Theory of the Introduction of Shogi via Southeast Asia: Viewed from the Forms of Makruk Pieces

This study by Yasuji Shimizu examines whether Japanese Shogi reached Japan via Southeast Asia, a hypothesis first proposed by Alex Randolph in 1971 and based on three shared features with Thai Makruk: the placement of pawn-equivalent pieces on the third rank, the movement of the Silver General-type piece, and the reversing of promoted pawn-equivalent pieces. The author focuses on the third feature, the reversing rule, as the key prerequisite for the Southeast Asia theory, and argues that the first two commonalities are not decisive, since a Xiangqi predecessor with third-rank placement and a Silver General-like piece in twelfth-century northern India both weaken the case for a Southeast Asian origin.

The core empirical work consists of morphological analysis of Makruk pieces from three collections. Fourteen pieces at the Bangkok National Museum, attributed to a Si Satchanalai kiln in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, were identified by form, glaze, and a plausible complete set of piece types. Kalong pieces from Chiang Rai Province, from a kiln dated to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, were examined for reversibility, and a set of Buriram pieces from the twelfth to early thirteenth centuries was also studied. Identifications rely on comparison with modern Makruk sets and on physical testing of whether pieces stand stably when reversed. The author acknowledges the limitations of unprovenanced purchased pieces and the absence of burial sets.

The principal finding is that no reversible Bia piece appears among the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Kalong pieces, suggesting that the reversing rule was not established in Lan Na Makruk in that period, while a single possibly reversible quadrangular Bia piece appears among the Buriram pieces. The author concludes that the study does not definitively refute the Southeast Asia theory but does weaken its foundations, and that the reversing rule's origin in Southeast Asia is not supported by the material evidence examined.