The second volume of Performing arts and the royal courts of Southeast Asia carries on the thematic focus from its predecessor, published in the same year, but from a slightly different angle. Still framing the region’s various royal court performing arts as pusaka or heirlooms, this volume ‘embarks on a critical engagement with contemporary manifestations of royal court traditions and present-day performance renditions’ (p. ix). As a concept, pusaka is activated consistently well throughout the volume, which is commendable given the vastly diverse subjects covered as well as the issues raised by each contributor.

The volume opens with Ricardo Trimillos’s introduction that addresses the heterogeneous yet shifting forms, meanings, and values of the royal courts and their related performances in Southeast Asia. On the one hand, Trimillos’s thought-provoking chapter sets up an overarching link between the chapters that follow. On the other hand, it signals the readers to brace for the impact of increased specificity in the works presented by the rest of the contributors.

The volume consists of 13 chapters. Each is written by scholars and artists who are experts in their respective fields. The chapters are listed linearly without any sub-theme groupings. From the outset, the geocultural distribution is heavily tilted towards maritime Southeast Asia, comprising as many as 11 chapters. Of these chapters, the royal court performances in what is today Indonesia receive the greatest attention. Inserted between these topics is a chapter dedicated to a dance in the Sulu Archipelago and another on the martial arts in Singapore. The other two chapters that represent mainland Southeast Asia are both on the court music of Central Thailand.

Scholarly work on the performing arts in Singapore is relatively few compared to the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia. To have a chapter about Singapore is a welcome inclusion. Even so, maritime performing arts in Southeast Asia have long dominated the scholarship in the region. This volume — also its prequel — seems to reaffirm this persisting trend. Considering the ubiquity and the influence of the royal courts in mainland Southeast Asia, as well as Editor Mayco Santaella’s ‘conscious effort’ to ensure balances among the contributors in terms of insider-outsider, artist-scholar, and gender (p. ix), the disproportionate geocultural representation is disappointing.

Besides the descriptive and historical details on the various royal court performing arts, some contributors have raised important conceptual comments and critiques. M.C.M. Santamaria’s sweeping critical examination of slippery notions of the royal courts across Southeast Asia (pp. 88–90), Deborah Wong’s insightful observation on the ‘empirical logic’ that underpins Thai classical music scholarship (p. 156), Made Hood’s remarks on lineage-based historical consciousness (pp. 182–6), Sumarsam’s thoughts on the court-village interplay that challenges the Western-derived classical art and folk art distinction (pp. 228–9), and R. Anderson Sutton’s discussion on the discursive aspect of the Javanese court arts (p. 273) are notable examples.

In line with the pusaka concept, cultural changes and the tradition-innovation conundrum are the main issues that capture most of the contributors’ focus. As inevitable as these issues may be when it comes to examining the royal courts, they unidirectionally steer several chapters to be inward-looking and contextually niche. These are not necessarily a let-down, but readers may find the chapters fragmented and be left hungry for more of a big-picture reappraisal of performing arts and royal courts in Southeast Asia beyond their immediate tradition. It is as though each contributor conceptualises royal court performing arts as pusaka in several different directions. Some do so explicitly; others do so in passing, with Trimillos’s introduction being the only thing that holds these chapters together.

Since the chapters are as diverse as they are self-contained, they are best read separately. Binge readers may struggle with the depth of the contextual specificity related to the various royal court performing arts featured in this volume. The much-needed, meticulously done glossary as well as the index towards the volume’s end will serve as a valuable referencing resource for both well-versed and unfamiliar readers.

In sum, the second volume of Performing arts and the royal courts of Southeast Asia will benefit readers who are interested in the topic, whether from the arts, humanities, social sciences, or inter- and trans-disciplinary standpoints. Students and scholars in ethnomusicology, ethnochoreology, Southeast Asian studies, and other related fields specialising in the region’s maritime area will find the content in this volume — as well as those in its prequel — particularly inspiring. Unfortunately, those working on or are interested in mainland Southeast Asia may have substantially less area-based information and ideas to glean from this volume, but they can still take advantage of some of the conceptual theorisations that are applicable region-wide. Performing arts and the royal courts of Southeast Asia, volume two provides a stern reminder against reducing these performances as relics of the bygone feudal past. As pusaka, these performances still inform the history, society, culture, and the reality of the peoples in Southeast Asia today.