
Festivals/ Ceremonies
There are a few Tai festivals observed by the Ahoms. These are - Maiji Fai (lighting of fire works) during the full moon of Magha, khamsong (pre-monkhood ceremony) Lu Phraa, etc. 19 These three can be considered as pure Ahom festivals. The most important Ahom festival which deserves mention is the mae-dam-mae-phi, i.e., the ancestor worship festival that is observed by the whole Ahom community. This is performed annually at some common venue. 20 This in a way helps to develop social contacts and community feelings among the Ahoms.
The most significant family ceremony which is performed each year is known as damak-diya. This is a form of ancestor worship comparable to the sraddha (after death rituals) ceremony of the Hindus. A few case histories of this festival show that participation is restricted among the family members. The existing socio-cultural institutions indicate that the Ahoms (particularly the Mohans and Deodhais) have been observing both traditional Ahom rituals as well as some of the Vaishnavite practices.
Ahoms and their ‘Chinese-homeland culture’
In the long run, it is pertinent to discuss briefly the question of a “homeland” Tai cultural heritage among the Tai-Ahoms. The continuity of the original Tai culture from Yunnan among the Tai-Ahom people is a critical point. The work, in fact, takes into consideration the Tai culture that spans three different parts of Asia with two to three different political boundaries - the Tais in Northeastern India, the Tais in Thailand and the Tais in Southern China - the place of their origin. The present day Dehong prefecture – in the southwestern-most region in China - corresponds to the ancient homeland of the Ahoms. The Dai culture of the locale can definitely establish the continuity of the original Tai culture among the Ahoms. The social system of the Ahom kingdoms and the Yunnan’s Dai nationality reflect that in their long history, in spite of some differences between them, the basic commonalties of the two cultures can be identified.
With regards to the language, the most important issue is that until 1945 practically all the Tai groups in different parts of mainland Asia, including China, used their old proto-Thai script, with some variations.
About their religion and socio-cultural traits, however, the similarities are stronger. A cultural interpretation of the religion, sacrificial rites and gods of the Dai society of Dehong shows that the culture of the Ahoms still shares the same cultural characteristics with Tais in other parts of Asia. The worship rituals and ceremonies practiced by the Dehong Dais also reflect those observed by the Ahoms in Assam. 21
Khwang Khui Khum in his study of the characteristics of Dai culture coined the term ‘river culture’ when explaining its basic characteristics. The most important observation by Khwang is “in its long historical development, Dai culture has absorbed many strong points of other ethnic groups and has become a multi-cultural river.... Dai culture, with its colorful features has a neutralizing power, which while it does not have an air of importance is not easily subjugated. This subordination is quite like a baby’s willingness to accept his mother’s care.” 22 This observation holds true of all Tais across mainland Asia. Historically, Southwest China and Mainland Southeast Asia have been very closely related to each other. Under the winds of globalisation today, the dynamics of such ethnic cultures across the borders of China, India and Southeast Asia have become very important.
Conclusion
This study shows that the Tai culture in India mirrors the original Tai culture. Based on this, a few significant questions come to mind - How accurate is it to speak of a resurgence of cultural politics? Is the Ahom cultural identity new in a significant sense? Should we, not just as analysts but as citizens, make a case for cultural recognition of the Ahoms? However, this may be contradictory to the concept of cosmopolitanism.
The whole concept may be treated in a different way. The rise of ethnic consciousness has given more prominence to the importance of ethnic culture. The new generation of Ahoms is now more conscious about their cultural resurgence. In judging the nature of their Tai cultural heritage, one has to keep several points in mind. Ethnic culture is not static. The importance of the ‘locality’ of each culture must not be overlooked. Ethnicity and ethnic culture are not only questions of origins but must be studied and determined in the context of local influences.
The Ahom culture in India, too, has not been established only on the basis of its traditions but is also historically conditioned and culturally mediated under local influences. To understand what is really happening in this age of globalisation, it is important to study the local evidence or the influence of ‘locality.’ This author, therefore, has to draw a conclusion in-between two extremes: the belief by one school that the Tai culture has been vanquished, on one side, and on the other, the whole-hearted persistence of Tai-ism by the second school. A more realistic position is to consider the rich Tai cultural heritage in India from a bias-free perspective of ‘shared’ cultural norms. What the Ahom culture represents in India is a shared cultural heritage or a confluence of two remote cultures.
END NOTES:
1 R Keesing, “Creating the Past: Custom and Identity in the Contemporary Pacific,” Contemporary Pacific 1, nos 1 and 2, 1989.
2 F Barth, Introduction in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: the Social Organization of Cultural Difference, London, 1969, p 15.
3 Eric T D Lambert, “A Short Account of the Ahom People,” Journal of Siam Society, Bangkok, vol 40, Part 1, 1952, pp 42-45.
4 Golap Chandra Barua, translated Ahom Buranji, Calcutta, 1930, p 321.
5 Golap Chandra Barua, op. cit., p 321.
6 Romesh Buragohain, op.cit, pp 31-32.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 For details, see Wilaiwan Kanittanan, “Khon Thai Nai Prathet India: Phasa lae Wathanatham,” [Thais in India- Language and Culture](in Thai), International Conference on “The Tai People before the Coming of Civilisation”, Prince Mahachakri Sirindhon Anthropology Centre, Bangkok, 27-28 May 1999, pp 8-9 and Phya Anuman Rajadhon, “The Khwan and Its Ceremonies,” Journal of Siam Society, vol 50, Pt 2, 1962, pp 119-164.
11 For details, see Maheswar Neog, Early History of the Vaisnava Faith and Movement in Assam, Guwahati, 1965.
12 B J Terwiel, “The Tai of Assam and Ancient Tai Ritual,” Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. II: Sacrifices and Time Reckoning, Gaya, 1981, pp 52-54 and Padmeswar Gogoi, Tai- Ahom Religion and Customs, Publication Board, Guwahati, 1976, pp 7-13.
13 Ibid., p 53.
14 Chao Nagen Hazarika, We Revive We Survive, Guwahati, 1996, p 36.
15 Bimal Kanta Barua, “Chaklong,”Tai Sanskriti, Year 1, issue no 2, June 1956, (in Assamese), pp 65-77 ) and for details of chaklong ceremonial rituals see Padmeswar Gogoi, op.cit., pp 64-87.
16 Pushpa Gogoi, op.cit., pp 8-10.
17 For details see Indira Barua, Social Relations in An Ahom Village, Sterling Publishers Pvt Limited, New Delhi, 1978, pp 138 onwards.
18 B J Terwiel, Life Cycle Ceremonies, vol 1, op.cit., p 29.
19 Pushpa Gogoi, op. cit., p 65.
20 Ibid., also see Nagen Hazarika, op. cit., pp 97-99.
21 For details of Dehong Dai religious practices, see Yang Guangyuan, “A Cultural Interpretation of the Religious and Sacrificial Rites of the Dai Nationality,” in Yukio Hayashi and Yang Guangyuan, Dynamics of Ethnic Cultures Across National Boundaries in Southwestern China and Mainland Southeast Asia : Relations, Societies and Languages, Lanna Cultural Centre, Rajabhat Institute, Chiang Mai and Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 2000.
22 Khwang Khui Khun, Tai Chu Wang Khwa Chi [A Cultural History of the Dai Nationality](in Chinese), Yunnan Nationalities Research Institute, Kunming, 1997, p 5.
Bibliography
Barth, F. 1969. Introduction in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. London.
Barua, Bimal Kanta. “Chaklong,” Tai Sanskrit, Year 1, no 2, June 1956.
Barua, Chandra Golap. 1930. trans. Ahom Buranji. Calcutta.
Barua, Indira. 1978. Social Relations in an Ahom Village. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt Ltd.
Buragohain, Romesh. The Lost Trails. Dhemaji: Bank Ok Pup-lik Mioung-Tai.
Gogoi, Padmeswar. 1976. Tai-Ahom Religion and Customs. Guwahati: Publication Board.
Gogoi, Pushpa. 1996. The Tai of Northeast India. Dhemaji: Chumpra Publications Pvt Ltd.
Hazarika, Chao Nagen. 1996. We Revive, We Survive. Guwahati.
Keesing, R. 1989. “Creating the Past: Custom and Identity in the Contemporary Pacific,” Contemporary Pacific, 1, nos 1 and 2.
Kanittanan, Wilaiwan. “Khon Thai Nai Prathet India: Phasa lae Wathanatham” [Thais in India – Land and Culture] (in Thai), International Conference on the “Tai People before the Coming of Civilisation, Bangkok, Prince Mahachakri Sirindhon Anthropology Centre, 27-28 May 1999.
Khun, Khwang Khui. 1997. Tai Chu Wang Khwa [A Cultural History of the Dai nationality] (in Chinese). Kunming: Yunnan Nationalities Research Institute.
Lambert, Eric T D. 1952. “A Short Account of the Ahom People,” Journal of Siam Society, Bangkok, vol 40, Part 1.
Neog, Maheswar. 1965. Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Assam. Guwahati.
Rajadhon, Phya Anuman. 1962. “The Khwan and its Ceremonies,” Journal of Siam Society, vol 50, Part 2.
Terwiel, B J. 1981. The Tai of Assam and Ancient Tai Ritual,” Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, vol II: Sacrifices and Time Reckoning, Gaya.
Yang Guangyuan. 2000. “A Cultural Interpretation of the Religious and Sacrificial Rites of the Dai Nationality,” in Yukio Hayashi and Yang Guangyuan, Dynamics of Ethnic Cultures across National Boundaries in Southwestern China and Mainland Southeast Asia: Relations, Societies and Languages. Kyot Lanna Cultural Centre, Rajabhat Institute, Chiang Mai and Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University.
Zhu Depu. 1996. Tai Ju Shen Ling Thom Pai Mi Chong [Dai spirit Worship] (in Chinese). Kunming: Yunnan Nationalities Research Institute.
发表于 2005-4-27 13:52:00
QQ空间
腾讯微博
腾讯朋友
微信
转播
淘帖
分享
收藏
支持
反对
发表于 2005-4-27 16:56:00
