1

Ethnohydrology and Mekong Knowledge in transition:

An Introductory Approach to Mekong Hydraulic Cognition∗

Jakkrit Sangkhamanee∗∗

Summary

This paper proposes ‘ethnohydrology’ as an alternative approach to better reflects the bodies of water-

related knowledge beyond the polarization of science vs. local knowledge. As to cope with the transition of

water knowledge in the Mekong region, it employs ethnoscientific methods in comprehending hydrology

which not only allows hydroscience and local experience to be concomitantly examined, but as well as

integrating cognitive forms of knowledge into consideration. Semantic analysis of distinctive terminologies

and narratives on water knowledge is proposed as to assert cognitive domain in knowledge accumulation

and articulation. It calls for an assemblage of ideological, cultural, and pragmatic aspects of knowledge on

water dismantling the unproductive divide between science and local knowledge.

Introduction

Over the last few decades of Mekong subregional construction, ecological knowledge has become

more intriguing force in determining development direction of the region. The foundations and

functions of ecological knowledge are crucial factors in determining of development practice

toward the environment. In cultural ecology circle, the methodological and epistemological

difficulties associated with separating natures from human activities and cultures leads to conflicts,

impasse in development knowledge, and policy failures. Within the Mekong development circle,

the mainstream approach in understanding river morphology, ecology, and its related, applied

knowledge concerning resource management among the river ‘experts’ has mainly focused on

studies of scientific hydrology as a basis in river development projects such as dams, irrigation, and

river navigation. The knowledge for river basin development has centered on developing

numerical simulation ‘models’ of hydrological process. The model mainly involves the monitoring

of water quality and quantity. Most of the hydrological models developed for Mekong river basin

management today are based upon the knowledge gained from the data of physical approximation

and computational understanding of the river.

∗ Paper for International Conference ‘Critical transitions in the Mekong Region’, 29-31 January 2007, organized by Regional Center for Social Science and Sustainable Development, Chiang Mai University ∗∗ PhD candidate, Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Program, Research School for Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University. E-mail: jakkrit.s@anu.edu.au

2

The recent strategic plan of turning the Mekong into ‘a single international water resource

economy’ of the Mekong River Commission (MRC), and the configuration of what so-called the

‘Greater Mekong Subregion’ (GMS) instigated in the 1990s by the Asian Development Bank

(ADB), are the apparent space of success in introducing a standard knowledge on ecology for

economic stimulation by regional developmentalists. As often shown in their publications, those

subregional Mekong river development schemes under the development agencies such as the

MRC and the ADB are orienting toward the modeling of river regulations largely based on

modern technical knowledge on hydrology. As the chief executive officer of the MRC has marked

out in the report called Overview of the Hydrology of the Mekong Basin (MRC 2005a):

‘The link between hydrological regime, riverine ecology, the riparian

environment and the degree to which a river’s water resources can be

sustainably and equitably developed are complex. The starting point to

unraveling this complexity is an understanding of the hydrological regime and

a consensus amongst policy makers of what represents the benchmark

hydrology against which the magnitude of any changed can be measured.

One of the MRC Water Utilization Project is the identification of this

benchmark hydrology’. (emphasis added)

This scientific-hydrological report, which is set to ‘uncover and describe the key patterns and

features of the Mekong Basin hydrology and synthesize the results in a way that provide some

basic insights into the regime of river system’ (MRC 2005a), is however primarily aimed at bringing

those ‘applied scientists and engineers ranging from environmental analysts to water resource

planners’ in creating a workable ‘Mekong hydrological knowledge’. The identification of what

should be considered standard or ‘benchmark’ in hydrological knowledge for river management by

the MRC, however, is problematic as it is exclusively based on a specific set of scientific

observations and technical modeling. Other alternative forms of ecological knowledge, for the

MRC, stands outside their reference. The predomination of such expertise over the other existing

forms of knowledge are in a crucial juncture where the closer examinations are needed in order to

create an integrative approach to river development of the region.

3

Figure 1 : A Greater Mekong Subregion Map charted by Asian Development Bank to exploit riverine resources in promoting economy through mega, interconnected development schemes

The production and the articulation of riverine ecological knowledge have become acute in

contemporary river development especially in the GMS plans and projects. From transnational

perspective, there is the rapid move toward ubregional river regulations under the GMS schemes

led by those development agencies mentioned above. Countering this from local standing point,

there is Mekong ecological knowledge accumulated among the riverine communities along the

river border communities particularly of northeastern Thailand. The purpose of this paper is to

introduce alternative approach for the analytical study of ecological knowledge on water as it

enters into the politics of river management and knowledge contestation in contemporary

transborder river development. This brings into focus and reexamines the ways in which ‘river’

and the interrelationship of local living, non-living, and supernatural entities within the riverscape

have been conceptualized, shared, and applied into daily practices by different groups of riparian

people. The attempt is to challenge the existing ‘benchmark hydrology’ on one hand, and to

challenge the portrayal of ‘local knowledge’ articulated in the recent river resource political debate

on the other.

The use of sole scientific hydrological knowledge and the monopolization/domination of one

knowledge system over other kinds of knowledge to legitimize the development projects, however,

often came with the detriments of local ecological and social issues (for an example of

comprehensive paper on dam issue, see McCully 2001). The issues of alternative riparian resource

management and development are now in a crucial position where it calls for a paradigm shift and

4

pragmatic alternative approaches in comprehending the issues not only from single dominated set

of knowledge. As a result, the knowledge of resource management especially in the mainland

Southeast Asia has widely been turned into the interests of the roles and positions of alternative

ecological knowledge in shaping the individuals and communities’ practices toward their specific

ecosystem. The question of how Mekong riparian people conceptualize river and their transborder

knowledge has been taken into account as they can offer a critique of national and subregional,

modernized regime of today’s riverine resource rights and management.

Contemporary Mekong Hydrological Knowledge: Duality, Politicization, and its Impasse

Within the politics of Mekong resource development, there is widely a debate of how ecological

knowledge is being manipulated as to legitimize the use and management of river ecology and its

related resources by different agencies in the region. Within such debate, however, ecological

knowledge on water/river tends to be polarized as two modes of knowledge being opposed to

each other hence pointing out to different solutions in water policy. On one hand, there is

hydrological science used by regional development agencies such as the ADB and MRC. On the

other, there is ‘local knowledge’ articulated by NGOs, local academia, and networking

communities as an advocacy tool to negotiate in resource policies and conflicts. Such uncreative

dualistic view to knowledge is still widely shared among different stakeholders in the region today.

Scientific Hydrology and Hydraulic Modeling in Mekong River Basin

The focus of scientific hydrology in Mekong basin as a whole is framed with the hydrodynamic

technical methods and models dominated by MRC water projects and their hydrological experts.

The data collected as inputs for hydrological models are primarily concerned with the

measurement of mainstream flows and discharge, riverbank flood, rainfall, sediment load, water

diversion, and chemical and well as biological components such as dissolved hydrogen, nutrient,

and aquatic animals within the water. The hydraulic model is a set of methodologies and simulation

tools to understand the nature and predict changes in river geography in particular area while the

hydrological model may involves larger space of catchments or basin. Models are designed using

selected scientific methodologies to fit the purpose of a development project. For example, the

hydrological model of rainfall-runoff type, involving mathematical data and calculation that reflect

catchments storage and the amount and timing of the runoff response, would be used for

hydropower dam and irrigation projects.

5

(Left)

Figure 2: Diagram showing lower Mekong river basin and its

tributaries. The mapped diagram is used for calculation of

the water input in hydrological modeling.

(Right)

Figure 3: Diagram showing basic classification

of river system in scientific hydrology

Under current Mekong river basin management, The Mekong River Commission (MRC), Asian

Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank (WB) which are the key international

organizations in managing the Mekong still use conventional methods in their planning of hydro-

projects (see MRC 2005a and 2005b, and WB 2004 for examples). Their interests in managing the

river are mainly for the purposes of hydropower, inter-basin water diversion, domestic and

industrial use, and irrigation. With this rationale of development, most of hydrological knowledge

are based on selected technical methodologies that can be used to develop models to understand,

calculate changes, and manage the river for the purpose of development projects. The key aspects

of river considered essential in order to formalize the knowledge and develop a good model are:

flow of river which involves rainfall and the discharge of water, channel morphology and changes

from erosion and deposition, changes in floodplains, basin sediment system and water quality in

terms of chemical and biological aspects.

6

With supports of those organizations, many computer-based models have been developed over

the years to describe the hydrology and hydraulics of the river and its geographical changes of the

Mekong basin. During 2002-2004, MRC has developed its own package called Decision Support

Framework (DSF) to select and calibrate the models for Mekong river basin development under

its Water Utilization Project (WUP). The DSF itself is funded by the Global Environment Facility

through the World Bank. This DSF is considered by the MRC as ‘a powerful analytical tool for

understanding the behavior of the river basin and for making planning decisions on how best to

manage its water and related natural resources’ (MRC 2005b).

Figure 4: MRC’s Decision Support Framework of Water Utilization Program

(http://www.mrcmekong.org/programmes/wup/DSF/DSF_Introduction.htm)

Within the MRC’s Decision Support Framework, the integration of alternative methods to

hydrological knowledge, especially those arisen from socio-cultural perspectives, is yet very limited.

Those socially relevant modes of water knowledge, though widely expressed and promoted by

academics from several different fields, NGOs, media, and local peoples, are still finding its way to

be merged into the mainstream hydrological knowledge in regional development circle.

Local Knowledge as an ‘Advocacy Tool’

Different modes of ecological knowledge and practices can be manipulated and used for political

purpose in accessing and controlling resources (Demaine 1990) by changing power relations

among stakeholders. During the past few decades, the attention in development and resource

management social science academics has been expanded, if not broadly turned, into the

alternative realm of acquaintance in what so-called ‘local knowledge’. In mainland Southeast Asia

7

and especially Thailand, the studies of ‘local knowledge’ often pay attention to how such body of

knowledge can be used as a way of criticizing state’s control and monopolization of science-based

policy makings over the issues of community forest, river basin development, land uses, and

coastal and marine environment. Particularly of debates within political ecology, ‘local knowledge’

has often been deployed in redefining peoples’ identity in accordance with alternative development

(Reynolds 2002), the articulation of local resource rights and controls (see Pinkaew 2002 and Yos

2003 for examples) and the political tools utilized by new social movements in defining over

resource tenure (see Missingham 2003).

In political ecology perspectives, natural resources can be economically manipulated and

controversially politicized. And to that matter, local ecological knowledge is a crucial political

apparatus in determining the tendency of politics in shaping the regime of resource management.

Formalized grassroots researches conducted by local riparian people being affected by

development projects are examples of crucial, and obvious, bodies of knowledge being articulated

under the debates of ecological knowledge in Thailand. The key example is the ‘Thai Baan Paper’

(Southeast Asia Rivers Network et al. 2004) of Pak Mun communities in northeastern Thailand

which, after its success in policy negotiation, set the model of the ways local people can present

their local knowledge in an accepted paper format supported of non-government organizations

and academia.

The first Thai Baan, literally means ‘villagers’, paper emerged as a political response of grassroots

environmental movement to the dam construction on the Mun river, the Mekong tributary. It was

aimed at first in counter-balance the hegemonic approach to the conventional form of paper or, to

be precise, scientific methodologies. One important concern when locating this paper in the

debates of ecological knowledge is that it is the politics of river management and the resource

conflicts that brought the Thai Baan paper came to existence; the paper was not the natural process

of knowledge production and articulation in daily basis. The paper claims that ‘Thai Baan paper

presents a concrete example of how common villagers can do and use paper to negotiate the

unbalance power relation existing in the process of knowledge production and development’

showing the political advocacy in the expression of knowledge into a formal style. Realizing such

significance of knowledge in negotiating power relations, this paper by the villagers is therefore

intent to represent what they see as ‘social reality’ (Southeast Asia Rivers Network et al. 2004) that

has largely been neglected or ignored in river development discourse. In other words, the Thai

Baan knowledge production itself is political driven and acts as a part of new social movement as it

8

writes: ‘without struggles of Pak Mun villagers, this paper cannot be realized’ (Southeast Asia

Rivers Network et al. 2004).

While setting up as a critique to limited scientific methodologies in understanding complex ‘social

reality’, Thai Baan paper came up with distinctive set of their own methodology. It firstly focused

on the issue of fisheries but later found relevant to also include other issues revolved around river

ecology and livelihood such as plants and vegetation, fishing gears, dry season river bank vegetable

garden and other social, economic and cultural issues. By locating villagers as the main researchers

and integrating related issues revolved around fishery livelihood into the consideration, Thai Baan

paper should represent a ‘local knowledge’ embedded within community context as it initially

planned. It is undeniable that Thai Baan paper has made a great contribution to the existing

knowledge on water/ river and played a crucial role in the river politics, however there are some

shortcomings that need to be further considered and taken into account in formulating hydro-

related knowledge in a long run. For this paper, whether this system of knowledge has a potential

and can be employed to critiques and provide a better solution for the existing, limited, knowledge

on water management, and how it is being politicized, hence creating epistemological pitfalls, are

key starting points of investigation and discussion.

Figure 5: Traditional fishing gears are collected to show the existing ‘local knowledge’ in river management (from http://www.searin.org/Th/fishinggear_en.htm)

When framing and aiming to articulate local ecological knowledge within political orientation,

there are some crucial aspects of knowledge risk being left from the presented picture. Those

cultural and ideological forms and roots of knowledge, often viewed as less political-driven, are

excluded in the recent portrayal of the ‘local knowledge’. The ‘social reality’ expressed in such

9

‘local knowledge’ has unfortunately been reduced to what is only relevant to their political purpose

in resource negotiations.

The recent portrayal of local knowledge being binary opposed to science in ‘river politics’,

however, shows at least two shortcomings in comprehending ‘hydrological knowledge’ as it

actually is. First, by presenting ‘local knowledge’ as an ideal to resource management, it downplays

the multi-interpretation of ecological knowledge and hence creating an impasse in knowledge

appropriation. Secondly, by politicizing ‘local knowledge’ within the resource management regime,

it ignores other crucial ideological and cultural aspects of knowledge that seems to be less useful

being as a ‘tool’ for political advocacy. This paper argues that by selecting and packaging ‘local

knowledge’ based merely within resource politics framework, it would dismiss some factors of

knowledge production and risk creating an impasse to ecological knowledge as a whole.

The critiques to recent portrayal of ‘local knowledge’ in Thailand are marked in the works of

Forsyth and Walker (forthcoming). They argue that while some have argued that it is strategically

important to promote the conservationist credentials of local knowledge, there is a real risk that

such knowledge become ‘selectively packaged’ so as to exclude what are seen to be discordant

elements. They propose that what is needed is a much more open approach to local knowledge.

Concerning the promotion of local knowledge within the contemporary development trend,

Agrawal (1999) points to the fact that only those forms of indigenous knowledge that are seen as

‘potentially relevant’ to development need attention and protection. And with that tendency, other

forms of such knowledge, precisely because they are irrelevant to the needs of development are

allowed to pass away. Agrawal calls this process of knowledge identification and separation of

what considered ‘useful’ elements as ‘particularization’ of knowledge. This paper argues that the

process of particularization is happening in the wide cases of current local knowledge

conceptualization and articulation within the Mekong river resource politics. This process may do

well in empowering local knowledge as it is packaged and ready to use for advocacy goal. But at

the same time, some elements in local ecological knowledge are overshadowed by the legitimizing

merely particular forms of ‘local knowledge’ that seems to be the ‘politically relevant’ to political

activities, especially in the case of new social movement. This way, it would only bring, to use

Walker’s term (2001), ‘limited legitimacy’ to the local knowledge. Greater and more flexible

legitimacy of what can be considered as local knowledge should be established as this is not only

better our understanding from the more holistic view of existing knowledge. But, more

importantly, it would allowed ‘local knowledge’ to be expressed from different angles leaving

10

wider flexibility to use for multi-purposes, including development advocacy, hence creating greater

chance of local participation in development regime, and empowering local communities at large.

This is to suggest that a self-criticism is needed in the articulation of ‘local knowledge’ that should

seek to open a wider space that allows diverse forms of knowledge being labeled as a ‘local

knowledge’. The advocacy goal, undoubtedly, is still important. But alternatives knowledge may

prove useful in the long run as its can be selected and used in a wider cases beyond the available

‘local knowledge’ merely based on immediate advocacy to the resource conflicts. The key concern

that should be brought into light is that local ecological knowledge on water/river is more than

merely those deployed for policy negotiation. There are ideo-cultural aspects that recent portrayal

of ‘local knowledge’ on river/water often ignored, yet are relevant if the existing state of

knowledge is to be comprehended. Epistemology and methodology to local ecological knowledge

need to be developed and broaden as to cope with the cultural sphere of hydrology.

In addition to self-critique and the greater possibility of inserting diverse forms of experience into

‘local knowledge’, this paper sees the necessity of incorporating both western scientific and local

knowledge as a productive engagement for resource management. The dichotomized process that

the modernization developmentalists attempt to deny validity to the knowledge and the local

people and the attempts by theorists of indigenous knowledge to downplay science, as Agrawal

(1995) put it ‘politics of derogation’, should be lifted up if integrative ecological knowledge is to be

formed. A plausible direction in dismantling the divide between local and scientific knowledge

would be to recognize the multiplicity of logics and practices that underlie the creation and

maintenance of different knowledges (Agrawal 1995).

‘Ethnohydrology’: Interfacing Hydro-science and Local Ecological Knowledge

This paper sets forth to examine ecological knowledge on water from the lens of ethnoecology

(see Berkes 1999, Gragson and Blount et al. 1999, Frake 1962, and Nazarea ed. 1999). The

theoretical framework of ethnoecology provides a methodology and a scientific field technique for

revealing the cognitive aspects of human-environment relationships but at the same time takes

into account behavior that connects people’s ideas to environment they survive in (Johnson 1947

cited in Woodley 1991). Ethnoecology focuses primarily on the ideas, perceptions and

classifications of the environmental relationships of members of a particular community or

culture. Thus, an emic view on representation of the environment from within- as opposed to the

etic view from outside – is a key of concern. This inevitably involves cosmology as it regulates the

11

people’s interactions with their environment (Slikkerveer 1999).

Being under a discipline of ethnoscience, ethnoecology involves the use of ethnographic,

ethnohistorical, and linguistics methods to study place-based ecological knowledge; it involves the

study of the cognitive structures, and local languages, that constitute the traditional environmental

knowledge of local cultures. Ethnoecology can be deployed by anthropologist to interpret

‘ecological’ cultures holding that culture is composed of psychological structures by means of

which individuals or groups of individuals guide their behavior (Geertz 1973) in relations with

their ecological surroundings. The very question concerning theoretical shift is that how

ethnoecology as an approach within anthropology can contribute to the epistemology and

methodological refashioning that current self-critical reflection calls for. Moreover, what role

ethnoecology can play in interdisciplinary dialogue and action outside anthropology, especially

those of natural sciences (Nazarea ed. 1999, see also Nader ed. 1996) is a challenging question to

be tackled. In addition to its account to sciences, within the social sciences approaches itself,

ethnoecology today is moving toward what is called 'engaged anthropology'. But what needs to be

delved into is the way ethnoecology can be deployed to criticize and develop the

limited ethnographic methodology and the existing positivistic science concerning natural

resources.

Ethnoscience or cognitive anthropology has been used interchangeably in recent academics to

designate the study of folk conceptual system (Amundson 1982). But the term ‘cognitive

anthropology’ are in more favor than ‘ethnoscience’ since the term itself suggests that other kind

of ethnography are not science and only the native thoughts and their classifications are the only

science (Amundson 1982 and Sturtevant 1964). Yet the term ‘ethnoscientific’ as a method is still

widely used within academia as the study of the organizing principles underlying behavior,

including the systematic construction of folk definitions (Woodley 1991). The idea of using

ethnoscientific methods is the need of fuller development of ethnographic method and theory,

and also intra-cultural comparison to determine the ‘nature of culture’ or the nature of cognition –

or ‘how the native think’ (Sturtevant 1964).

The main focus in ethnoscientific method is to understand the way locals express their knowledge

through the use of language, often called ‘semantic analysis’, in classifying their society and

environments. It is intended to provide the ethnographer with public, non-intuitive procedures for

ordering the presentation ob observed and elicited events according to principles of classification

12

of the people being studied (Frake 1971). This can be considered of great contribution in the

contemporary studies of ‘local knowledge’ since it goes beyond the materialist approach by trying

to capture the cognitive worldview that come to shape the practice as well. The extension of the

study of ‘local knowledge’ into the realm of people mentality and cognitive sphere is supported by

the argument made by Goodenough (1957 cited in Frake 1971) that culture does not only consist

of things, people, behavior, or emotions, but the forms or organization of these things in the mind

of people. Not only from academic sphere that ethnoscientific methods are employed to studies

local ecological knowledge, the techniques can be applied in creating dialogue among stakeholders

in development projects as well. Warren and Meehan (1977) suggested that ethnoscientific

understanding can be used in rural development programming to increase sensibility to local

needs, facilitate meaningful dialogues, and provide a mechanism by which small-scaled

agriculturists can become involved in the development process. Ethnoscientific approach is then

considered as a workable strategy this paper will employ to develop and better reflect the existing

knowledge of water/river on the riparian Mekong peoples, and then to step forward as to integrate

‘local knowledge’ to the mainstream hydrological knowledge in the region.

This paper suggests not merely looking at how the spiritual applicability of cosmological ideology

related to river and its resources has shaped people mentality, body of knowledge, but also their

pragmatic adaptability and practices concerning the regulatory regime of resource management

across the shared border river of the Mekong and in the context of subregional river development.

This process looks at how different modes of knowledge are being mobilized, for example, in

relation to current resource access, utilization and control conflicts.

This paper, therefore, attempt to bring into light the innovative approach to the study of what so-

called ‘ethnohydrology’ of the Mekong River. The significance of the study can be equated to the

way other subdisciplines of ethnoecology such as ethnobotany, ethnoentomology and

ethnozoology contribute to the alternative conceptions of our natural environment as it seeks to

provide an understanding of the systems of knowledge that local people have. In this sense, the

study of ethnohydrology will basically cover for natural history and dynamic studies that derived

from local people socially attached to the specific natural space of river. However, the

ethnohydrology can be more than a study of natural history and changing knowledge of the people

regarding the river through an anthropological perspective. Rather it also seeks to understand the

complex, interdependent relationships between a physical space of environment and socially-

constructed space in both empirical and ideological sense, and the dynamics of both in shaping

13

each other. Under the transition of Mekong water, knowledge, this paper calls for a greater chance

of opening up alternative academic space of ‘hydrology’ in understanding the historical

background and pragmatic application of the natural and cultural-based ideology of the Mekong

riverine peoples through the local everyday practices, contextual regulations, and peoples’

cosmologies and myths, and their senses of place regarding resource management. This looks at

how the practical and spiritual applicability of such social ideology is at work in shaping people

mentality, body of knowledge toward river, as well as their practices concerning the regulatory

regime of resource management across the shared border river of the Mekong. It is an ethical

aspect of ethnic competence that ethno-study will contribute to the existing knowledge of river

hydrology as to principally understand the cultural relations and influences in the accumulation

and expression of knowledge of river system.

Lévi-Strauss (1966 and 1978), among many, suggests that it is more productive, instead of

contrasting magic and science, to compare them as two parallel modes of acquiring knowledge.

Both science and magic require the same sort of mental operations and they differ not so much in

kind as in different types of phenomena to which they are applied. As to avoid having a simple

‘binary opposition’ argument, and accepting the notion of ‘science for the West, myth for the rest’

(see Scott 1996), this paper will seek a holistic understanding of hydrology emerged from

combining different bodies of knowledge. Since locality has never been abolished by the national

and worldwide modernity development, there is then a question of how global and subregional

aspects have slipped into local discourse and are accepted by local communities as parts of their

local knowledge. Therefore, the issues around cultural and technical engagement of tradition-

modern assemblage relating to the construction of local knowledge will be addressed and explored

in this paper. By exploring the formation, transformation, and interactions between indigenous

and other forms of knowledge, it is important to explore the hybrid of knowledge system based on

the local beliefs that are increasingly reshaped by the modern paradigm of space imagination and

construction. That, hopefully, will enable us to see how a situated knowledge can be formed and

suitably applied to a specific locality in the realm of sustainable resource management.

What can be done to make Mekong hydrology an ‘ethno’ one

As to understand multi-aspect of the ways ecological knowledge can be accumulated and analyzed,

it is impossible to limit the study approach within the framework of science or social sciences, not

to mention a single approach of study. Frake (1962) points out that ethnographer cannot be

satisfied with a mere cataloguing of the components of a cultural ecosystem according to the

14

categories of Western science. But rather environment must also be described as the people

themselves construe it according to the categories of their ethnoscience (Frake 1962). Multi-

disciplinary approach also needs to be taken into account as to supplement the limitation

ethnoscientic methods have. This includes, but should not limit to, those methodologies used in

scientific hydrology, ethnoecology and cognitive anthropology in comprehending the expansive

picture of ethnohydrological knowledge concerning resource management regimes.

The use of ethoscientific methods is not merely to understand the classifications and terminologies

related to water and river exist among the local people in caparison to those in scientific

hydrology. This study pushes interest in the study of classification and terminological systems

beyond a matching of translation labels between science and local knowledge. If we can arrive at

comparable knowledge about peoples’ concepts of water, weather, river system, social factors, and

supernaturals for example, we have at least a sketch map of the world in the image of the locals

(see Frake 1971). Below shows some methodologies designed to cope with different, yet related,

aspects showed in the diagram above. This will deal with the existing mental pursuits and

ideological narratives of the beliefs in water/river sacredness. The second set of methodology is

employed to examine the applicability of such beliefs in daily expression within riparian peoples

and the ways those cultural practices shape community conservation. Lastly, comparative

hydrological ‘modus operandi’ or operational/pragmatic knowledge will be studied.

I. Understanding ideological/cosmological knowledge on water/river

Myths, folklores, and traditional narratives of water beliefs. Studies that reveal the complex

relationships between ecological adaptation and indigenous knowledge in the guise of myth,

superstition, and religion are necessary to understand why humans behave as they do in relation to

the environment and their resource use practices (Woodley 1991). As to document local forms of

knowledge and perceptions of water persisted in peoples’ cognitive sphere, relevant mythologies,

folktales, legends, beliefs and any kinds of cosmological projections concerning river should be

compiled and contextually analyzed. Methodologically, this can be done through a combination of

in-depth interviews, everyday dialogues, and participatory observation in community ceremonies.

The classic studies of the structure of myth by Lévi-Strauss (1978 and 1987), concerning mainly

with the unconscious nature of collective phenomena, propose that myth is not just fairly-tale; it

contains a message (Leach 1970). For that, structural analysis of myth deserves serious attention in

order to understand cultural logics pervaded in a particular context of society. In the Mekong

15

region, there are at least two important regional myths that have long been known and recited in

several local ceremonies throughout the Mekong communities and lately have been

comprehensively translated to English publications. One is Phadaeng Nang Ai (Wajuppa 1990) and

the other one is Phya Khankhaak (Wajuppa 1996). The Phadaeng Nang Ai, probably the first of Thai-

Isan folktale ever translated into English verse, deals throughout its ‘epic’ the explanation of

regional geography, local place-naming, and more importantly the interpretation of multi-layered

relations between humans and the nature asserted by the beliefs in Buddhist doctrine and

cosmology. Wajuppa (1990: 25) claims that Phadaeng Nang Ai continues to be a cultural force in

Isan tradition as it is still told and performed annually at the firing-rocket-for-rain Bun Bangfai

festivals as well as recited during other occasions throughout the years. In fact, myth is far from

being an idle mental pursuit; it is vital ingredient of practical relation to the environment. For that

reason, Tambiah (1970) in his anthropological work of Isan spirit cults referred to two versions of

the myth of Phadaeng Nang Ai he collected from two local sources followed by his structural

analysis of such myth. Tambiah (1970: 299) came up with conclusion of Phadaeng Nang Ai that

while the plot of the myth overtly predicates an antagonism between man and nature, the

underlying message is the resolution of the relationship between them in terms of fertile union and

sharing of common properties. For Tambiah, the Phadaeng Nang Ai myth portrays what he called

the ‘balance equation between naturalization of human society and the humanization of nature’

(1970: 300) through the narration of triangular contested love of the Naga’s son Pangkee,

Phadaeng, and the princess Nang Ai.

Another folktale which is crucial and probably pointing more directly toward the water belief is the

myth of Isan fertility, Phya Khankhaak or the Toad King. Wajuppa (1996: 11) sums up in her

introduction to the translation of Phya Khankhaak that the verse tale is the story of a toad-like hero

who succeeds in his revolt against the rain god who refuses to send rain to earth. She further

elaborates the relations of the story with the beliefs of Isan people have on natural catastrophes

and the way they cope with such phenomenon, especially flood and draught, through different

ceremonies concerning spiritual practices throughout the year round. The myth itself, as Wajuppa

claims, besides mere entertainment, carries important implications to the Isan people. To mention

a few, the story which show the triumph of a human over a god helps powerless people to have

hope in their lives that some day they may be able to overcome their burdensome problems (1996:

25-26) and while they are still struggle with their water problems, the story explain that god is

responsible for it (1996: 26). However, in careful reading of the myth, it is interesting to see how

16

the ideological set of hydrological knowledge, focusing on rain, is poetically elaborated in the text;

the myth says (1996: 73-74):

Regarding the true history of rain:

“The origin of rain is a great lake, situated in the wide open space in the sky….

… As for Phya Naga kings from surrounding oceans…

We go to seek audience before Phya Thaen every year.

Phya Thaen then instruct all of us Phya Naga kings to play in the great lake,

beating the water with our tails.

Thus, we would splash the water in the great lake making wave the size of mountain

flow down in the air where the water is juggled back and forth by strong wind

before it begins to crash against a million cliffs of Mount Sumeru.

Later it splashes in the air everywhere in Jambu Continent

And then the splashes become hail hurling about in the skies

whereby the wind balances them all around.

At last the hail is melted into falling water which falls amid the precipitating wind

and, in turn, the wind carries drops of water through the clouds.

Humans down in Jambu then call the phenomenon ‘rain’ as always.”

The folklore studies seem to be best in portraying the ideological roots as how traditional

knowledge is formed based on local beliefs. However, as an approach to understand the

complexities of contemporary resource conflicts and the production of ecological knowledge in

policy negotiation, the description of merely folktales and mythologies seem rather political naïve.

The apolitical nature of folkway depiction as a text needs to be complemented and brought into

living social phenomenon by an ethnographic study of how the beliefs, inscribed in text and

recited in sacred ceremonies, actually play in daily life of the people uphold to it. To go further

from just ‘reading’ myth from the paper text, Malinowski (1971) discussed the notion of myth and

its psychological impacts in shaping people mentality arguing that folktales, legends, and myths

must be lifted from their flat existence on paper, and be placed in the three-dimensional reality of

full life. In that regard, myths further need to be located as to understand why and how people still

carry such beliefs and how the beliefs, in turn, shape people mentalities and practices toward their

nature.

Mind Mapping of traditional/existing ways of classifying sacred areas that may lead to the

community conservation. River and its related areas can be considered as not only a geographical

space but, equally important, a socio-cultural one. Local people may or may not draw maps,

however. But that does not ultimately mean that they do not pose a notion of geographical

features. Cognitive maps can be visually charted with assistance of a researcher during an engaging

17

ethnographic study of local spatial classification, regulation, and use.

Human geography provides the understanding of how the local people accumulate, produce,

transform, and articulate their riverine local knowledge related to particular ecological sphere (see

Rigg ed. 1992 and Rigg and Rigg and Stott 1992). Though recent human geographical approach

extensively raises the issue of how local approach in riverine physical classification in specific,

however, it has still been limitations in dealing with the metaphysics and the cosmological

background in shaping people practices toward their physical space. This is not to mention two

existing shortcomings: the apolitical nature of its analysis and the approach itself needs to be

further coped in comparison to, and dealing with, the scientific hydrology in determining the

intricacy of river development politics.

Human-geographical relations are often expressed through different means. The obvious examples

are mapping; be it social mapping, economic, demographic, or topographical mapping. All maps

contain some human perspectives embedded into it. On one hand, people often express their

understanding of space and its related characteristics through maps. Map as a whole is an icon

serves as a metaphoric description of the terrain (Leach 1976, see also Thongchai 1994). But on

the other hand, the produced maps can, consciously and unconsciously, shape people mentality

and understanding of that perceived space as well.

Tribhumi or Three Worlds cosmological map is an excellent cognitive model conveying the relation

between the traditional ideology and living geography in Thailand. The map is based on the

cosmography dated back to the period of old Sukhothai around fourteenth century A.D. The

Tribhumi, according to the cosmography, consist of the Formless Realm, Realm of Forms, and the

Realm of Sensation, all Three Worlds are subdivided into thirty-one hierarchical levels. The

human-beings world rests in the lowest Realm of Sensation so most of the narratives and

descriptions pay special attention to this realm. However, according to the belief, human world

and its natural phenomena are connected with the world above it, having several different spiritual

deities’ overlooking. Reynolds (2006) points out that one of the reasons Buddhist cosmography

fitted so well into mainland Southeast Asian societies is that it included a place for the creatures of

animism. The world where human live on is interestingly narrated as having a Mount Meru as a

center surrounded by eight circular mountain ranges; the last mountain range being the wall of the

universe. The mountains ranges are divided by rough seas inhibited by mythical aquatic animals.

There are many more of the description of the structure of the world arise from this cosmography

18

including the present of different deities, devils, and animals which play different roles in creating

and changing natural phenomena such as rain, thunderstorm, fire, fertility, and changes in

landscape of the earth (see more detailed description of the Tribhumi in Reynolds and Reynolds

1982). Reynolds (in Tambiah 1984) suggests that the Tribhumi provided the Thai with a

classification and a ‘taxonomy of animate existence’

just as systems of botany and zoology did for the

West. However, as Reynolds (2006) claims, the

explanations in the Tribhumi for natural phenomena

such as planetary movement, weather, biological

processes were shaken after the arrival of the

explanations offered by Western science.

Figure 6: Cosmological Map reflecting traditional perception of cultural symbolism and believing systems of mainland Southeast Asian celestial hydraulic society

Referring to some aspects of the Tribhumi cosmology and its application on the local folk cognitive

sphere, Naga: Cultural Origins in Thailand and the West Pacific by Sumet (1988) is also another

interesting study unpacking the relationships between the living human experiences and the

geographical characteristics that the society is based. In Thailand and others places in Southeast

Asia, the book claims that that there is always an urge of the people to create cosmological models

on water whenever there is a chance to do so. The study exhibits Southeast Asia’s water

symbolism reflected on people settlements, old geographical town structures, household

architectures and landscape-based ceremonies which shows that there has always been a constant

attraction to the water element. The obvious example is the local methods of propitiating rain such

as the Bang fai rite practiced with vigor by framers all over the northeast Thailand. The Bang fai is a

rocket made of bamboo with essential decorative symbol of Naga. The inference of the Naga

projectile in Bang Fai festival goes back to the original serpent-cloud releasing the water of life and

as such is connected to the fertility of life on earth (Sumet 1988). Also there are other festivals and

ceremonies that relate to rain, river, and water such as Songkran and Loy Kratong which several

19

traditional practices are examples of the existing symbolism correspond to the physiographic rings

around the central mountain continent in the Tribhumi cosmography. However, there are some

missing links in the study of why the notion or imagination of water symbolism has penetrated, and

still persists, in our experiences since today not many people really understand the idea behind it,

let alone encode the existing traditions that directly related to water. The very questions of why

such mentality still worthwhile conserved and still reproduced by the local people in present

days call for more in-depth ethnographic study.

II. Community conservation/management of river resource through ceremonial

practices

As to go beyond folk studies of myths from text or a fixed narration in understanding people-river

relations, this paper suggests ethnographic study of local myths, rites, and belief systems to

examine water ideology in contemporary context. This will enable us to get insight into the

everyday senses of place and ‘ecological cosmology’ shared among local people. However,

especially in the ream of water cultures, most ethnographic studies seem to be a narration of

community practices focusing on ceremonies and rituals related to water beliefs, but not go far

enough as to analyze how such cultural practices really function in water resource management in

a practical sense.

It has been debated of how anthropologists can study cosmology and other kinds of ideologies as

to understand its pragmatic application on specific issues such as resources management and

community actions. Some suggests the ethnographic study of its representations such as folk

stories, rituals, symbols, and its relations with popular religions as social discourse. Lévi-Strauss

(1987) proposes the study of ritual considered as an ‘acted myth’ or otherwise look at myth as a

‘thought ritual’. Myths as studied by Lévi-Strauss often start out as an oral tradition associated with

certain kinds of religious rituals (Leach 1970). Besides expressed through sacred rites and

ceremonies, Geertz (1973) furthers that culture is also an inter-worked of system of symbol,

shared among a certain group members’ mind and work to characterize the whole system of the

group to some extent. Geertz proposes that practically two approaches must converge if one is to

interpret a culture. The first is through a description of particular symbolic forms as defined

expression, and the other is a contextualization of such forms within the whole structure of

meaning of which they are a part and in term if which they get their definition (Geertz 1980).

Leach (1976), in his introduction to the use of structuralism analysis in social anthropology,

enunciates both points made by Lévi-Strauss and Geertz that the most important area where a

20

kind of material symbolization is in evidence is in religious rituals. Leach proposes that the way in

which concepts in mind such as ‘spirit’ can be externalized is through two means of expression.

The first one is by telling stories or myths in which the metaphysical ideas are represented by the

activities of supernatural beings. The second mean is to creating special material objects, buildings

and spaces, which serve as representations. Both, of course, are interdependent (Leach 1976). It is

important to take local rituals and ceremonies as not only a social performance but also a cultural

institution in expressing people’s ideologies concerning their environments. Formulations and

changes in rituals can represent the ways people mentality toward nature changed. In the same

fashion with ritual operation, therefore, symbolic creations correspond to peoples’ believed entities

relating to river in daily activities and physical edifices need to be observed, interpreted, and

inscribed in a form of ‘thick description’ (Geertz 1973).

Local ceremonies and festivities associated with drought, flood, rain, and fertility. This will allow

us to explore from ideo-pragmatic dimension of how the traditional beliefs still influence the local

practices in resource regulation and conflict resolution. The key ceremonies are as below.

i. Boon bungfai (บุญบ้ังไฟ)

ii. Tao siang khong, Tao mae nang dong (เตาเสี่ยงของ, เตาแมนางดง)

iii. Dueng khrok dueng saak (ดึงครก ดึงสาก)

iv. Long khuang phi faa (ลงขวงผีฟา)

v. Suad khaathaa plaa kho (สวดคาถาปลาคอ)

III. Pragmatic ethnohydrological knowledge on several key aspects

Climate: Temperature and evaporation, rainfall, and climate change. On one hand, climate

factors are keys to regional management of Mekong river especially with the dam projects. On the

other, local observation on climate changes done by the lay people are crucial for their agrarian

activities such as fisheries, farming, food, festivals and so on. Ethnohydrological research focuses

on how people know about the changes, e.g. how they measure the quantity of rainfall each year.

In addition to what and how they know, it is in particular interest of how such changes are related

to their livelihood.

Flows in Mekong mainstream and its tributaries. Seasonal discharge of water in the Mekong is

observed and well-recorded by the various MRC hydrological sites along the river. Hydrographs

21

and charts are always used as to show annual flow of the river. Ethnohydrology research seeks to

understand and explain how the river flow is captured through the eyes and experience of local

riparian.

Floods and Droughts. Floods are normally measured in terms of maximum or peak discharge.

This provides hydrologists/developmentalists with a statistic analysis of water volumes and its

historical incidence throughout the years. For drought, it is considered to be more complex to

predict than floods since it is also concerned with climatological phenomena such as rainfall hence

making the link between wet and dry season hydrology in the Mekong a complicated study. The

issues of floods and droughts should be expressed by the locals and ethnohydrological researchers

should seek to see local approach in determining of both phenomena. The adaptation to such

seasonal changes is important as to see how their existing knowledge can be used to cope with the

changing ecology.

Watershed geography and classification. The MRC has its own way, based on hydrological

geography and development agenda, in dividing the Mekong into six main parts which they call

each a ‘reach’ (MRC 2005a). Hydrological reach can be considered as the way the river is classified

regionally. The attempt of ethohydrological research is to look at how local classification of river

geography is done by the local communities. Besides cognitive geography express through

cosmological myths and folktales, folk classification and terminologies used in explaining of

geographic features of river system is a crucial semantic representation of how people experience a

riverscape based upon their accumulated hydrological knowledge. Far from being able to say that

men classify quite naturally, by a sort of necessity of their individual understandings, Durkheim

and Mauss (1963) suggest that we must on the contrary ask ourselves what could have led them to

arrange their idea in this way, and where they could have found the plan of such remarkable

disposition. Local classification of river system can be considered as a way to understand how local

people conceptualize their ecological space in relations with geographical and cultural aspects.

Lévi-Strauss (1966) advises that some initial order can be introduced into the universe by means of

groupings and that classifying has a value of its own whatever form the classification may take. He

further points out that the role of ethnographic literatures, and the study of classifications, is to

reveal many of such equal empirical and aesthetic values.

Bourdieu (1990), in his analysis of the logic of practical knowledge, develops further discussion

about systems of classification. He points out that classification signifies reconstructing the socially

22

constituted system of inseparably cognitive and evaluative structures that organize perception of

the world and action in the world in accordance with the objective structures of a given state of

the social world. In short, Bourdieu (1990) sees classification as a cognitive instrument fulfilling

the functions that are not purely cognitive. One illustrative example of this approach would be to

study the way local people identify their particular ecological system of ‘river rapids’, using various

distinctive terms such as kang, don, khum, and wern to signify the culturally situatedness of

knowledge in physical space of natures. Moreover, local classifications of the river system, deriving

from both ideological and practical engagements, are usually expressed in accordance with their

traditional cosmology, mythology, sacred entities, and folkways as well as their contemporary

issues of resource rights and tenure. This is a stark contrast to the perception and policy

implementation of the Mekong subregional economic development agencies that see river rapids

merely as submerged rocks endanger to river navigation or an obstacle for hydropower dam’s

water discharge, and hence deserved to be blasted away. This ethnoecological knowledge on

cartography would insert a more detailed, based on a smaller scale of ecosystem, into a river basin

framework of classification. This may lead to a better understanding of impacts of subregional

river development to the local livelihood.

River Transects. In contrast to the watershed classification of water which looks at the river from

the top view, hydrological classification of water surface is a way in which river is charted and

classifies from the vertical or cross-section view. River transect trips will be organized, or may be

researchers just accompany, the local riparian people and the hydrologist on different occasions

but focusing on the same geographical area. The river transect can be used as a basic evaluation of

how knowledge of the same geography can be understood through different experiences of

different people. The findings is hoped to show the analogy and well as diversity - the knowledge

interface (Mahiri 1998) - of ecological knowledge of water.

Figure 7: Scientific Surface Water Classification (Musy, 2001)

23

Local hydrological modeling. Hydrological engineers use mathematical equations to ‘model’ real

world behavior of river as they can predict what will happen to a system if the factors mentioned

above are changed (MRC 2005a). MRC has designed their own ‘modeling package’ called Decision

Support Framework (DSF) along with other hydrological models to make it possible to investigate

the environment and socio-economic impacts of changes in the quantity and the quality of the

river system brought about by changing circumstances with the river basin (MRC 2005a). In

contrast to that mathematic, computer-based approach, ethnohydrological research seeks to come

up with the local way and how riparian people examine and estimate the overall relationships of

above aspects together as expressed as their mode of thought. The question like how the local

people forecast weather and river changes based on their experience will be tackled. This is further

linked with how decisions have been made in river management and conservation locally.

References Agrawal, Arun. 1995. ‘Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge’ in Development and Change (26): 413-439. . 1999. ‘On Power and Indigenous Knowledge’ in D.A. Posey (ed.) Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. London and Nairobi: Intermediate Technology Publications/United Nations Environment Program. Amundson, Ron. 1982. ‘Science, Ethnoscience, and Ethnocentrism’ in Philosophy of Science 49(2): 236- 250. Berkes, Fikret. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice, translated by Nice, Richard. Cambridge: Polity Press. Demaine, H. 1990. ‘Magic and management: methods of ensuring water supplies for agriculture in Southeast Asia’ in P. Stott (ed.), Nature and Man in Southeast Asia. London: SOAS. Durkheim, Emile and Mauss, Marcel. 1963. Primitive Classification, translated by Needham, Rodney. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Forsyth, Tim and Walker, Andrew. Forthcoming. Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyer: The Politics of Environmental Knowledge in Northern Thailand. Frake, Charles O. 1962. ‘Cultural Anthropology and Ethnography’ in American Anthropologist, New series 64 (1): 53-59. . 1971. ‘The Ethnographic Study of Cognitive Systems’ in Anthropology and Human Behavior. Washington: The Anthropological Society of Washington. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

24

. 1980. Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Goodenough, Ward H. 1957. Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics. Georgetown University Monograph Series on language and Linguistics, No. 9, 167-173. Gragson Ted L. and Ben G. Blount (eds.). 1999. Ethnoecology: Knowledge, Resources, and Rights. Athens and London: The University of Georgia Press. Leach, Edmund. 1970. Lévi-Strauss. Fontana: Collins & Co Ltd. . 1976. Culture & Communication: The Logic by which Symbols are Connected. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. . 1978. Myth and Meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. . 1987. Anthropology and Myth, translated by Willis, Roy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. McCully, Patrick. 2001. Silenced River: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams, enlarged and updated edition. London and New York: Palgrave. Mahiri, Ishmail O. 1998. ‘The Environmental Knowledge Frontier: Transects with Experts and Villagers’ in Journal of International Development, 10, 527-537. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1971. Myth in Primitive Psychology. Connecticut: Negro University Press. Mekong River Commission. 2005a. Overview of the Hydrology of the Mekong Basin. Vientiane:

Mekong River Commission.

. 2005b. Modelled Impacts of Scoping Development Scenarios in the Lower Mekong basin. Vientiane: Mekong River Commission.

Missingham, Bruce D. 2003. The Assembly of the Poor in Thailand: From Local Struggles to

National Protest Movement. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. Musy, André. 2001. e-drologie. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale, Lausanne, Suisse. Nader, Laura (ed.). 1996. Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. New York and London: Routledge. Nazarea, Virginia D (ed.). 1999. Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Local Lives. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Pinkaew Laungaramsri. 2002. Redifining Nature: Karen Ecological Knowledge and the Challenge to

the Modern Conservation Paradigm. Chennai: Earthworm Books.

Reynolds, Craig J. 2002. ‘Thai identity in the age of globalization’ in Reynolds, Craig (ed.) National Identity and its Defenders: Thailand Today. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. . 2006. Seditious Histories: Contesting Thai and Southeast Asian Pasts. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Reynolds, Frank and Mani B. Reynolds. 1982. Three Worlds According to King Ruang, A Thai Buddhist Cosmology. Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series. Berkeley: University of California.

25

Rigg, Jonathan (ed.). 1992. The Gift of Water: Water Management, Cosmology and the State in South East Asia. London: School of Oriental and African Studies: University of London. Rigg, J and Stott, P.A. 1992. ‘The Rise of Naga: The Changing Geography of South-East Asia’ in G.P. Chapman and K.B. Baker (eds.), The Changing Geography of Asia. London: Routledge. Scott, Colin. 1996. ‘Science for the West, Myth for the Rest? : The case of James Bay Cree Knowledge Construction’ in Nader, Laura (ed.). Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. New York and London: Routledge. Slikkerveer, L.J. 1999. ‘Ethnoscience, ‘TEK’ and its Application to Conservation’ in D.A. Posey (ed.) Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. London and Nairobi: Intermediate Technology Publications/United Nations Environment Program. Southeast Asia Rivers Network, Assembly of the Poor, and Pak Mun Dam affected people. 2004. The Return of Fish, River Ecology, and Local Livelihoods of The Mun River: A Thai Baan (Villager’s) Paper. Southeast Asia Rivers Network. Sturtevant, William C. 1964. ‘Studies in Ethnoscience’ in American Anthropologist, 66(3): 99-131. Sumet Jumsai. 1988. Naga: Cultural Origins in Thailand and the West Pacific. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Tambiah, Stanley J. 1970. Buddhism and spirit Cults in North-East Thailand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1984. ‘The Buddhist Cosmos: Paradise Lost, Gained, and Transcended’ in History of Religion, 24(1): 73-81. Thongchai Winichakul. 1994. Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-body of a Nation. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. Wajuppa Tossa (trans. and ed.). 1990. Phadaeng Nang Ai: A translation of a thai-Isan Folk Epic in Verse. Cranbury: Bucknell University Press. (trans.). 1996. Phya Khankhaak, The Toad King: A Trnaslation of an Isan Fertility Myth into English Verse. Original transcription by Phra Ariyanuwat. Cranbury: Bucknell University Press. Walker, Andrew. 2001. ‘The ‘Karen Consensus’, Ethnic Politics and Resource-Use Legitimacy in Northern Thailand’ in Asian Ethnicity, 2 (2): 145-162. Warren, Dennis M. and Meehan, Peter M. 1977. ‘Applied Ethnoscience and a Dialogical Approach to Rural Development’ in Anthropology and Humanism Quarterly 2 (1): 14-16. American Anthropology Association. Woodley, Ellen. 1991. ‘Indigenous Ecological Knowledge systems and Development’ in Agriculture and Human Values, winter-spring. World Bank. 2004. Modelled Observations on Development Scenarios in the Lower Mekong Basin.

Vientaine: World Bank. Yos Santasombat. 2003. Biodiversity, Local knowledge, and Sustainable Development. Chiang Mai:

Regional Center for Social Science and Sustainable Development.