This paper presents a list of typical properties of of Central/ Eastern (C/E) Indonesia, covering roughly geographical area between Lombok and Papua. It focuses on those characteristics that set apart C/E Indonesian from Austronesian toward west. A synthesis of recently published data on C/E Indonesian languages, present paper provides an updated typological window on an area that is relatively under-represented in Austronesian research. It is argued that a typological characterization of a linguistic area like this can be used as a heuristic tool in comparative research. Because area under consideration is geographically defined, data do not have any direct bearing on issues of genetic subgrouping. Nevertheless, because all but one of features listed here are those of Austronesian languages, they may be used to formulate hypotheses about higher-order genetic affiliation of a language whose affiliation to a particular family (e.g., whether Austronesian or not) is yet uncertain. This is especially relevant for C/B Indonesia as a contact zone of with different (or unknown) genetic affiliations. How list of typological features may be used to formulate specific hypotheses about contact-induced linguistic chance is illustrated. ********** 1. INTRODUCTION. This paper presents an initial typological characterization of of Central/Eastern (C/E) Indonesian region, roughly covering geographical area east of Lombok and west of Papua. The core sample of referred to in this paper are Austronesian Muna (Sulawesi, Van den Berg 1989), Tukang Besi (Sulawesi, Donohue 1999), Bima (Owens 2000), Keo (Flores, Baird 2002), Kambera (Sumba, Klamer 1998a), Bum (Moluccas, Grimes 1991), Alune (Moluccas, Florey 2001), Leti (Moluccas, east of Timor, Van Engelenhoven 1995), Teun, Nila, and Serua (Moluccas, NE of Timor, Van Engelenhoven, to appear), Fehan Tetun (Timor, Van Klinken 1999), Taba (Halmahera, Bowden 2001), and Biak (N of Bird's Head, Steinhauer, to appear). The locations where these are spoken are indicated on map in figure 1. There are several ways in which an overview such as this may be useful for Austronesian linguistic research. First, because it is a synthesis of data on C/E Indonesian that have become available in past decade, it presents an updated typological window on C/B Indonesian languages. Second, existing typological characterizations of Austronesian incorporate either characteristics of Western Austronesian and Oceanic (e.g., Clark 1990, Tryon 1995), or of Austronesian in Papua and Papua New Guinea (e.g., Voorhoeve 1994, Ross 1996, Foley 1998). The typical characteristics of C/B Indonesian do not feature in these overviews. The list of features presented here may be used to fill this gap in our typological picture of Austronesian languages. Third, a typological overview of a linguistic area can be used as a heuristic tool in comparative research. Traditionally, most of comparative research in Austronesian linguistics has a diachronic orientation: it aims at establishment of genetic relations between languages, and reconstruction of protoforms. This paper, however, takes a synchronic approach to comparative research by making typological and areal comparisons. In this context, it is important to point out that synchronic and diachronic comparison are mutually dependent rather than competitive approaches. For example, although genetic relationships are established by classical comparative method, it is also well known that the comparative method is not a heuristic: ...when applied to vocabulary, it does not demonstrate relatedness, but simply assumes relatedness and proceeds to describe relationships between daughter languages (Nichols 1996:40, emphasis mine). …