Journal of the Siam Society; 91

Citation preview

JSS

Presidents of the Siam Society 1904-1906 1906-1918 1918-1921 1921-1925 1925-1930 1930-1938 1938-1940 1940-1944 1944-1947 1947-1965 1965-1967 1967-1968 1968-1969 1969-1976 1976-1979 1979-1981 1981-1989 1989-1994 1994-1996 1996-1998 1998-

Honorary Members Dr Piriya Krairiksh Prof. Prawase Wasi Prof. Dr Prasert Na Nagara Thanpuying Putrie Viravaidya Mr Dacre F.A. Raikes Prof. Michael Smithies Dr Sumet Jumsai Mr Term Meetem H.E. Dr Thanat Khoman Dr Thawatchai Santisuk Prof. Dr Klaus Wenk Prof. David K. Wyatt

The Siam Society under Royal Patronage 131 Sukhumvit Soi 21 (Asoke), Bangkok 10110 Thailand

Volume 91, 2003

Since its inception, the Society has amassed monographs, journals, and material of scholarly interest on Thailand and its neighbours. The Society’s library, open to members, has one of the best research collections in the region. Information is given at the end of the volume on how to become a member for those interested in Society’s library, lectures, tours, publications and other benefits.

Tel: (+662) 661 6470-7 Fax: (+662) 258 3491 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.siam-society.org

Cover JSS

1

The Siam Society, under Royal Patronage, is one of Thailand’s oldest and most active learned organizations. The object of the Society is to investigate and to encourage the arts and sciences in Thailand and neighbouring countries. Since the Society established its Journal in 1904, it has become one of the leading scholarly publications in South-East Asia. The Journal is international in outlook, carrying original articles of enduring value in English. The Society also publishes its Natural History Bulletin.

Volume 91, 2003

H.E. Mr Anand Panyarachun Dr Warren Y. Brockelman Mrs Virginia M. Di Crocco Mr James V. Di Crocco Ven. Phra Dhammapitaka Mr Euayporn Kerdchouay Prof. Dr. Yoneo Ishii Dr William J. Klausner Mr Henri Pagau-Clarac Dr Hans Penth Mr Pierre Pichard

The Journal of the Siam Society

Mr W.R.D. Beckett Dr O. Frankfurter Mr H. Campbell Highet Mr W. A. Graham Prof. George Cœdès Phya Indra Montri (Francis Giles) Major Erik Seidenfaden H.H. Prince Dhani Nivat H.R.H. Prince Wan Waithayakon H.H. Prince Dhani Nivat H.H. Prince Prem Purachatra H.S.H. Prince Ajavadis Diskul Phya Anuman Rajadhon H.R.H. Prince Wan Waithayakon Prof. Chitti Tingsabadh H.S.H. Prince Subhadradis Diskul M.R. Patanachai Jayant Dr Piriya Krairiksh Mr Athueck Asvanund Mr Bangkok Chowkwanyun Mrs Bilaibhan Sampatisiri

The Siam Society

The Journal of the Siam Society 9/8/05, 8:52

The Journal of the Siam Society

[47-03-067] P(1)-(6)CONTENT

1

9/8/05, 8:53

Patrons of the Siam Society Patron His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej Vice-Patrons Her Majesty Queen Sirikit His Royal Highness Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Her Royal Highness Princess Galyani Vadhana Krom Luang Naradhiwas Rajanagarinda Honorary President Her Royal Highness Princess Galyani Vadhana Krom Luang Naradhiwas Rajanagarinda Honorary Vice-President Mom Kobkaew Abhakara na Ayudhya

Council of the Siam Society, 2002 - 2004 President

Mrs Bilaibhan Sampatisiri

Vice-Presidents

Prof. Krisda Arunvongse Na Ayudhya Mr Athueck Asvanund Mr Paul G. Russell

Leader, Natural History Section

Dr Weerachai Nanakorn

Honorary Secretary Honorary Treasurer Honorary Librarian Honorary Editor, JSS Honorary Editor, NHB

Dr Woraphat Arthayukti Mr Kenneth L. White Mrs Sharon O’Toole Dr Dhiravat na Pombejra Dr Warren Y. Brockelman

Members of Council

Dr Christopher J. Baker M.R. Chakrarot Chitrabongs Mr Patrick Corcoran Mr Gordon Huntly Dr Saranarat Kanjanavanit Mr Harald Link Mrs Mira Kim Prachabarn Mr James Rooney

[47-03-067] P(1)-(6)CONTENT

2

9/8/05, 8:53

The Journal of the

Siam Society Volume 91 2003

[47-03-067] P(1)-(6)CONTENT

3

9/8/05, 8:53

Editorial Board Dhiravat na Pombejra Euayporn Kerdchouay Kanitha Kasina-ubol Michael Smithies

The Editorial Board would like to apologize to Society members and JSS readers for the delay in the publication of this issue, and hopes the next will appear in a more timely fashion. May 2004

© The Siam Society 2003 ISSN 0857-7099 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the Siam Society. The Journal of the Siam Society is a forum for original research and analysis. Opinions expressed in the Journal are those of the authors. They do not represent the views or policies of the Siam Society. Printed by Amarin Printing and Publishing Public Company Limited 65/16 Chaiyapruk Road, Taling Chan, Bangkok 10170, Thailand. Tel: (662) 882-1010 Fax: (662) 433-2742, 434-1385 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.amarin.co.th

[47-03-067] P(1)-(6)CONTENT

4

9/8/05, 8:53

The Journal of the Siam Society Volume 91

2003

Contents Articles HELEN JAMES Trade, Culture, and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

1

SUSAN TALBOT Before Angkor : Early Communities in Northeast Thailand

74

HANS PENTH On Rice and Rice Fields in Old Lan Na

90

MICHAEL SMITHIES Eclipses in Siam 1685 and 1688, and their Representation

189

MARCO RONCARATI Health Care Development in a Changing Thai Society: Beyond the Physical

205

DAVID SMYTH Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam: from Silent Movie to Novel?

223

Note LUIGI BRESSAN The First Printed Sentence in Thai: 1646

241

Reviews Michel Jacq-Hergoualc’h The Malay Peninsula: Crossroads of the Maritime Silk Road (100 BC-1300 AD) Reviewed by Stuart Munro-Hay

245

Sao Saimong Mangrai The Padang Chronicle and the Jentung State Chronicle Reviewed by David K. Wyatt

247

Edmund Roberts and W.S.W. Ruschenberger Two Yankee Diplomats in 1930s Siam Reviewed by Stephen J. Young

248

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P(1)-(6)CONTENT

5

9/8/05, 8:53

v

vi

Contents

Tarmo Rajasaari Vapour Trails: Tales from rural Thailand Reviewed by John Haylock

251

Ashley South Mon nationalism and Civil War in Burma: The Golden Sheldrake Reviewed by Bertil Lintner

252

Benedict Anderson, ed. Violence and the State in Suharto’s Indonesia Reviewed by Michael Smithies

255

John N. Miksic, ed. Earthenware in Southeast Asia: Proceedings of the Singapore Symposium on Premodern Southeast Asia Earthenwares Reviewed by Dawn F. Rooney

258

Nicola Tannenbaum and Cornelia A. Kammerer, eds. Founders’ Cults in Southeast Asia: Ancestors, Polity, and Identity Reviewed by Karl E. Weber

261

James T. Siegel and Audrey R. Kathin, eds. Southeast Asia over Three Generations. Essays presented to Benedict R. O’G. Anderson Reviewed by Karl E. Weber

265

Obituary H.S.H. Prince Subhadradis Diskul Former President of the Siam Society 1979-1981

273

Notes about contributors

274

Notes for contributors

277

Recent Siam Society publications

280

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P(1)-(6)CONTENT

6

9/8/05, 8:53

TRADE, CULTURE AND SOCIETY IN THAILAND BEFORE 1200 AD Helen James

Abstract This paper discusses the development of the vibrant sociocultural complexes inhabiting the geographic area between the Mekong and the Salween river systems in pre- and proto-historic times up to 1200 AD. Our knowledge of these cultures has increased in recent decades thanks to the multidisciplinary research undertaken by Charles Higham, Dhida Saraya, Srisakra Vallibhotama, Bennet Bronson, Donn Bayard and others whose work has complemented that of the linguists, art historians and scientists to bring to life the sophisticated societies which evolved on the Khorat plateau in northeast Thailand, in the Chao Phraya valley, and on the peninsula of southern Thailand long before the declaration of independence from the Khmer overlord at Sukhothai in the mid-thirteenth century. Far from being a vacuum with little social, cultural or political development, we now know that these socio-cultural complexes had extensive intra-regional, interregional, and international trading networks complementing their own indigenous developments, long before the appearance of the Greco-Roman trading ships in the harbours of the Coromandel and Malabar coasts of India in the first and second centuries AD. The pattern of indigenous relationships gave rise to the early Bronze and Iron Age civilizations in this region and made these socio-cultural complexes a cornerstone in the reinterpretation of Thai history. Introduction The geographical area now delineated by the nation state, Thailand, had a sophisticated cultural history characterized by complex interregional, intraregional and international relationships long before the officially constructed SukhothaiAyutthaya-Bangkok march of modern history minimized the socio-cultural developments of earlier times. An anthropological approach enables us to put a framework around these pre-Sukhothai socio-cultural complexes, in an attempt to locate Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

1

9/8/05, 8:54

1

HELEN JAMES

2

their destinies amidst the long established international trading, transportation and communication networks which have linked human societies east and west since pre-historic times. The focus on trade, culture and society enables us to set the continuum of human experience in the area in international perspective. Early twentieth century histories of Thailand promoted the view that the Thais had migrated from either north or south China in the ninth or thirteenth centuries to escape either the upheavals in Nanchao or the Mongol invasions. Multidisciplinary research has discredited this theory. The T’ai did not ‘come’ from anywhere suddenly to take over the country in the thirteenth century. They were already established in mainland Southeast Asia centuries, perhaps even millennia, before their appearance in the historical records. They were just one of many ethnic groups who had inhabited socio-cultural complexes in the region since at least 10,000 BC. It is now accepted that the early peoples in pre-historic mainland Southeast Asia developed an autonomous society and culture, distinct from Indianization or Sinicization. This battle no longer has to be fought. The much vaunted Greco-Roman trading interest in India from the first to third century AD, was only the latest in a series of international trading relationships between the area we now call the Middle East and the Southeast Asian region since about the fourth millennium BC, driven perhaps by the surge to interaction with other human groups. The riverine cultures of mainland Southeast Asia facilitated the trade and communication networks which provided the synergies for socio-cultural development in the area. The ancestors of the Austronesian and Austro-Asiatic peoples moved into the fertile river valleys, whilst in the uplands other ‘hill tribe’ peoples continued to develop their societies within eco-systems which reflected an earlier way of life. Whether these diverse peoples moved down the river valleys as is the current view, or up the river valleys to escape flooding of the Sunda shelf, they developed separate linguistic capacities and distinctive local cultures across a wide area from the Yangtze River basin to India, Indonesia and the Pacific. Mainland Southeast Asia is now perceived to have made a major contribution to the development of socio-cultural complexity in the pre-and proto-historic eras leading these robust and innovative societies to take the initiative in developing intraregional and interregional commodity exchange networks to as far away as prehistoric Japan, Korea and Madagascar. Environmental changes impacted significantly on the socio-cultural complexes evolved by the earliest humans, causing much movement throughout the region. Some 40,000 years ago the early Australoids were expanding into New Guinea and Australia; others were moving into the Austronesian homelands even before the period of major Austronesian expansion after 4000 BC. Our knowledge of their material and spiritual cultures is still evolving. When and how language capacity developed is still debated as are the mechanisms of social

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

2

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

3

interaction within and between foraging bands, essential to the evolution of speech capacity. Early human communities did not exist in splendid isolation. The social and religious interactions of these subsistence economies were carried out across extensive regional networks, through marriage ties between communities and expressed in ritual and the ritualized art of their rock paintings, crafts and jewellery. The ethno-linguistic cultural history of these early human communities, delineates the common linguistic heritage of the Austro-T’ai/Thai-Kadai-Indonesian language families geographically dispersed across a wide region south of the Yangtze River to Hainan Island, Southeast Asia and Assam. The early domestication of rice, prehistoric ceramic technology, an indigenous bronze and iron metallurgy mark the cultures of northeast and central Thailand contemporaneous with the civilizations in the Euphrates, Nile and Indus river valleys during the third millenium BC. Unlike the peoples of these Middle Eastern civilizations, those of the Bronze Age in northeast and central Thailand left no inscriptions, no traces of their language or linguistic heritage, no stone or brick monuments, temples or palaces as did the later proto-historic period. Evidence from the linguistic heritage of the Mon and Khmer peoples who did leave inscriptions, remnants of stone or brick monuments, temple complexes, Buddhist amulets and artefacts, together with records of the Chinese dynastic histories enables us to visualise the structural developments from agricultural societies to urban complexes which were taking place in the region since the mid-first millennium BC. Early human habitats and the development of socio-cultural complexity Since the 1960s Thai/Danish archaeological expeditions revealed that human habitation at Ban Kao and Sai Yok in Kanchanaburi Province was continuous from at least 12,000 BC, intensive research into the pre-history of Thailand has recognized the important contribution of mainland Southeast Asia to our understanding of the development of socio-cultural complexity. Wooden burial coffins found here with urns containing charred remains accompanied by grave gifts of ceramics, bronze lime containers, beads and a decorated bronze bell belonged to a culture based on exploitation of the riverine and forest environment by people whose primary pursuits were fishing and shellfish gathering. An illpreserved human skeleton of an adult from the Homo sapiens group, small in stature, found lying on its back, was a member of the Hoabinhian culture occurring in a wide geographic range from South China to Malaya, reaching to Southeast Australia, and Tasmania (Van Heekeren 1961, 105–106). The 1962 excavations led to the conclusion that the neolithic culture of the Ban Kao area at Lawa and Chande Caves, shared a common culture with the Lungshan culture of northern China, for every type of artefact known from Lungshan was also discovered at the Bang site

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

3

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

4

(Nielsen 1962, 14). Rock paintings in a shelter some 500 metres above sea level at nearby Tam Roop, or Picture Cave, are thought to have been a shrine or holy place for the people of this culture (Nielsen 1962, 14; Knuth 1962, 21) consistent with such ritualized art in other Hoabinhian and neolithic sites. At Ban Kao occupation continued from earliest cultural sequence through to the appearance of historic material. These discoveries, complemented by those at 20 sites in northeast Thailand excavated in 1963 by Professor William G. Solheim and his team, and subsequent expeditions by Thai and international experts, provided clear evidence of a widespread Hoabinhian stone age hunting and gathering culture often associated with rock shelters and caves extending from southern Thailand around present day Krabi at Lang Rongrien and Moh Kiew sites to the west, north and northwest from Kanchanaburi, to Lampang and Mae Hongson. What were the origins of the people who lived at Ban Kao and Sai Yok? Modern research using mitochondrial DNA analysis applied to the remains of the earliest Southeast Asian found on the banks of the Solo River more than a century ago, proved that Java Man, Homo erectus, was a relative of the Homo sapiens who originated in Africa 150–120,000 years ago (Thomas 1993, 5; Richards et al, 1993, 18–26). Their common ancestors are thought to be only 200,000 years old. It has been theorized that between 120–90,000 years ago Homo sapiens moved out of Africa, supplanting Homo erectus and Homo sapiens neandertalis as they crossed over the Late Pliocene land bridges from that early cradle into Asia (Chamberlain 1991, 138, 143), thence spreading around the globe (Leakey 1999, 34). The alternative multiregional theory, which traces human origins to populations of Homo erectus in Africa, Europe and Asia, claims that the fossil record supports morphological continuity on a regional basis for the transition to Homo sapiens (Thomas 1993, 5). Remains from north China suggest that Homo erectus may have continued here long after the archaic Homo sapiens had evolved further in the west (Stringer and McKie 1996, 44). Thus it is thought that the history of the development of the hominid family has most likely not followed a linear trajectory, but may have involved some form of hybridization between those who came out of Africa and the local archaic populations (Tattersall 1999, 25). Comparing the European and East Asian morphological sequences Reynolds suggested that marked behavioural changes occurred in the period 50,000–30,000 years ago both in the Eurasian region and in the Middle to Late Stone Age transition in Africa for it is at this time that symbolism and identity seem to appear in the archaeological record on a broad basis, perhaps indicating new environments in which groups ‘mapped’ themselves through the use of material culture and constructed networks of information, material and mate exchange in a system of long-term interdependence leading to changes in socio-cultural relationships (Reynolds 1991, 163). According to the theory of expansion of Homo erectus out of Africa and across Asia it is thought that present

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

4

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

5

day northern Thailand around Lampang is likely to have been on their migration routes. Of the dozen confirmed Pleistocene epoch sites identified in Southeast Asia those in southern Thailand at Lang Rongrien and two villages near Lampang, northern Thailand (Ban Mae Tha and Ban Don) contribute much to our understanding of how these early humans interacted with their environments. Excavations undertaken in 1978 and 1986 by G.G. Pope and Surin Pookajorn at Ban Mae Tha and Ban Don Mun revealed evidence of hominid occupation dating to 700,000 years ago. Further evidence of hominid occupation of Thailand in this early Pleistocene epoch was found in a limestone cave at Khao Pah Nam also in Lampang province. Here the flaked stone tools were found with animal bones—wild cattle, tiger, deer, hippopotamus, and hyaena—but still no hominid bones such as have previously been found in China, Indonesia and Vietnam. The remains of charred hippopotamus bone were found near what appears to be a hearth. None of those animals found today in thick rainforest was present. It has been suggested that this early hominid habitat may have occupied a fairly open deciduous woodland, reflecting the dramatic changes in climate which have taken place in Southeast Asia since the early Pleistocene epoch. The next evidence for hominid occupation occurs in southern Thailand in a rock shelter at Lang Rongrien, Krabi province. It represents a timelapse of half a million years from the Lampang sites during which time Homo sapiens had evolved from the early hominids. Occurring in a similar limestone karst tower situated between two rivers, the remains of charcoal in nine hearths excavated in 1983 by Douglas Anderson have been dated between 38,000 and 27,000 years ago. Across three phases of occupation, some 45 stone artefacts were found, together with charred animal bone, two hearth areas lined with stone, and a grooved deer antler. Reynolds (1990, 112) believes that these finds demonstrate the existence of a flake-based industry preceding the Hoabinhian in Thailand and are similar to the artefacts of the Ngoum industry in Vietnam from about the same date. More recently Stephane Ducrocq has written of Siamopithecus eocaenus, a new species of late Eocene anthropoid primate, some remains of which recovered from excavations at two sites in the late Krabi basin of southern Thailand are similar to those of the Burmese Eocene anthropoids, Pondaungia cotteri, found at Pondaung in northern Burma (Myanmar). Since the fossil record of anthropoid primates in Southeast Asia is scarce, these finds in Thailand and Myanmar represent a significant contribution to the argument for a probable Asian radiation centre (Ducrocq 1999, 613, 635). In the late Pleistocene, 50,000 to 12,000 before the present, the timespan to which the Lang Rongrien site belongs, Homo sapiens had to adapt to four climate changes. Periods of cooling associated with expansion of the continental ice sheets and decrease in rainfall produced a lower sea level. In Southeast Asia, one such

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

5

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

6

period 22,000 to 16,000 BC resulted in Malaysia, most of Indonesia and much of the Philippines being joined to the mainland. The changes in rainfall and the monsoons would have placed southwestern Thailand and the Malay peninsula in a rainshadow leading to the formation of a savanna-like grassland environment in the southern peninsular zone. It is likely there was no rainforest in Thailand at that time (Anderson 1989, 107). The flora and fauna available to the people of this habitat would have been typical of the savanna grassland: turtle, pig and deer, rhinoceros and wild cattle, the bones of which have been found at the Lang Rongrian site and other Pleistocene sites in Southeast Asia. Bands of hunter gatherers would have hunted the fleetfooted animals of the forest, the various species of monkey, deer and wild pig, and squirrels, for which they would have needed to develop spears, bows and arrows or blowguns (Anderson, 1989). Since no remains of these items have been found, it is thought they were fashioned from bamboo, or other organic materials which have not survived. These hunter-gatherers would have gathered roots, fruits and nuts to supplement their diet. It is now recognized that plant foods were a substantial part of the diet of early man in Southeast Asia (Steele 1994, 127). Population levels were apparently low in the Pleistocene epoch, and remained so either through disease or predators, or the limited technology to obtain food resources to support the population. It is likely that the groups lived in widely separated areas to allow the possibility of ranging over considerable territory in search of big game items for food. For these forays, cooperation within the group, or even between groups, would have been necessary to secure the larger animals. Such cooperation and the sharing of the game caught among the group has been perceived to have a social function as well as a public good. Foraging forays were not only to feed the nuclear family members within the larger group, but also sharing the goods within the hunter-gatherer group attracted favorable attention and social benefits from other group members (Hawkes 1993, 341, 347). The thin layers of cultural materials on the floors of caves and rock shelters suggest brief occupations as the groups moved from place to place. Did the various groups engage in intertribal trade to obtain the raw materials for their prehistoric implements? Ranging over considerable territory, they would have had the opportunity to spot the raw materials needed for the flaked stone tools used for slicing flesh, animal skins and plants, or the less glassy stones such as quartzite and cobbles for chopping or pounding, perhaps exploiting networks of reciprocity (Kennedy 1977, 35) to acquire the needed items. Anthropologists now recognize the extensive communication networks implicit in the dispersal patterns suggested by the lithic and other material remains of early man. In recent years there has been increasing attention to the social relationships of early hunter-gatherer and hunter-fishermen communities, their gift exchange systems, genetic units and possible patterns of dispersal from the natal Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

6

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

7

group (Steele 1981, Hawkes 1993). Together with these issues goes the question of how and when language capacity developed in Homo sapiens as debate continues on the evolution of central brain structures and peripheral, speech-producing musculature. Deliberately controlled vocalization would have preceded articulation of a recognizable spoken language (Steele 1981, 128). Well-developed communication networks and considerable social interaction both within foraging bands and with other bands would have been essential to the evolution of speech capacity. It is no longer possible to view these early hunter-gatherer communities as existing in splendid isolation within a self-sufficient subsistence economy throughout the long centuries of the Palaeolithic. The new paradigm of huntergatherer social organization emphasises flexibility and adaptability by small bilateral kinship groups whose loosely defined sense of territory, high residential mobility, lack of sophisticated technology, little or no accumulation of wealth and investing of prestige in leaders (not chiefs) according to personal attributes may account for the longevity of this culture (Renouf 1984, 18). Thus there is increasing attention to early man’s development of, and integration into, extensive regional networks, the marriage ties between communities, his social and religious interactions, use of ritual and ritualized art as evidenced by the rock paintings, the development and maintenance of asymmetrical male-oriented gender relations, unequal gender controlled division of labour, and imposition of power modes on putatively egalitarian socio-cultural norms (Whitely 1994, 362, 367). As the archaeological record begins to show evidence of notions of descent, rituals associated with the main activities of life–birth, marriage, death, feasting, acquisition of a preferred item, success in the hunt, the seasonal cycle–became more complex, more frequent, and supported the emergence of notions of leadership and status. The Hoabinhian village cultures and the appearance of agriculture Along an arc of sites on the northern and western rim of the Thai-Burmese (Myanmar) border Hoabinhian village cultures exhibit various aspects of the gradual appearance of a sedentary society among the hunter-gatherer societies. Since Chester Gorman’s investigations in June 1966 at Mae Hongson revealed four distinct periods of human habitation at the Spirit Cave dated 11,000–5500 BC many further Hoabinhian rock shelter cultures have been found in the Banyan Valley and at Tham Pa Chan (Steep Cliff Caves) beyond Mae Hongson which exhibited pottery sherds, cordmarked and plain, fragments of a polished adze, flaked pebble tools, fragments of rice chaff, stone tool culture, sumatraliths,1 short axes 1

‘A unifacial discoid stone tool, usually made from a slice of a large pebble, found in Southeast Asia, and northern Sumatra, typical of Hoabinhian sites.’ Encylopedic Dictionary of Archaeology, ed. Kipfer, 541. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

7

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

8

and hammers, remains of shellfish, fish and animals—the badger, rhinoceros and deer–all similar to those found at the Spirit Cave. Remains of canarium nut, gourd and bean in a time sequence younger than that at the Spirit Cave, 3500–2000 BC in the lower two levels, and 900 BC–900 AD in the first level showed that this hunter-gatherer culture continued into the first millennium AD. Exploration of the caves in the Nam Khong basin by Kiernan, Spies and Dunkley in 1988 revealed another 31 previously unreported Holocene epoch sites which yielded a rich variety of artefacts including prehistoric pottery, sherds, and large wooden coffins made from teak and pine, some with human remains, which were found at 26 of the sites. Some sites contained typically Hoabinhian assemblages of stone tools and intermittent occurrence of ceramics possibly obtained by exchange with other sedentary groups. All the sites occur in, or are adjacent to, dry limestone caves or rock shelters high on the sides of ridges. Prehistoric postsheds in 13 of the sites included both flared pots and shallow unflared dishes made from a coarse compound of oxidized organic matter. Impressed cord is evident in the sherds. Other pots were decorated by incising the clay with a sharp object (Kiernan, Spies and Dunkley 1988, 24–29). Small bronze bells with a rounded dome and spiral design on the face were also found, as well as eight heavily corroded iron bracelets and beads of stone or ceramic. Three phases of occupation are represented here, an Early Hoabinhian, a Later Hoabinhian and an overlapping different cultural group responsible for the coffins and associated artefacts called the Nam Khong Coffin Culture. This was a group which seemed to have some acquaintance with metallurgy, or had contact with other metal-using groups as evidenced by the bronze bells found in association with the split log coffins. We could ask were the people of this culture the ancestors of the present day Lawa who live in villages south of Mae Hong Son and who still bury their dead in split log coffins and make cordimpressed pottery (Kiernan, Spies and Dunkley 1988, 30–42). A stone tool manufacturing complex found at 19 sites in the Nan River basin by Pautreau, Santoni and Prischanit possibly served the surrounding region. Other Hoabinhian culture sites occur in the valley of the River Ping, northern Thailand, in the Pha Chang rock shelter at Ob Luang, and on the Mae Chaem stream. On the cave walls of the Pha Chang rock shelter are two series of paintings of which those in red, now hardly visible, are thought to date from prehistoric times, perhaps exhibiting the hunter’s perspective noted in the rock art of a pre-pottery seventh millennium BC neolithic excavation at Dhuweila in eastern Jordan (Betts 1987, 215). The rock art of prehistoric peoples is now considered a reflection of the social processes of the groups including the roles of the emerging shamans and their attempts to exert control over the resources of the group (Dowson 1994, 332–345). The similar range of animal remains at each of the Hoabinhian sites suggests that the cooperative hunting techniques used by the Pleistocene cultures con-

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

8

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

9

tinued to be utilised to provide the main sources of food—wild pig, species of deer and monkey, wild cattle and rhinoceros—as staple sources of protein. Intensification in the early Holocene may indicate that the need for wide-ranging settlements had diminished owing to changed approaches to food acquisition. The inland Hoabinhian sites yield evidence of fresh water molluscs and land snails being included in the diet; coastal sites include bivalves, intertidal and marine gastropods. During this broad-spectrum revolution,2 the wider range of faunal remains indicated a greater variety in the diet of the people. The polished stone axes and adze blades found at the Spirit Cave and Sai Yok may have been implements developed to help with clearing forests for some sort of intentional planting. Locality seems to have been of more importance to the Hoabinhians than it was to the early hunter-gatherer communities. Raw materials for their stone tools were taken from the local stream cobbles or rocky outcrops. The pattern of occupation seems to have become fixed on a particular river valley. Considering the range of Hoabinhian sites in Thailand, Reynolds suggests stages in this cultural development from Early Hoabinhian, to Hoabinhian with pottery and adzes both included in Neolithic sites. It is possible to look at these Hoabinhian cultures as one facet of a more complexly organized society where certain extractive tasks were carried out by small groups in ‘Hoabinhian localities,’ whilst occupation in the lowlands and larger valley floors may have involved forest clearance and swidden agriculture giving a ‘centre and periphery’ pattern in the archaeological context (Reynolds 1990, 113). The wider range of plant foods gathered also indicates that Hoabinhian people had become more conscious of the nutritional value of wild plants. Although it is still unconfirmed whether the early Hoabinhians practised rudimentary agriculture, they clearly knew the value of beans, gourd, pepper, butternut, candle nut. They may not have intentionally disturbed the soil to enhance the production of these plants, yet the various fruits and nuts may have already begun to evolve genetically under the force of climate change and natural selection as cultivated organisms. Yet the pottery does suggest that the Hoabinhian groups were inclined to establish permanent settlements, for pottery, which breaks easily, is not very portable. Anderson (1989) has pointed out that use of pottery implies an attachment to a locale having suitable clays for its manufacture, and that the vessels could be used for storage of plant foods. Whilst most of the Hoabinhian sites are in rock shelters, where the potsherds have been found, no evidence of their having been made in the rock shelters has been found, leading to the assumption that open

2

‘A theory relating to a subsistence change occurring in western Asia which involved a range of foodstuffs, smal mammals, invertebrates, aquatic resources, and plants in the Late Pleistocene as a prelude to the Neolithic revolution.’ Kipfer, 80. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

9

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

10

air sites may have been used for firing the pottery, unless it came from trading with other groups. As a technocomplex,3 the Hoabinhian extended across a vast area from the equator in Sumatra to the Tropic of Cancer in southern China. Its agricultural status is attested to only in northern Vietnam and northern Thailand, at the Spirit Cave (Bellwood 1985, 164). Plant domestication was probably never ‘invented’; its principles were probably known to the hunter-gatherer communities long before evidence for plant cultivation appears in the archaeological record. Surin Pookajorn’s subsequent investigations of the hunter-gatherer caves in Kanchanaburi, 4.5 km north of the Kwae Noi River where he found the remains of Hoabinhian stone tools, animal, shellfish and plant remains in layers dating from 8000–1000 BC, flaked pebble tools and black burnished potsherds cord-marked and incised similar to the nearby Neolithic site at Ban Kao led him to suggest there was some sort of interaction between the original hunter-gatherers and perhaps newly arriving groups of rice agriculturalists. He suggests the Hoabinhian people who occupied Khao Talu, Ment and Heap caves were culturally and ethnically distinct from the villagers of the Neolithic site of Ban Kao and that the pottery found in the Late Hoabinhian technocomplex was not their product, but a product of the Neolithic villagers and may be considered an item in this trade (Pookajorn 1990, 22). The occurrence of pottery, potsherds thus may be associated with permanent or semi-permanent communities of both hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists. His view concurs with that of Headland and Reid, that late Holocene huntergatherers were engaged in inter-ethnic trade with neighbouring communities and often undertook some form of sedentism (Headland and Reid 1989, 49). If Pookajorn is correct, the movement of the pottery from the source to the end-user group may imply amicable relationships, or even a shared set of social values (Zeitlin 1994, 208– 209). What items we may ask, did the hunter-gatherer community exchange for the pottery? A second Hoabinhian ecological environment occurs in coastal milieux associated with shell middens where deforestation and the rise and fall of sea levels have had extensive impact. At the sites of Nong Nor, Noen U-Loke and Ban Lum Khao in the flood plain of the Bang Pakong River, Chonburi province, the archaeologist is interpreting settlements built on marine environments, flood plain deposits, or old river channels. Considerably different expectations of what the life and culture of the people may have been like therefore emerge. Thick sedimentary deposits mark where the rivers met the sea. Many prehistoric sites dot the former coastline as human occupation followed the retreating shoreline. Occupied on two 3

‘a group of cultures characterized by assemblages sharing a polythetic range. Each of the cultures in the group has different specific types of the same general family of artifacts. Each shares technological artefacts developed in response to common factors in the environment and economy.’ A Dictionary of Archaeology, eds. Shaw and Jameson, 566. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

10

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

11

occasions, the Nong Nor site gives evidence of a later Bronze Age culture on top of the earlier Hoabinhian culture, for the shell midden had been cut into by the graves of the later culture. Since the site covered only about 1,200 metres square, Higham concluded that it would have supported only a few families who may have spent much time canoeing out to the line of breakers and the open sea, as the presence of both shark and dolphin bones attest to the success of their fishing and hunting expeditions. Yet these coastal hunter-gatherers apparently made pottery impressed with cordage, for the one burial found, that of a woman interred in a seated, crouched position, was covered with pottery. The site yielded many thick deposits of ashes where the pottery was fired, and scratched stones used in burnishing the surface of the unfired pots. Since the site had no fine-grained stone, it has been suggested that the polished adzes found were items traded with other communities living inland. By contrast, the site of Khok Phanom Di on the flood plain of the Bang Pakong River some 14 km north of Nong Nor provides evidence of extended occupation over 17–20 generations (Higham, Bannanurag, Mason and Tayles 1992, 54). Over five hectares in size and rising 12 metres above the surrounding countryside, it had once been much nearer to the sea. It gave evidence of many human burials with pottery inclusions in the grave sites as well as evidence of rice being present. Based on the time line for occupation and the interrelationship between the geomorphology and the marine environment, it has been concluded that the marine embayment on which Nong Nor was built silted up after the sea had retreated and that some time later—perhaps some five centuries—a large estuary had formed further north, attracting people some 20 generations later to the site of Khok Phanom Di. It is estimated that Khok Phanom Di was occupied for about five centuries from 2000 BC. By comparing the bone tools and pottery shapes, designs and firing techniques, researchers came to the conclusion that the same culture persisted at Khok Phanom Di as had been present at Nong Nor. In both cases imported sandstone was used in sharpening adzes, and pottery was made by the paddle and anvil technique. The people of this culture buried their dead first beside, then over each other in clusters. The corpse was placed on a wooden plank or bier and wrapped in sheets of white fabric made from bark or naturally occurring asbestos. The dead were buried with the head to the east and often accompanied by pottery, disc beads, cowrie shells, bangles of fish vertebrae or other grave goods such as rhinoceros and deer teeth. In the second mortuary phase, bodies were sprinkled with red ochre (Higham et al 1992, 39). The population of Khok Phanom Di suffered from anaemia/ thalassemia and did not live long. Infant mortality was high in mortuary phases 1–3. Some 42 percent of 98 individuals died within a few weeks of birth whilst another 17 percent died within the first five years of life. After mortuary phase 4, the pattern changed from 26 percent under five years to 20 percent between the

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

11

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

12

ages of five and fourteen. Higham attributes the causes of this pattern in the early phases to malaria and haemoglobinopathy, whilst in the later phases exposure to malaria had reduced, enabling longer survival of those with the genetic blood disorder. This variation in the pattern of infant mortality may coincide with the major environmental change when the river changed its course directing the main river channel away from the site (Higham et al 1992, 48). The bone structures of the people were well-developed possibly from their canoeing and pottery activities. Although in the earlier burials the disposition of grave goods showed no distinction between male and female, by the later phase some distinction is apparent. Thus a man was buried with a turtle carapace, whilst a woman was accorded a clay anvil for making pottery, both doubtless highly valued items in the culture of this community. Perhaps these were their personal belongings during life, or do the grave goods indicate belief in an after-life? Burial sites from the later phases suggest that the people of this culture experienced a growth in wealth over the five hundred years of its occupation as evidenced by the interred grave goods. One woman was buried with 120,000 shell beads, pots, a clay anvil and two burnishing stones. The grave of an infant lying next to her also included thousands of beads and a miniature clay anvil. Both had exotic, heavy shell ornaments (Higham 1990, 6). A later site suggests possible distinction in social structures evolving, for a raised chamber was used as the burial monument for three apparently wealthier individuals, whilst those less well endowed, as identified by the quality of the grave goods, were laid out before the chamber in a wooden building. Across the five hundred years of its occupation before it was abandoned about 1600 BC, Khok Phanom Di may have experienced several phases of alternating freshwater and saline-mangrove conditions aligning with the fall and rise of the sea level. At times of freshwater culture, it may have been possible to cultivate rice, but this would have ceased once the saline conditions returned. In such times, it is possible that trading relationships with inland communities developed to make up the loss of income, and hence the changing environment could have stimulated production and greater variety of goods for exchange. These appear to have included the harvesting knives and jewellery made from shellfish, and pottery, in exchange for which they obtained ivory and slate. The community at Khok Phanom Di appears to have been a well established stable culture able to profit from the rich sources of food in the riverine estuary and the marine environment. It also had developed trading relationships with other inland communities to exchange the products of the anvil and the ocean for their mutual benefit. Given this maritime/ estuarine economic orientation, it is possible that the people of Khok Phanom Di were not particularly receptive to agricultural innovation, preferring to leave that to other communities further inland. From his analysis of pollen and charcoal remains Maloney (1991, 91–94) believes there is strong evidence for human

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

12

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

13

impact on the vegetation in the upper parts of all cores coinciding with the known occupation of Khok Phanom Di, strongly indicative of rice cultivation in the cultural history of the occupants of this area by 2000 BC. Rice usage, if not cultivation, is evident by about 4300 BC at this site. Once the site of Khok Phanom Di became part of the intertidal zone, the salinity of the area would have prevented rice cultivation, necessitating a move inland for such activity. Maloney considers that initial evidence for disturbance of vegetation as shown by the rise of Lygodium and microfossil charcoal began before 5300 BC; that a decline in sea level about 4300 BC was accompanied by intensified clearance, possibly associated with rice cultivation. The diet as evidenced by the food residues found in the later mortuary phases indicates high consumption of rice together with crustacea, shellfish, leafy green vegetables such as swamp cabbage, bananas and coconuts—a well balanced diet. The presence of the beetle, oryzaphilus surinamensis, found in stored products including rice, suggests that the people took precautionary measures against food shortages. (Higham et al 1992, 46). We note that Donn Bayard (1970, 1971) had assigned a date of 3500 BC for the remains of charred grain and husk impressions in pottery from the Non Nok Tha site. Taken together with the discovery of rice remains by Chester Gorman at the Spirit Cave dated some 10,000 BC the investigations at Khok Phanom Di and Non Nok Tha help to develop a picture of rice using/cultivating peoples extending across a large part of Southeast Asia from south of the Yangtse River by around 5000 BC. Although earlier claims by Solheim(1972) and Sauer (1952) that this area of Southeast Asia took a leading role in the origins of agriculture have been disputed, there is no doubt that it was one of the non-centres of plant domestication along with India, parts of Africa and tropical South America (Mannion 1995, 5, 18).Thus domestication of rice is seen as a process rather than a sudden event and the rice remains from various Hoabinhian sites in Thailand including Banyan Valley, Non Nok Tha and Khok Phanom Di could exhibit significant intersite differences representing stages in the evolutionary process (Yen 1982, 51–53). It is quite possible also that there is no clear point of transition to an agricultural way of life. While some groups became agricultural communities, others did not, and yet others only partly so. Climate change, temperature and rainfall increase in themselves would have considerably influenced the development of plant species and perhaps altered the nature of the soils, thus creating an environment conducive to plant tending. Protection and maintenance of wild populations of food plants may have been the first stage beyond foraging (Limbrey 1990, 46); the move to being settled may have been a social response to increasing demand for production (Bender 1978, 215) perhaps stimulated by the desire to trade or barter the surplus for items not produced in the home community (Mannion 1995, 11). In Thailand the many excavations of the past decades show us that there

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

13

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

14

was a widespread and established Neolithic age rice culture in Thailand from the Khorat plateau of the northeast to the east and the central plain. Did this evolve independently, or was it brought by rice cultivators from the Neolithic cultures of the Yangtze valley of central China? In the village of pile dwellings at Hemudu, Hang-chou Bay, dated around 4,500 BC are the most extensive rice deposits yet found, extending in a vertical layer a meter thick. Until the finds at Peng-tou-shan, they were the earliest known record of domesticated rice. The material culture at Hemudu is consistent with a similar range of material culture from the Neolithic communities of northeast Thailand. Paul Benedict’s (1942) reconstruction of the ethno-linguistic cultural history of these Neolithic communities, proposed an Austro-T’ai grouping in which T’ai-Kadai and Austronesian language families shared a common linguistic heritage with a group of languages spoken on the southern Chinese mainland. His list of common terms is consistent with the items found at Hemudu and other southern Chinese Neolithic age sites. K. C. Chang notes that the Spirit Cave in northwestern Thailand is in exactly the same ecosystem as that of south China. The stone artefacts, cordmarked pottery and plant remains are consistent with those of the Neolithic sites in southern China at the Tseng-p’i-yen site. Clearly, the Southeast Asian ‘non-centre’ including the Yangtze valley, experienced a shared culture based on common items of domesticated plants and animals, rice growing, pile houses, weaving, and pottery in the timeframe 6500–3500 BC. The rapid and large scale increase in population supported by the agricultural economy may have provided the momentum for the phenomenal Austronesian expansion (Bellwood 1995, 98). It is possible that the initial expansion of Austronesian and T’ai-Kadai languages, and also Austroasiatic, began among Neolithic rice-cultivating communities south of the Yangtze basin with a date range consistent with the archaeological record of around 5000 - 4000 BC. Amongst the ban4 of northeast Thailand and the Khorat plateau, the first agricultural communities would have needed to take into account the sharp seasonal variation in rainfall. Bounded by the Mekong River on the east and watered by the river systems of the Mun and the Chi rivers and the smaller streams of the Sakhon Nakhon valley in the far northeast, the region has produced extensive evidence of Neolithic rice farming communities. In the valley of the Chi River, at Non Nok Tha, the 1966–68 excavations of Solheim, Bayard and Parker revealed a fully substantiated rice farming and Bronze Age culture. From 17 burials in the bronze age cemetery—two female adults, two male adults and 11 children from one to six

4

These are villages, or clusters of villages closely associated in material culture and social organization the remains of which testify to a non-nomadic lifestyle from the late Hoabinhian through the Neolithic; many continued into the later more complex Bronze and Iron Age socio-political structures. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

14

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

15

years—the pottery, shell disc beads, stone adze heads and grinding stones amongst the grave goods date to 2,000–1,500 BC. One woman was accorded a necklace of two strands of 642 shell disc beads and two tubular stone beads (Higham 1998, 78). The excavation showed that the people of Non Nok Tha had herds of domesticated cattle and pigs, kept dogs, and varied their diet with fish and shellfish from the local stream and game from the forest. Since no goods of exotic origin were found, their absence might favour the view that this indigenous rice farming community had simply evolved from the earlier hunter-gatherer socio-cultural context. Rice chaff in some of the earliest potsherds indicate cultivation of this cereal at this site. Do the shell disc beads reflect a degree of societal development or trading pattern with a coastal community? Certainly, Non Nok Tha seems to be one of those self-sufficient, culturally diverse communities within a common cultural tradition, which survived within its own ecological niche as did other Neolithic rice farming communities in northeast Thailand excavated at Non Kao Noi and Non Praw. Ban Kao is another link in the pattern of evidence for widespread occurence of a rice farming agriculture in Thailand in the late Neolithic age. At this site its practice is inferred from the presence of stone and shell sickles and quern stones. The earliest levels of material excavated at this site have been dated by radiocarbon methods to 2,000 BC. Wheatley suggests that together with Non Nok Tha and Ban Chiang, Ban Kao represents a rice farming culture in a lower-piedmont environment in which padi was part of an ecosystem based on vegeculture and domesticated cattle. Padi may have been still supplemental to the overall cycle (Wheatley 1983, 85). Whilst it may be true, as Higham has stated, that to date there is no confirmed archaeological sequence proving a local transition in Thailand from Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer communities to Neolithic farming communities (Higham 1998, 76), neither do we have irrefutable evidence that this transition did not happen. Perhaps there never was an exact transition, but rather a process of fusion, or selective integration of the newer and older ecosystems. Examination of the skeletal remains at Ban Kao indicate that the people were of the same Mongoloid phenotype as those found in northeast Thailand (Pietrusewski 1982, Bellwood 1985). Some apparently suffered from beta-thalassemia - Hemoglobin E disease, widespread even today in the indigenous Mon-Khmer populations of Southeast Asia, but absent in China (Bellwood 1978, 170). It is likely that the Ban Kao culture involves a high degree of indigenous innovation by an Australoid people who spoke a language akin to the modern Austroasiatic language family and that they shared this with other agricultural populations across Thailand, Indochina and the Malaysian peninsula spreading south in the third millenium BC (Bellwood 1985), along the major waterways. At Ban Kao is found the rare Neolithic tripod pottery similar to that at sites

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

15

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

16

in southern Thailand, in the upper layers of the Lang Rongrien site, and at six tripod pottery complexes in Malaysia including one at Jenderam Hilir (Leong Sau Heng 1990, 65). Prior to Sorensen’s discoveries at Ban Kao and Sai-Yok, the tripod pottery had been unearthed at the cave site near Buang Bep, Suratthani in southern Thailand (Evans 1931), at two Malaysian peninsular sites at Gua Baik near Sungai Siput in Perak, and Gua Berhala in Bukit Kepelu at Kodiang in northeast Kedah. Leong Sau Heng reports six sites are now known, identified by the presence of this tripod pottery including the new sites at Jenderam Hilir in south Selangor, Bukit Cangkul and Gua Gergasi in Perlis. He believes it is possible to speak of a tripod pottery complex in peninsular Malaysia. Laboratory analysis using X-ray fluorescence of the clay showed that the tripod pottery found at Jenderam Hilir, Gua Berhala and Bukit Cangkul was made from local clays in each case. He suggests that this tripod pottery itself was not traded; it was the technology and distinctive pottery style which was spread from place to place (Leong Sau Heng 1990, 67). He concludes that the tripod pattern represents a distinct local regional form and that these tripod pottery vessels are quite different from the Lungshanoid and Lungshan tripods of China. If he is correct, then this tripod pottery represents a distinct cultural feature amongst the Neolithic communities on the southern arc from Ban Kao to Jenderam Hilir. Might not other Neolithic technological changes, even that of domestication of rice, have been similarly dispersed as an early example of technology transfer without the element of inflows of new population groups from elsewhere? Neolithic and Bronze Age agricultural socio-cultural complexes also occur in the Lopburi region. Gorman had pointed out that no pre-metal age communities had been found in the central plain and that it is possible that wet padi farming on lowland alluvial plains was stimulated by the later Iron Age technology of the first millenium BC. The results of recent research in the Khao Wong Prachan valley, 15 km north of Lopburi, revealed evidence of Neolithic settlements extending into Bronze Age cultures at Non Pa Wai, Non Mak La, and Tha Kae. At Non Pa Wai radiocarbon dating suggests that an agricultural way of life was established here by 2,300 BC (Higham 1998, 79). At Non Mak La, the material culture of the people included pottery vessels in the form of a cow, and jewellery of greenstone, marble and shell. Pottery vessels were used as the burial urns of infants. In the Neolithic phase of the Tha Kae site, pottery vessels were placed at the head and feet and under the knees of the dead, who were buried with a north-south orientation. The variety of jewellery including shell beads, bangles and earrings, marlstone and turtle carapace bangles, and tridacna shell bangles made by removing the central core suggest that Tha Kae may have been an early industrial complex for this type of personal adornment. Did they trade with the coastal and marine communities such as that at Khok Phanom Di, to obtain the raw material for the items they

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

16

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

17

made? Another smaller excavation at Phu Noi, 40 km to the north carried out by Natapintu (1988) revealed a similar concentration of personal jewellery among the grave goods in 32 inhumations. This jewellery was also made from turtle carapace, ivory and exotic stone. Amongst the pottery vessels were animal figurines similar to those at Non Nok Tha. Again there is the strong suggestion of an established exchange network in the second millenium BC amongst these Neolithic communities. This inference is strengthened by the shell jewellery, beads and shell head ornaments, trochus bangles and rings, two conus shell rings, marble and green stone ornaments found at the site of Khok Charoen in the valley of the Pasak River. It is certain that by the middle Holocene (6,000 to 4,000 before the present) villages dependent on subsistence farming had appeared in many locations across the northeast, the central plain and on the western escarpment, and whilst hunting/ gathering and fishing continued to contribute to the food sources of the growing population, rice cultivation provided the impetus for increasing socio-cultural complexity. One is tempted to see here a developing Neolithic interaction zone similar to that posited by K. C. Chang during the fourth and third millennia BC among the Lungshan Neolithic cultures of the Shantung peninsula and middle Yellow River valley in China (Chang 1986, 243–286). Chang considers this a time when the self–sufficient Neolithic village based communities, which were the primary living units, were experiencing accelerated social organization spurred on by constant and intensive communication across regional borders (Chang 1986, 287). The ceramics which appear in Neolithic cultural sequences demonstrate great variation; improved kilns and the potter’s wheel enabled the potters to refine their wares. Metal objects in copper, trinkets and small tools also appear. These are the same developments found across the Neolithic villages of Thailand. Chang notes that the Lungshanoid cultures found in the middle and lower Yangtze River valley had reached the southeast coast of China during the third millennium BC (Chang 1986, 288–289). Similarly, together with domestication of animals such as the dog, pig, cattle and chicken, the rise of the sophisticated cultures on the Khorat plateau was accompanied by the development of metallurgy. Industrial complexes of the Bronze and Iron Age muang Since the first material evidence for the development of metallurgy based on an indigenous Bronze Age culture in northeast Thailand was uncovered in the upper Chi River basin at Non Nok Tha in 1966 by Professor William G. Solheim and further excavations in 1968 revealed an extensive Bronze Age cemetery here, many more investigations in the valley of the Chao Phraya, at Ongbah Cave by Sorensen in northern Thailand, and at Ban Na Di by Higham at Ban Don Ta Phet by Glover and others have considerably added to our knowledge of the industrial

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

17

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

18

complexes underpinning the economy of this Bronze and Iron Age civilization which occurred in a cultural sequence dating from at least 3600 BC (White 1990, 125). In the mortuary site at Non Nok Tha were socketed bronze axes and bronze bracelets together with the implements to make them—sandstone moulds and clay crucibles—indicating that the artefacts had been made locally, not imported. Preliminary dating suggested that the bronze artefacts of Non Nok Tha were in the range 2300 BC, making this centre even earlier than that of the Vietnamese Bronze Age culture at Dongson in the Red River valley. Numerous Bronze Age sites occur in northeast Thailand in the valley of the Songkhram River including the World Heritage listed site at Ban Chiang now agreed to extend across a cultural sequence since the fourth millennium BC. Analysing the data from the 1975 excavations by the joint University of Pennsylvania and Thai Fine Arts Department team and taking into account data from other sites at Ban Na Di and Non Nok Tha, White presented a revised chronology for the Bronze Age culture of Ban Chiang which posits an early phase from 3600–1000 BC (subdivided into six phases); a middle phase from 1000–300 BC; and a late phase 300 BC–300 AD (White 1986). Ban Chiang seems to have been the hub of several technologies—pottery, jewellery, textiles, bronze and iron metallurgy—supporting the economy of this Bronze Age civilization, contemporaneous with the agricultural villages of Baluchistan at the end of the fourth millennium BC, with the Harappa/Mohenjo Daro culture of the Indus river valley during the third millenium BC and those developing in the river systems of the Nile and the Euphrates in the Middle East (Basham 1961, 11–18). Unlike the people of these Middle Eastern civilizations, those of the Bronze Age in northeast and central Thailand left no inscriptions, no traces of their language or linguistic heritage; no stone or brick monuments, temples or palaces such as have come down to us from the later proto-historic period. The remains of citadels found at Harappa and Mohenjo Daro thought to have been used for both religious and governmental purposes (Basham 1961, 15) are notably absent from the Bronze Age cultures spanning northeast and central Thailand. Their evolution from agricultural Bronze Age ban to the Iron Age muang and early formal state polities has to be inferred from other evidence, both material and spiritual. What were the people like who lived here during this long cultural sequence? From almost 130 burials revealed during the 1974–75 excavations, the remains of 45 male skeletons and 39 female skeletons indicated that the people were quite tall, ranging in height, for males, from 165 to 175 centimetres, and from 150 to 157 centimetres for females. The physical bone structure was robust, indicating a healthy diet. They had broad faces with wide foreheads, high brow-ridges and narrow eye sockets, with prominent cheekbones (Natapintu 1996, 48). Studies by Pietrusewsky (1982) of the cranium and dental remains indicate that the females had well rounded foreheads broader than that of their male counterparts. The people had long legs

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

18

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

19

and were of a muscular build, apparently given to squatting as a preferred mode of sitting. They had short lives, few living beyond 27 years of age in the earlier phase; or up to 34 in the later phases. In the early phase up to 15 percent of infants under five years old died. The people suffered from arthritis and anaemia and possibly vitamin deficiency. Pietrusewsky observed that the most frequently occurring pathological condition was the thickening (porotic hyperostosis) of the cranial vault bones often associated with anaemia. Another was osteoporosis or the fine pitting on the external surfaces of the cranial vault associated with anaemias and vitamin deficiency. Whilst the results of dental pathology reveal that the people suffered from gum disease and caries indicating a diet high in carbohydrates (Rogers 1996, 21), close examination of the skeletal remains has uncovered only a few traumainduced bone maladies (Pietrusewsky 1982, 46). Archaeologists have therefore concluded that the people living in the Ban Chiang culture enjoyed a relatively peaceful existence. The dead were buried stretched out or in a crouching position in the early and middle periods; and in the supine position in the late period. Infant burial in jars was practised only in the early period. Complete pottery was interred with the adult burials in the early and late periods, often placed at the foot or head of the dead, but only broken pots and shards were used to cover the body during the middle phase of the culture. Other grave goods included bronze and later iron objects, jewellery, beads, necklaces and carved clay rollers. Investigators have found a wide range of differences in the grave goods among various burials suggesting that social differentiation was marked among the people of Ban Chiang (Natapintu 1996, 52). In the earliest phase of the Ban Chiang culture people already practised rice farming, possibly rattoon cultivation of rice5 (Wheatley 1983); rice chaff was used to temper the clay pottery. There is evidence the people had domesticated animals such as pigs, cattle and dogs. Their diet was supplemented by fish and shellfish from the waterways; they hunted and trapped deer and other mammals. The possibility that the people of Ban Chiang may be relatives of the prehistoric peoples who dispersed throughout Oceania is supported by Pietrusewsky’s examination of the skeletal remains of 123 individuals from Ban Chiang and comparisons with samples from other mainland Southeast Asian sites. Pietrusewsky (1982, 48) claimed that the ancient inhabitants of Ban Chiang may represent some of the earliest ancestors of the Austronesian population which colonized the Pacific. His investigations give added credence to those of Somsak Phansomboon (1957) whose investigations of blood groups in the population of present day Thai led him to conclude that the Thai had in fact migrated from the south rather than the north, to their present home and that two or three thousand years ago they had left Indonesia to 5

A process of propagation by shoots from the main plant (as with bananas). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

19

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

20

move to the regions of southern Thailand and the central Chao Phraya River system. Whilst this remains an intriguing theory, such scientific investigations are consistent with the findings of other disciplines, notably linguistics, archaeology and anthropology, and now lead to the view that the basic linguistic and cultural affinities of not only the Ban Chiang civilization, but also of the T’ai peoples is Austronesian. Another significant cultural affinity is found in the style of houses which the Ban Chiang people seemed to favour. From the postholes which occur, White (1990) has proposed that their houses were built on piles similar to those found in many northeastern Thai villages today (and also at Hemudu in the Yangtze River valley contemporaneous with Ban Chiang) and widespread amongst Austronesian peoples, the same style as is found on the Dong Son drums. The geographic spread of this Bronze Age Austronesian culture therefore seems to encompass an east-west set of cultural affinities reaching across the Mekong and Red River valley systems into the lower reaches of the Yangtze River system of present day southern China. Examining the pottery technology and based on an analysis of artefacts present in several funerary levels, White believes that the three cultural sequences at Ban Chiang are characterized by particular types of pottery. Thus in the early phase are found footed, cord-marked pots with incised designs on the shoulders; infant burial in jars and other pots with incised designs; cord-marked pots with slender necks; straight sided beakers; round cord-marked pots with incised and painted decorations on the shoulders. In the middle phase the pottery includes carinated pots6 with incised and painted designs; white carinated pots; carinated and round bottom (carobel) pots with thick red rims. The late phase is marked by the familiar buff-coloured pots with red painted designs, red pots with red painted designs and red burnished pots. Since 1983 the investigators of the Museum of Applied Science Centre for Archaeology at the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, have proposed that the ceramic technology of Ban Chiang focused on two main techniques: the coil and slab, and lump and slab techniques. Both started with a circular flat base of clay to which coils were added if the coil and slab method was being applied, or a cylinder shaped ‘lump’ of clay was added if the other technique was preferred. After the first process, the whole was shaped by a paddle and anvil and finally open-fired at temperatures of 500–700 degrees centigrade. Natapintu (1996, 51) considers that pottery was part of the very early prehistoric Ban Chiang culture since its inception about 3600 BC and continued down to the late phase of the culture. From these very early black and dark grey pots incised

6

‘A stylistic feature producing a sharp break or angle in the curve of the profile of a pot or vessel which results in a sharply angled shoulder dividing the neck from the body of the vessel.’ Kipfer, 95. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

20

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

21

with curvelinear and rock-stamped designs, the ceramic technology evolved to the attractive red and buff designs of the late phase, 300 BC–300 AD. Amongst the spiral designs some 100 spiral formed paintings have now been identified as part of the skill base of this technocomplex. Do the three cultural phases marked by differences in the pottery styles indicate increasing socio-cultural complexity, as Underhill has proposed for the Lungshan period in northern China? (Underhill 1991, 12–27) Archaeologists have paid much attention in recent years to how changes in mode of production may indicate changes in the socio-political organization. Thus prehistoric communities are thought to utilize the household or household industry mode, often carried on by the female members of the family, which then may have evolved into the individual workshop industry as the community-based socio-cultural complexes were organized into chiefdoms and thence into urbanized states. Since pottery-making would be a dry season activity, in this early stage it is also possible that the male members of the household participated in the pottery-making at a time when the seasonal agricultural cycle did not require their labour. If supplies of appropriate clays were unavailable close by, they also may have been engaged in the intra- and interregional exchange networks, finding and transporting the raw materials from source to point of manufacture (Welch and McNeill 1990, 120). Peacock has shown how the scientific analysis of ancient ceramics can identify the origins of the clays and other materials inhering to pottery objects, thus contributing to our knowledge of the interregional transportation networks of these prehistoric cultures (Peacock 1970, 376). Cross-cultural studies of craft production suggest that the ceramics/pottery industry, since Neolithic times, is a major indicator of socioeconomic change. From household industry, to complex household industry mode, the ceramics industry present at Ban Chiang produced both utilitarian and ritual ceramics. It later emerged as an individual workshop industry in other areas of Thailand, serving both the domestic and overseas markets in historic times (Guy 1993, 1–13). The Ban Chiang pottery industry, in the longevity of its operations, the complexity of its styles and sophistication of the objects it produced is a significant indicator of the presence of an extensive civilization having developed in this part of northeast Thailand from at least 3600 BC to 300 AD. If the presence of elite ceramics,7 those having a ritual usage associated with prestige indicators, as distinct from the utilitarian pottery restricted to domestic uses, is an indicator of hierarchical socio-political organization (Kolb 1988, 91–92), we could ask did this Ban Chiang civilization produce an early state organization as did its contemporaries in the Middle East and China? What different forces were at work in Ban Chiang which led to the major discontinuity around 300 AD?

7

Fine pottery produced for ceremonial and ritual purposes, or trade. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

21

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

22

At which point did the Bronze Age metallurgy at Ban Chiang make its appearance? The 1975 excavations of Gorman and Charoenwongsa uncovered a Bronze Age cemetery at Ban Chiang in which one burial, that of a young male, included a socketed bronze spearhead; a second grave, of a child, included bronze bangles. The man, dubbed ‘Vulcan’ by the investigators, was granted an axe and bangles as grave goods. In Burial 40, late in the sequence, there was a T-shaped bronze bangle. Other bangles had been cast in the ‘cire perdue’ or lost wax method. Within Burial 23 was found a spear with a bronze haft on a forged iron blade. Higham notes that this technique was popular in southern China around the end of the first millenium BC and is also found in Vietnam (Higham 1998, 110). Under White’s revised chronology, the earliest bronze object found within a burial complex is the bronze spear point excavated in Burial 76 and now dated to phase III of the early period, 2100–1700 BC. Significantly, however, she notes that the bronze spear point is too sophisticated to be the earliest bronze artefact made in the region. Natapintu comments that metallographic analysis of the content of the spear point indicates it is a true tin bronze with a low amount of, but intentionally added, tin content (1996: 51). It is not simply copper. It was cast in bivalve moulds, then cold hammered to achieve the final shape. It was then annealed, red-heated and left to cool slowly in the open air to reduce its brittleness. Its manufacture indicates that it was made by a metal craftsman skilled in the craft of bronze metallurgy. The discovery of this Bronze Age culture at Ban Chiang naturally resulted in questions about the source of the copper and tin needed to produce the alloy, bronze. Since casting moulds of sandstone and ceramic melting crucibles were among the items excavated, investigators agree that Ban Chiang had a well-established local metallurgical industry and that the objects were the products of local individual workshops with a local metal casting tradition, an indication of the chiefdom or early urban level of socio-political organization. They were not just items traded from elsewhere. But neither copper nor tin is found at Ban Chiang itself. However, sources of these metals do occur in other locations in the northeast and central plains, as well as on the Malay peninsula. Thus the range and number of the bronze artefacts found suggest a well-organized and established trade or interregional exchange network transporting the raw materials to the local craftsmen for manufacture. What items did Ban Chiang sell or exchange for the raw materials? Jewellery? Ceramics? Or perhaps food items? Were they the finished product? Was Ban Chiang the rice basket? How were the items of trade transported? We presume the river ways were the main arteries of communication and transportation, yet these do not always connect, so land routes must have also been utilized. Yet we have no remains of paved or permanent roads as we do from the early civilizations of the Middle East and the Mediterranean world.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

22

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

23

Since the first evidence of iron artefacts at Ban Chiang was found in 1967 by Vithya Intakosai, who uncovered iron and bronze bangles together with glass beads and red-painted pottery now dated to the late phase of Ban Chiang culture, much attention has been given to when the Iron Age in Thailand could be said to have begun. White’s consideration of the bimetallic spear points and iron bangles from the middle phase burials has led her to a revised dating of 500 BC or possibly a little earlier for the appearance of iron in the technocomplex at Ban Chiang (White 1990, 127). Her revised dating sequence for the entire Ban Chiang occupation period concurs with that derived from another Bronze Age site of northeast Thailand, Ban Na Di, excavated by Higham and Kijngam (1984). Since the initial discoveries in the 1960s and 1970s, it is clear there was a widespread metallurgic culture across many areas of Thailand in the late pre-historic and early proto-historic periods. At Ban Na Di, Higham found evidence of an extensive bronze casting complex in cultural layers dated to 1400–1000 BC. They included crucibles used to pour the molten metal into moulds. In layer 7 dated to 700–400 BC, contemporaneous with the late Ban Chiang period, he found a Bronze Age cemetery and bronze casting complex of clay-lined bowl furnace still filled with charcoal. A piece of sandstone bivalve mould and crucible fragments were nearby. Two complete crucibles, bowl shaped and complete with pouring spout to which the remains of bronze still adhered, were also found. Higham considers that each would have held 75–80 ml of metal, enough to cast a socketed axe (1998, 100). It is difficult to resist the suggestion that Ban Na Di participated in the exchange network of which Ban Chiang was a part. Clearly, as Coote has suggested (1990, 137), the increasing demand for metals and participation in a sophisticated metallurgic technocomplex would have affected the social and economic structures of the early chiefdoms. The investigations of Anna Bennett, Pigott, Natapintu and Theeiparivatra, and Glover on the sources of copper, tin and iron suggest that the rise of metallurgy was a powerful stimulus to increasingly complex socio-political structures as the semi-autonomous village ban became part of the larger regional muang. Did the networks facilitating transport and provision of the raw materials for the metal casting first stimulate, and then underpin the organizational development leading to the type of centralization inferred by the appearance of regional centres? Similar socio-political development has been traced by K. C. Chang from the interaction zones of the third millennium sites of the Lungshan and Lungshanoid cultures in the Yellow and Yangtze river valleys (Chang 1986, 287–294) which slowly spread to the south China coastal areas of Fukien and Kwangtung by the first millennium BC. If Tessitore (1990, 31–44) is correct in suggesting a shared Bronze Age culture from the Dong Son civilization of Vietnam to the Lake Tien culture in Yunnan during this same time frame, the metal age culture of the Ban Chiang and Ban Na Di civilization of northeast Thailand may be seen as part of this evolving regional metal culture. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

23

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

24

Where did the metal raw materials come from, since these settlements themselves were obviously not the sources of copper, tin, arsenic, or iron on which the metallurgy depended. Certainly the raw materials were imported from elsewhere, but it is not yet certain whether they arrived already mixed as an alloy, or whether the ingots were delivered to be mixed on site. Vincent’s detailed analysis of the clays used in the Ban Na Di ceramics has enabled him to identify imported, exotic vessels made from clays external to the region and thus propose a set of established exchange relationships with the Sakhon Nakhon basin. He suggests movements in population with new sites such as Ban Muang Pruk occupied for the first time and technologically induced change being traced from south to north across the Khorat plateau (Vincent 1988, 188–191). Linkages with the eastern Sakhon Nakhon basin bronze industry network seem to have extended into the larger Khorat basin system, providing access to a greater range of goods and technologies as iron, glass beads and prestige items begin to appear in the archaeological record around 200 AD (Vincent 1988, 221). The shared Bronze Age culture across northeast Thailand included sites on the eastern edge of the Phetchabun mountains, at Non Pa Kluay, Non Nong Chik and Non Praw northeast of Non Nok Tha, Ban Chiang Hian in the Chi River basin, and a series of sites in the Mun valley, in the Phimai area of Nakorn Ratchasima at Ban Prasat and Ban Lum Khao. Their bronze industries date from around the end of the second millenium BC. All share similar burial rituals, grave goods, animal sacrifice and inclusions of bronze bangles and bronze socketed axes, shell disc beads and pottery vessels. Infant burials at Ban Lum Khao were often in large lidded pots and placed at the heads of women. The crucible and sandstone mould interred with one male burial at Non Nok Tha is further evidence that the bronze casting took place locally. The alloy included 15 percent tin. Similar finds emerged from the sites of the Chi and Mun valleys. The pattern of settlement for this shared culture appears to favour the confluence of small tributary streams. In addition to providing fertile soils for rice cultivation, such sites seem to have been chosen for their access to the transport and communication systems of the exchange networks down which the raw materials and exotic goods would have arrived from the ore mining sites in the Wong Prachan valley of the Lopburi area and Phu Lon in the Phetchabun mountains not far from Ban Chiang, Ban Na Di and Nong Nok Tha. Southeast Asia is one of the few regions in the Old World where copper and tin, the basic ingredients for bronze metallurgy, occur in relative proximity to each other, making it more likely that an innovation in bronze with a high tin content occurred here (Pigott 1992, 50). High tin bronze includes a mixture of at least 20 percent tin, producing a bronze product which ranges in colour from yellowish to whitish as the amount of tin increases. The bronze necklace found in a child’s burial at Ban Chiang is an example of a high tin bronze artefact. The hand-made rice chaff tempered crucibles for melting copper, the bivalve, sandstone moulds for casting Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

24

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

25

socketed axes and adzes, and artefacts exclusively fashioned in bronze, as well as the comparatively early beginning all suggest that high tin bronze technology was a local innovation. Evidence of large scale copper production, mining and smelting activities in the Lopburi area of central Thailand from late prehistoric times to the Dvaravati period has been excavated at Non Mak La, Non Pawai and Nilkhamhaeng in the Wong Prachan valley. Here Anna Bennett (1990) examined the ore, slag and artefacts to produce a picture of the socio-economic life associated with the development of metal technology. These sites reveal an entire prehistoric metals industry in operation based on many smelting sites with some degree of specialization within the settlements, but without complete or external centralization. Bennett’s research reveals that these prehistoric metallurgists were smelting locally available weathered sulphides which gave rise to oxides, carbonates and silicates possibly containing small quantities of arsenates. She found no evidence that the ore was roasted prior to smelting, but the copper artefacts and ingots were permeated with small copper sulphide inclusions which, together with a low percentage of iron impurity, would have impaired the quality of the copper. Bennett concluded that the Wong Prachan valley was producing raw copper ingots which may have been further refined at the artefact production sites where they were traded. Only a few very thin unalloyed copper artefacts were cast at the smelting sites, leading to the conclusion that the metallurgists, who had a knowledge of iron smelting, had no supply of, or access to, tin for the production of bronze. The arsenic occasionally present in the raw metal would have improved its hardness, but the sensitivity of arsenic to oxidation would have produced poisonous fumes during the casting and sulphurous gases detrimental to the health of the metalworkers. Several skeletons were closely associated with metal debris at all the smelting sites in the Lopburi area. One of the key socio-cultural issues is how much trading occurred between communities in mineral-rich areas and others in mineral-poor, but agriculturallyfertile areas? Was there a trade in tin to copper-producing districts, and copper to tin-mining districts? Was the production of bronze undertaken only at those localities which produced both copper and tin? With respect to Ban Chiang and Ban Na Di, certainly the answer to this last question seems to be negative as these rich bronze producing communities mined neither copper nor tin locally. Coote (1990, 136) has suggested that a mineral deposit may have been the property of several communities with mining being a seasonal occupation for the whole communitiy rather than the occupation of a specialized few. Such an approach may have alleviated the problem of mine drainage during wet season flooding. It is possible as Coote suggests that increasing demand for the metal may have affected the social and economic structures of these communities, with peaceful trading or exchange mechanisms giving way to more aggressive strategies to seize and retain control of Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

25

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

26

mineral deposits for both economic and defence reasons. In these prehistoric communities however, there is as yet no archaeological evidence for such a development. Geological field surveys of Theetiparivatra, Natapintu and Piggott identified the Phu Lon complex high on the bank of the Mekong River as a copper-rich hill consisting of a sulfide ore body with an indigenous oxide zone (Natapintu 1992, 52) exposed on the surface during the collision of the Shan-Thai and Indochina continental blocks during Late Paeleozoic or Early Mesozoic era. The hill’s west face has been cut away leaving considerable mining debris. Mine shafts pepper the remains of the hill. On the west slope, mining rubble lies to a depth of over 10 metres and hundreds of square metres in area, apparently the product of hand labour. Natapintu considers that heavy river cobble tools were used to mine the rock containing the copper ore (1992, 54) as hundreds of these cobble tools remain with the deposit. From the substantial amount of tailings it appears that the site was mined for a long time. Radiocarbon dating has placed mining activity at Phu Lon from the early second millennium BC to the first millennium BC. Potsherds located with crushed ore host rock matrix, ore crushing tools, ceramic crucible fragments with copper dross adhering to them, socketed tool mould fragments, and charcoal, lead to the conclusion that Phu Lon was a major ore processing site. Tin in the dross adhering to the crucible fragments suggested the production of bronze. Another fragment of cast bronze was found in a mine shaft at the base of the hill, and although particles of tin oxide were detected in analysis of slag on crucibles, it is not yet clear whether copper and tin ores were smelted together in these vessels, or whether copper and tin metal were just melted together to make bronze. Taking into account all the evidence, Natapintu has identified the similarities between the metal contents of the slagged layers lining crucible fragments at both Phu Lon and Ban Chiang and come to the conclusion that the metal workers of these two sites shared a basic technological tradition (1992, 56). It is possible that metalworkers came from the Khorat villages to process copper at Phu Lon and that on arrival they made the small crucibles from the local clays. A specially-made quartz-rich clay lining inserted in the crucibles protected their interiors, reduced the possibility of metal being incorporated in the body of the crucible, increased their refractory properties in high temperatures, and permitted re-use of the vessels at a later time. The work of Natapintu et al. has thus provided further credibility for the view that metal working was an early indigenous development within the region and that the operations were based on an industry workshop mode of production8 located away

8

A cottage industry where multiple workers were employed with the object of producing a surplus for trade; as distinct from single artisan mode of production for the purpose of satisfying just the needs of the immediate individual or family. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

26

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

27

from the workers’ homes and geared to mass-production of specific items of utilitarian purpose. Phu Lon was a well-placed site, particularly in the days before territorial demarcation by maps. Alluvial tin deposits for the making of bronze were readily available just across the Mekong in present-day Laos and could be easily floated down the river to the manufacturing point for bronze wares. Similar to Coote in the case of the mines of the Lopburi area, Natapintu favours a dry season mining activity at Phu Lon in view of the heavy monsoons affecting the area and in accordance with the labour needs of the agricultural cycle when the people would have needed to tend their crops. Significantly, the Phu Lon excavation reveals no signs of long term occupation consistent with a village lifestyle, no fish or animal bones; only hundreds of square metres of crushed ore gravel, potsherds, stone tools, bracelets, metal processing equipment of a society which extracted ore at this site over a long period of time (Natapintu 1992, 57). Moated settlements, state formation and trade Extensive archaeological research in Thailand in the past two decades established a factual base for concluding that the basins of the Mun and Chi rivers on the Khorat plateau and around Maha Sarakham in northeast Thailand hosted hierarchic patterns of settlement reflecting early state formation in the period 1,000 BC–1,000 AD. Kijngam and Higham (1980) have shown that these larger, moated settlements ranged from 20 to over 35 hectares in size, and were characterized by iron working, an expanding population, plough cultivation of permanent fields, and participation in interregional and international exchange networks. Both Kennedy (1977) and Wheatley (1983) argued for an integrated development of later and earlier socio-cultural structures rather than displacement of the earlier by the later. The overall pattern of increasing diversity in the early proto-historic era led to a variety of societies and cultures each in its own environmental eco-niches, but interdependent and interacting with each other in a series of reciprocal exchange networks. The transformation of these sub-urban regional traditions into urbanized ‘states’ or ‘city states’ was once thought to have been a result of external forces such as ‘Indianization’—the transfer of Indian cultural influences either through immigrants/colonizers or traders in the second century AD—or passively received stimuli from overseas trade networks. In correcting this extreme view, scholars then adopted the position that the rise of social complexity among the Iron Age muang came about as a result of both internal dynamics and external cultural contacts. Vallibhotama (1984, 1992) and Dhida Saraya (1989, 1992) argue that this view fails to give adequate recognition to the system of interdependent linkages underpinning the social, cultural, economic and political interactions of the pre-

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

27

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

28

and proto-historic settlements. Thus Dhida Saraya (1992) argues that these preurban centres did not develop in isolation from each other; and that the strength of their internal relationships not only conditioned their interactions with the external influences, India and China, as well as the Middle East and the Austronesian world, but also with the new political entities, Funan and Chenla in the Mekong basin, Lin-yi and Champa in central Vietnam, and the early city states of the Irrawaddy and Chao Phraya basins. To this list could also be added Tibet and Nan-chao, independent political entities, which in the seventh to ninth centuries AD had considerable effect on the trading patterns and socio-cultural developments of the region prior to 1200 AD. Penny (1984, 156–157) is surely enlightening in his view that the expansion of relations with neighbouring states amongst the Iron Age muang in Thailand reflects the basic stability and continuity of the village-based culture. There was no need to employ the elements of coercion or exploitation, since both land and water resources were adequate for the needs of the village-based culture. Cautioning against drawing invalid comparisons with the emergence of states in other parts of the world, Penny takes the view that cultural development amongst the Iron Age chiefdoms of Thailand should be seen on its own merits as a reflection of the underlying prosperity and rich subsistence resources of the region. The prosperity of the area gave people the confidence to interact with external trading networks; in turn these were attracted to the Iron Age muang. Such interaction is usually inspired by need, or the urge to acquire items not readily available locally, both exotic items which may be classed as luxury items desired by emerging elite groups, and utilitarian items for household use, and raw materials for manufacture. As shown by the archaeological evidence of the moated sites of the Mun and Chi river valleys in northeast Thailand, spatial expansion in response to population growth and central place organization across the Khorat plateau was occurring throughout the first millennium BC, pre-dating evidence in the archaeological record of Indianized heirarchical socio-political structures. Thus development of, or participation in, interregional and international exchange networks should be seen as a consequence of increasing socio-cultural complexity rather than an originating stimulus to such structural changes. Long-distance exchange networks, after all, can exist without giving rise to urbanized states with monumental superstructure, for example the Lapita cultural complex of Melanesia, across which obsidian was transported at least as early as 5000 BC (Kirch 1990, 26). Since the conference on early Southeast Asia held in London in 1974 (Smith and Watson, 1979) focused on the value of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches in enriching our understanding of the processes of social and cultural change during the pre- and proto-historic periods of Southeast Asian history, the research of social and cultural anthropologists has led to re-examination and re-interpretation of the few extant written sources

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

28

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

29

and particularly of the concept of ‘Indianization’ of Southeast Asia and the role played by the ancient maritime and overland trade networks in the transition from ‘chiefdoms’ to sophisticated, urbanized ‘states’. While the early polities of mainland Southeast Asia may be seen as links in the series of international and interregional exchange networks stretching from the Mediterranean world to Han China (Glover, 1989) concern has been to challenge the view that the region was merely a trans-shipment point for foreign merchants (Wang Gungwu, 1989). A closely related line of scholarly research has focused on the nature of indigenous states, how they evolved from the prehistoric socio-cultural complexes of the region, and how different their political and social dynamics were from the picture presented in the Chinese dynastic histories which described these polities in terms of the Chinese structural experience. As Wang Gungwu has stated, no Southeast Asian polity, statue or monument is unmistakably Indian (1989, xvi). Greater recognition is now given to local, indigenous, political and cultural dynamics. Similarly, the role of early maritime trade is weighed in the balance against the cultural exchanges effected across the ancient overland trade routes. The overland Silk Route and the maritime Spice and Silk Route were the communications and transportation networks across which flowed the new ideas, technologies, soldiers, sailors, merchants, craftsmen and tradesmen, politicians and religious missionaries as well as the luxury products of forest, field and mine between east and west. Nor were these luxury goods the only items of trade; there is clear evidence that much of the ancient trade across the early maritime networks was in bulk goods—grains, teak, and minerals (Asthana 1947, Adams 1974, Moorey 1975, Ratnagar 1981, Casson 1984, Edens 1992). Above all, these famous trading networks came into being and were maintained only in response to the requirements of the indigenous polities, both east and west, which formed the markets and production points giving the networks their justification for being. Without such polities the networks would have ceased to function, as happened during periods of political upheaval. The sum of the results of this scholarly research has underpinned the recognition that Southeast Asia has an historical unity of its own, distinct from both Indianization and Sinicization. More importantly, it has shown that Southeast Asia has always been part of the continuum of communications east and west pre-dating Augustan Rome and Han China, and in its linkages going back to the early empires of Sumeria, Babylonia, the Indus Valley civilization of Harappa and the early empires of Central Asia. The researches of scholars in many disciplines have conclusively shown that just as there was probably no one moment when agriculture was ‘invented’, so too the initiative to interact with neighbouring groups and to exchange commodities, ideas, technologies over both water and land routes was not delineated by any one moment in time. There is ample evidence that by the third millennium BC, there were well-established trading networks, both interregional and international, operating

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

29

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

30

within and across the expanding centres of civilization from the MediterraneanMiddle East world, to the Southeast Asian-Chinese-Austronesian-Pacifiic world. These built on much older interaction networks both by land and sea developed since man learnt to move his wares by donkey overland, or across water on hollowed out logs or reed boats (Casson 1971, 3–10). It would be inaccurate therefore to consider the ‘world system’ interlinkages of Augustan Rome and Han China in the first century AD as having suddenly originated at that time. They followed long-established, pre-existing patterns of intercultural communication, what some scholars have argued was an interconnecting series of trading and exchange networks forming a Bronze Age ‘world system’ observable in the archaeological record since at least the fourth millennium BC amongst the city ‘states’ of ancient Sumeria (Adams 1974, Lamberg-Karlovsky 1975, 1989; Johnson 1975; Schneider 1977; Kohl 1989; Edens 1992; Abu-Lughod 1993; Amin 1993; Gills and Frank 1991, 1993; Wilkinson 1993; Potts 1993; Chew 1999). Sumeria/Babylonia and the Indus Valley civilization could therefore be seen as the engines of economic growth driving the expansion of settlements during the middle and later Bronze Age. The centres of accumulation in the urbanized civilizations which had emerged in the riverine ecosystems of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indus Valley by the third millennium BC lacked the metals and luxury items necessary to sustain their heirarchical social structures. International linkages of the Iron Age muang What evidence is there for participation in the international and interregional trading networks by the Iron Age muang in Thailand? Seeking answers to some of the questions surrounding the rise of social complexity in the ancient settlements of the Chao Phraya basin of central Thailand, Srisakra Vallibhotama believes that the people of the Iron Age muang moved down into the various river basins of the deltaic area probably in pursuit of wet-padi agriculture in the late metal age, i.e. around 500 BC, the time when contact with people from other regions becomes evident (1984; 123–128 ). This is shown by the presence of artefacts from the Dongson culture, by metal work displaying advanced technology, ornaments of precious stones such as jade, cornelian and agate imported from elsewhere. Cornelian objects, a reddish variety of chalcedony, were imported from the west, from Arabia and India (Schafer 1963; 228, Beale 1973; 137) and used to make ornaments, small utensils, bowls and jars. Examining these settlements along the river banks in the flood plains, Vallibhotama notes that those in the same river basin practised the same burial tradition and had similar types of grave goods, although in each burial ground of the same community differences in individual wealth were marked, reflecting a

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

30

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

31

degree of social stratification beyond that of the egalitarian village or ban level social structure. Cultural differences between settlements of different river basins were evident. Those in the upper part of the Chao Phraya valley exhibited spindle whorls around the waists of the dead, suggesting their craft affiliation during life. Did the products of their looms find their way into the international textile trade? Based on the increasing numbers of burial mounds shared by the same community, there was evidently an increasing population, as more settlements developed at the beginning of the Christian era along the river basins in the west, north and east of the delta, near the Gulf of Siam, in an area exposed to economic and cultural contact with external influences by sea. Evidence for participation in interregional and international exchange networks is shown by the foreign cultural elements mixed in with artefacts of local origin. Thus Vallibhotama notes, amongst these foreign elements, cult objects, coins, beads, earrings, combs and seals bearing symbolic designs. Amongst the locally made objects were images of the Buddha and deities, coins and seals based on Indian designs, fragments of terracotta and stucco decorations for long-vanished religious structures. Analysing these finds, Vallibhotama suggests that two localities amongst these ancient settlements may have functioned as chief ports for contact with the international exchange networks and as re-distribution centres to other settlements within the deltaic regions. They are U Thong in the Tha Chin River basin in the west delta region, and Sri Mahosod in the Bang Pakong river basin to the east. In addition to the presence of foreign cultural objects indicating participation in the long-distance trade network, east and west, both sites exhibit distinct characteristics of urbanization showing development from the pre-historic chiefdom status. These traits are the number of religious monuments and buildings, irrigation and transportation networks, fortifications, and satellite communities within a 5–10 kilometre radius from the centre, thus suggesting a substantial population deployed around the main centre. Vallibhotama believes that most of the finds are contemporaneous with those at Oc-Eo in Vietnam and Beikthano in Burma, thus dating them to between the second and sixth century AD, and that these centres represent the earliest ‘states’ that ever developed in central Thailand (1984; 123–128). They exhibited the proliferation of symbolic, ritualized objects of individual social position and power identified as the materialized ideology of emerging state level society (DeMarrais et al. 1996, 17–23). In addition to U Thong and Sri Mahasod, Vallibhotama identified another four large moated settlements in the major river basins of Thailand at Nakhon Chaisri in the lower Tha Chin, Kubua in the Mae Klong, Lavo or Lopburi on the eastern bank of the Lop Buri River, and Sri Thep in the upper Pasak valley. The first three had access to the sea by means of large waterways connected to the Gulf of Thailand, while Sri Thep on the overland route connecting the Central Plain with

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

31

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

32

the Khorat plateau in northeast Thailand may have been the inland junction for the network. Vallibhotama (1989, 1992) has noted the cultural differences in these centres: those in the west show signs of having embraced Buddhism whilst those in the east exhibit Hindu cultural remains. The difference in belief systems is equated with a difference in political entity. Thus Vallibhotama and Dhida Saraya reject the hypothesis that central Thailand’s earliest political centre was at Nathon Pathom and later at Lop Buri. By studying the cultural evidence such as burial mounds, Buddhist monuments and artefacts, Vallibhotama concluded that a socio-economic network existed amongst the settlements in the same river basins and that larger centres were able to extend their cultural network far beyond their own river basins to other regions. Thus in separating art style from political entity and surveying the size and distribution of ancient settlements in the Chao Phraya delta of central Thailand at the beginning of the Christian era, Vallibhotama (1989) discounts the view that there was a single integrated state called Dvaravati. Rather there were at least two rival city states identified as U Thong in the west, a centre which embraced Buddhism, and Sri Mahosod in the east, a centre which embraced Hinduism. These were formed from heirarchies of village, town and city grouped together in their own river basins with the largest settlement as the centre. Evidence of the participation of mainland Southeast Asian polities in the long-distance international exchange network first came from the work of Louis Malleret who, in 1942–44, unearthed archaeological remains at another delta port site at Oc-Eo in the lower Mekong River basin. Here Malleret uncovered two Roman medallions, one minted during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138–152 AD), and another in the reign of his successor, Marcus Aurelius (161–180 AD), as well as a Chinese mirror of the Later Han dynasty of the same vintage, Iranian coinage, Indian-inspired jewellery, gold rings and merchant seals, tin amulets with symbols of Visnu and Siva. Amongst a wealth of material culture, the finds led scholars to conclude that Oc-Eo was a major entrepot in an international trading network which linked Ancient Rome and India with Han China. Oc-Eo was well placed to function as a gateway for goods traded up and down the Mekong basin (Higham 1989, 254). In this way it would have been linked with the interregional networks across the Khorat plateau of northeast Thailand and through them to Sri Thep and Sri Chanasa in the Pasak River basin, thence to the emerging contemporaneous polities of the central Chao Phraya basin investigated by Vallibhotama, U Thong and Sri Mahosod. Vallibhotama suggests that U Thong emerged from an outcrop of earlier settlements dating from the second half of the first millenium BC, the archaeological remains of which testify to cultural influence from overseas at this time during a notably pre-Buddhist phase of its cultural development. Upstream from U Thong, the number of pre- and proto-historic settlements in the Tha Chin valley increases

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

32

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

33

as far as Suphanburi, Singburi and Chainat in the upper reaches of the valley. The archaeological remains indicated that U Thong was the most densely populated of the settlements. It may have been the distribution centre for goods of economic and ritualistic, religious and symbolic value to the centres upstream (Vallibhotama, 1992). Sri Mahasod, on the other hand, appears to have been a newer centre having no prehistoric base. Situated in the Bang Pakong River valley to the east, the intermediary role it played in transshipment of goods, trade and communications with the hinterland centres towards the Cambodian lowlands in the east allowed it to develop rapidly into an important urbanized centre in the region. It quickly surpassed the inland regional prehistoric centres around Amphoe Phanat Nikom, Chonburi, which appear not to have engaged in overseas economic and cultural contacts. The distribution of imported cultural artefacts associated with U Thong and Sri Mahosod—the beads, ear-rings, armlets, precious stones, jade, cornelian and coloured glass—and the religious objects, terracotta and metal seals showing Hindu and Buddhist sacred symbols, indicate that by at least the first half of the first millennium AD these settlements in the Chao Phraya valley were participating in the international and interregional exchange networks linking them to the Middle East and India, Vietnam and China. The Tha Chin and Bang Pakong rivers played a crucial distribution and transportation role between the coastal regions and the upper riverine settlements co-ordinating the interregional trading networks. Support for this view is also provided by Glover (1989) who has argued that such cultural finds, like that of the famous Roman lamp found at P’ong T’uk on the bank of the Meklong River in west Thailand, are not the result of ‘drift’ or intermittent transportation through reciprocal exchange networks over short distances as postulated by Wheeler (1954; 206–7), but are evidence of participation in a system of regular exchange links between Southeast Asia and India in this era. Ban Don Ta Phet, Glover states, provides the earliest and most extensive evidence of trading and cultural links between this part of Southeast Asia and India. Such evidence includes a copper coin of the Western Roman Emperor Victorinus (268–70 AD) which was minted at Cologne and found at U Thong in western Thailand, and which now resides in the Thai National Museum; an Indian ivory comb from the moated settlement at Chansen in central Thailand excavated by Bronson and Dales and dated to between first and third centuries AD, now also in the Thai National Museum; Roman cornelian intaglio seals from Khlong Thom, Krabi Province, southern Thailand, dated to second century AD, one of which portrays the goddess Tyche (Fortuna), the other a pair of fighting cockerels; some 600 (out of 3,000) beads of semi-precious stones such as agate, cornelian, rock crystal and jade found at Ban Don Ta Phet; a carved cornelian leaping lion pendant from Ban Don Ta Phet which Glover (1989, 28) considers a first century AD representation of the Buddha, thus being one of the earliest

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

33

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

34

Buddhist artefacts in this region. Taking into account the evidence of all the material culture, Glover therefore agrees with Vallibhotama and Saraya that by the first century AD this region was already part of the ancient prehistoric international exchange networks linking east and west which extended from the Mediterranean Sea to South China. Wheatley has drawn attention to the fact that the great maritime trade route should be seen more accurately as a series of trade routes across which no one group of merchants operated from end to end, nor one class of merchandise was transported. On the western end of the route, the Bronze Age merchants of the Indus Valley civilization and those of Sumeria gave way to the Iron Age Arab, Greek and Egyptian merchants. Indian Tamil merchants also travelled westwards. After the withdrawal of the Greco-Roman merchants around the end of the second century AD, these Indian Tamil seafarers continued to ply their trade from the ports on the Coromandel Coast of India across the Bay of Bengal to the ports on the Thai/Malay peninsula. On the eastern end of the route, the trade of the Austronesian world and the South China seas at the beginning of the Christian era was largely in the hands of various sea-faring peoples collectively known in the Chinese records as the K’uen-luen (Wheatley 1975, 231), the same people who had plied the sea lanes of the Austronesian world since the Holocene and had ventured to as far away as Madagascar. Long distance metals trade Long distance trade in the time of Sumeria focused on the metals trade and the need to supply the bronze and copper tipped weapons of war which had given rise to the early empires around the Levant, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor and Mycenaen Greece. Were any of these needs met from the copper and tin deposits of the Bronze Age cultures of Thailand, perhaps as ingots exported through such an entrepot as Khuan Lukpad/Khlong Thom on the west coast of Thailand across the Bay of Bengal to the ports on the east coast of India and thence linking with the international trade routes to the west? The sources of tin to supply the early Bronze Age cultures of Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean have long been a disputed issue (Crawford 1938, 1939; Muhly and Wertime 1973; Dayton 1973). One is attracted to Bronson’s (1989) view that tin–scarce in the west, but already mined for local use in the Bronze Age cultures of Thailand where it was available in very large quantities easily extractable with crude tools from tin-bearing granites such as those in southern Thailand—is likely to have become an export item by the early protohistoric period. Were these deposits and those in the adjacent areas of Burma and Malaysia an important reason for early trading contacts with India and other cultures further west? (Bronson 1989, 293–297) Were they exchanged for the high

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

34

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

35

quality stone and obsidian in which Thailand was deficient, but which occurred in significant deposits in Mesopotamia and Anatolia? Beale (1973, 139–43) has analysed the metal and stone resources which formed part of the trade in ancient Mesopotamia in Period IV C-B at Yahya (from c. 3,400 BC) and concluded that since the fourth millennium BC it was a redistributive centre which took part in long distance organized trade intended to access directly the resource areas without the need to depend on middlemen in the transshipment centres. His research on the changing characteristics of trickle trade, local redistributive trade and organized regional trade in Mesopotamia prior to the third millennium BC raised the possibility that the change to long distance organized trade at this time, long before the Pax Romana, was driven by the need to access resource materials. Susa, with its commercial network extending to the Indus Valley civilization, also had trade relations with Yahya and Shahr-i-Sokhta in Iran. The third millennium BC records of Girsu in Sumeria indicate that individual shipments of up to ten tons of grain and other materials sent to Dilmun (modern Bahrain) were exchanged for consignments of copper (Adams 1974, 248). Tin bronze has been found in the Sumerian royal cemetery at Ur. Analysis of some 3,000 ancient Assyrian texts by Veenhof shows that in this one archive alone, 11 tons of tin were shipped into Anatolia from southern Mesopotamia. In the debate on the origin of the tin used in the earliest tin bronzes in the Middle East, the one issue on which Dayton, Muhly and Wertime all agree is the absence of substantial tin sources in Anatolia itself (Crawford 1974, 242). Gold and silver from Anatolia were apparently carried southward to Ashur where they were exchanged for tin and textiles originating from further east along the lapis lazuli route which crossed the AfghanIranian border at Sharh-i-sokhta (Crawford 1974, 243). In Ashur a merchant is said to have been able to obtain 15 shekels of tin for a shekel of silver while in Anatolia the rate was seven to one (Adams 1974, 246). The source of the tin is not identified, although Crawford has argued that a chain of contacts on the lapis route existed from Sumer via southern Iran to Turkmenia linking with a source of tin east of Bokhara in the second half of the third millennium BC. Tin bronze in Mesopotamia is said to date from the early third millennium BC, then occurs in Syria a little later (Muhly and Wertime 1973, 114). Although in the early Bronze Age the Black Sea mountains and the Zagros mountains of Mesopotamia provided alluvial tin (and alluvial gold), such sources were quickly exhausted (Muhly and Wertime 1973, 119). Crawford agrees that the tin in Armenia was not worked before c. 1200 BC (Crawford 1974, 245). Whilst other more distant sources were quickly found from Bohemia and Spain to Thailand, the precise role such sources played in the development of metallurgy and the metals trade of the Near Eastern Bronze Age is still to be determined. There is no hard evidence yet of tin coming to the Near East from Hunan or

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

35

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

36

Southeast Asia, some 2,500 miles from the transshipment points in the Indus Valley (Dayton 1973, 124). Dayton does, however refer to a German translation of an Arab text of 1301 which, he claims, purports to show that the Arabs were obtaining tin from ‘the areas where it occurs to this day’ (Dayton 1973, 124). Does Dayton mean Southeast Asia? Chang, discussing the bronze ritual and warfare artefacts which appear in the Chinese cultural tradition at the beginning of the Three Dynasties period (around 2000 BC) emphasizes that these were made from copper-tin alloys mostly serving the affairs of the state, and associated with the emergence of a powerful kingship (Chang 1989, 159). In an earlier article he states that the exact sources of the tin used in such Chinese bronzes remains unknown, and that although tin deposits are known from Honan and other parts of North China, the early Chinese texts specifiy that good tin ochres were said to come from the south (Chang 1975, 217). The exact geographical extent of the area designated as South China remains indeterminate as this area was only taken under the control of Chinese authority during the Han Dynasty (206 BC–223 AD). One might be forgiven for siding with Muhly and Wertime in their view that the problem of the source of tin for the Near East Bronze Age is still with us. It is certain that copper and tin were transported in ingots by ship as evidenced from the wreck of a ship dated 1400 BC found at Ulu Burun, off the coast of Turkey (Haldane 1993, 349). Dayton (1973, 123) agrees that tin was sent by ship to Emar and Halab; it was transported from Ashur to Mari and from Susa to Mari according to the texts. Did the middlemen keep the source of their tin supply at this time secret as happened with cinnamon and silk? Citing the Lagash texts in which copper and tin figure with textiles, grain, fish, beasts, oils, fats, wood and silver as items regularly exported from Lagash in the third millennium, Crawford supports the view that south Mesopotamia was an important intermediary in the trade of the ancient world as well as a primary producer (Crawford 1974, 233). The trade in the texts, he believes, refers both to that with other cities in Mesopotamia and with foreign countries. More recently, Potts, also citing Gudea of Lagash who said he received tin from Meluhha, favours an eastern origin for most of the tin used in southern Mesopotamia in the Old Babylonian period; however, although the evidence to date might sustain the view that tin from Bukkhara in Central Asia was transported to Susa, there is as yet insufficient evidence to prove that tin from Southeast Asia found its way to Mesopotamia in this era (Potts 1997, 174, 269). Given the extent of the metals manufacturing industry in the technocomplexes of the Ban Chiang civilization, and the apparent lack of a substantial ceremonial culture to utilize all the products of the local, indigenous artisans, one might question who the end users were for all the products. If Beale is correct in his view that the thriving regional trade network which arose locally and independently in the Iranian plateau was the precursor of the long

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

36

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

37

distance trade between Mesopotamia and Iran in the late fourth and third millennium BC, then it may be possible to view the international maritime trading network which linked Rome and China in the proto-historic period as simply the last and most visible phase of the series of regional interlinkages utilizing riverine, coastal and oceanic routes attested to by the archaeological finds at Oc-Eo in the Mekong delta, and at U Thong and Khlong Thom in Thailand. By the time GrecoRoman merchants made Arikamedu their base on the Coromandel Coast of India across the Bay of Bengal from Takuapa and Khlong Thom on the west coast of southern Thailand, they were following an already well-known trading route by which Sumeria and the Harappans of the Indus Valley civilization had a flourishing maritime trade, 2500–1750 BC. After this the maritime trade to the southern cities in Mesopotamia disappeared, the consequence of climatological changes leading to increased irrigation in the delta lowlands which produced salinity in formerly fertile agricultural lands. Chew sees the decline of the Harappan civilization in the Indus Valley as a direct result of the end of this Gulf trade. When the demand for their exports in the southern port cities of Mesopotamia declined, the Harappans could not sustain the accumulation process on which their urbanized society depended (Chew 1999, 100). With the decline in agricultural yields which accompanied the salinization process, the centres of population and power shifted to northern Mesopotamia, away from the southern ports, thus setting in train a series of consequences for the trading patterns of the region as the focus shifted to the overland trading routes of the north and northeast (Chew 1999, 102). The collapse of this maritime trading network had dire consequences for all the ports of call along the Gulf from Magan to Meluhha. If it is correct to consider these regions as interdependent parts of a Bronze Age trading system linked to Southeast Asia via the Indus Valley civilization and the hinterland trading routes of southern India down to the Coromandel Coast, then the question could be asked, were there further downstream consequences for those ports on the Malay peninsula, southern Thailand and the lower Chao Phraya basin identified by Vallibotama? Yet the web of cultural interlinkages survived these political and economic upheavals and by 1000 –500 BC economic expansion was underway again. Were any of these needs met from the copper and tin deposits of the Bronze Age cultures of Thailand, perhaps as ingots exported through such an entrepot as Khuan Lukpad/Khlong Thom on the west coast of Thailand across the Bay of Bengal to the ports on the east coast of India? Arikamedu and the bead makers of the Peninsula Southern Thailand’s pre-historic international linkages with these ports is evidenced by archaeological finds at Arikamedu, in particular the bead industry

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

37

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

38

based at Khlong Thom. On the Coromandel Coast of southeastern India, excavations in 1945 at Arikamedu, Ptolemy’s Podouke, (also known as Virampatnam) by Sir Mortimer Wheeler showed that it was an emporium similar to Barygaza (Pattabiramin 1946, 9–13). The archaeological remains of merchant residences, warehouses and harbour provide mute testimony to the part it played in the east-west trade of the first century of the Christian era. In 1885, Walter Elliot had commented on the large number of Roman coins found with Chinese and Arab coins at various places on the Coromandel Coast after every high wind, which he thought indicated extensive commerce between China and the Red Sea (Pattabiramin, 1946: 42). But Arikamedu was not merely a Greco-Roman trading station as Wheeler had thought. Excavations by Casal, 1947–1950, showed the existence of an earlier settlement pre-dating the Augustan era, which existed from at least 250 BC and continued to be occupied until around 200 AD. On the basis of the distribution of the distinctive ceramic rouletted ware found at Arikamedu, Begley suggests that there was a well-established trading and communication network linking the entire east coast of India (Begley 1983, 462) in the few centuries prior to the Christian era. His investigations led him to conclude that Arikamedu was a significant commercial centre linking the coastal/inland trade with the long distance international trade long before the Greco-Roman sailors appeared around the tip of Cape Cormorin. Moreover, it was not alone. Along the eastern seaboard of India, facing the Bay of Bengal, further port sites have been identified in association with river estuaries at Korkai, Kaveripattinam, Karaikadu, Vasavasamudram in the first millennium BC. It is only in what Begley calls Phase C that ceramic remains are found of Mediterranean amphorae which once contained wine and oil. From this phase come the remains of a cluster of small scale workshops exhibiting evidence of working in metal, ivory and shell, glass and semi-precious stones. A large number of finished and unfinished beads was found all over the site (Begley 1983, 472). Of 22 inscriptions from this era, 19 are in Tamil, leading to the conclusion that Tamil was the language in common use. One inscription in Prakrit appears to have come from a votive Buddhist tablet, although no archaeological evidence of a Buddhist religious edifice has yet been revealed, unlike Kaveripattinam where an entire wing of seven rooms, each 2.4 metres square, of a Buddhist monastery has been identified (Chakrabarti 1995, 234). Such Buddhist establishments were often established on trade routes. Key indicators of Arikamedu’s eastward trading links are found in the bead making industry, specifically what Francis designates the Indo-Pacific beads, glass beads made by the drawn and wound methods (Francis 1990(a), 1; 1991, 34). The art of glass-making was practiced in China and India by 1100 BC, having spread from the Middle East where glass samples were found at Tel Asmar, Mesopotamia, in a context dating around 2500 BC (Dikshit 1969, 1; Francis 1990, 1). At Arikamedu,

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

38

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

39

all stages of beadmaking by the lada process9 have been found, including slag, the wastage from the process, thus proving that the bead industry was local, and not imported from the West. The fragments of glass uncovered even in Casal’s excavation10 suggest that the lada process was used throughout the occupation of Arikamedu. Different chemical additives were used to produce various colours. Thus soda was used at Arikamedu in making the red glass beads; potash for other colours (Francis 1990, 6). The most common Arikamedu bead was a monochrome drawn bead less than 6 mm in diameter. Some glass beads were made by the minor technique of being ground and perforated, unfinished examples of which have been found at Arikamedu indicating local production. Significantly, such beads are known from Ban Don Ta Phet, Thailand with a date of early fourth century BC, Mantai, Sri Lanka in the late first millennium AD, Nishapur, Iran in the early Islamic period and Uyaw Cave in the Philippines in about the same period as Arikamedu (Francis 1991, 33). Such a distribution, particularly those from Ban Don Ta Phet and Uyaw Cave, would suggest trading linkages eastwards of these beads. Indo-Pacific beads have been found at seven sites in Southeast Asia where they were manufactured as proven by the evidence of diagnostic wasters. These sites are Mantai, Sri Lanka, Oc-Eo, Vietnam, Klong Thom, Sating Pra and Takua Pa, southern Thailand, and Kuala Selingsing and Sungai Mas, Malaysia. Of these, Klong Thom, Oc-Eo and Mantai had links with Arikamedu (Francis 1991, 34), and may all have been established in the first to second century AD. Francis suggests (idem) that Tamil bead makers from Arikamedu may have settled at these sites after Arikamedu itself was abandoned. Not only did they trade with each other, but also each was among the first urban centres in their region; each was a major port with Roman, Persian and Chinese imports. Each is identified with Roman emporia in Ptolemy’s Geographia: Arikamedu with Poduke; Mantai with Modutti; Oc-Eo with Kattigara, and Klong Thom with Takkola (Gerini’s identification of Takkola with Takua Pa is no longer considered valid). Francis considers that as each site was abandoned, the beadmakers moved on, those from Oc-Eo to Sating Pra then to Takua Pa, those of Klong Thom to Kuala Selingsing then to Sungai Mas (Francis 1991, 34–35). By the tenth century when the Cholas overran Mantai, the beadmaking industry was in difficulties; the descendants of the beadmakers may have moved back to India, possibly to Nagapattinam. There is another interesting link between Arikamedu and Ban Don Ta Phet in that Arikamedu is among the earliest sites where the use of double tipped

9

A method of making beads from smelted glass which is cooled, then ‘pinched’ off at the appropriate size. 10 At Arikamedu. See Casal, J-M 1949, Fouilles de Virampatnam-Arikamedu, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. He also conducted three seasons of fieldwork in the Kulli complex in collaboration with the Pakistan Department of Archaeology in 1962-65. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

39

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

40

diamond drills is recorded for use in perforating stone beads, whilst this practice is also documented for Ban Don Ta Phet dating from the fourth century BC (Glover 1989, 21). Francis has pointed out that all stone beads manufactured at Arikamedu were bored with this type of drill, except those bored from only one side. Diamonds from India were sent to Rome and China during the heyday of Arikamedu (Francis 1991, 38). Thus it is believed that Arikamedu was a major lapidary centre exporting its products east as well as west. Amongst its products were the soughtafter onyx, used to make cameos at this period in Rome, red glass, collar beads, and folded beads. Possibly different guilds or social groups specialized in different types of beads. Francis agrees with Begley that it is no longer valid to consider Arikamedu merely an Indo-Roman trading station, or to assess its contribution to the world system merely in terms of its linkages to the Mediterranean world. Its pioneering beadmaking production techniques lived on at other sites in Southeast Asia long after Arikamedu itself was abandoned, which strongly suggests that Arikamedu looked east far more than it looked west (Francis 1991, 40). The part Arikamedu played in the process of state formation in Southeast Asia is only just coming to light as research on Indo-Pacific beads is able to provide new insights into the socio-economic relations of the early urban centres engaged in this industry. Indo-Pacific beads were made for some two thousand years. The two types–the drawn bead cut from glass tubes, and the wound bead made by twirling hot glass around a mandrel–are widespread throughout Southeast Asia, southern China, Korea, Japan, southern India and Sri Lanka, but are less common in the Persian Gulf and northern India (Francis 1990a, 1). Some 50,000 beads and wasters now in the Pondicherry museum testify to the importance of this industry for Arikamedu (250 BC–200 AD) which was making beads at least two hundred years before the first Greco-Roman traders appeared, and continued to do so for more than a century after their departure. This was a century or more before the invention of the blow-pipe in the western Mediterranean (Francis 1990a, 3). Thus it is important to keep the notion of the Roman emporium in perspective. The group of Mediterranean merchants trading to Arikamedu was engaged in personal entrepreneurial activities; they were not the spearhead of empire. They were essentially more important to themselves than to the locals on whose tolerance they relied for continuance of their activities. In such ‘Treaty Ports’ as Charlesworth suggested they were, the Yavana (Greek) merchants were allowed to reside and transact business (Charlesworth 1951, 142). When civil strife in Rome during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161– 180 AD) led to reduced capacity to undertake eastern trading ventures, most of the emporia were abandoned. Of greater importance, and longer lived, were Arikamedu’s trading relations eastward with the early urban centres at Oc-Eo, Mantai, and Klong Thom. At Mantai, Ptolemy’s Modutti emporium, Arab and Persian merchants from the west could meet those of the east, each

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

40

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

41

brought by the opposite monsoon winds, and relying on the monsoon reversal to guide their homeward journeys. Here beads made in Arikamedu have been found, as they have in Klong Thom, Krabi Province, southern Thailand, and at Oc-Eo, the port of Funan. Klong Thom would have been a centre for the trans-isthmus trade, comparable to Mantai, whilst Oc-Eo, Ptolemy’s Kattigara, has been called the chief relay port in the Malay-Chinese trade (Francis 1990a, 5). The four ports shared a common technology in the art of Indo-Pacific beadmaking, a technology which continued at the Southeast Asian centres for some centuries after Arikamedu was abandoned. It could be said the interregional, and indeed intraregional, trading networks arose from, and continued to meet, the needs of emerging urbanized states both long before the Pax Romana intensified commercial activity across the sea lanes from the Mediterranean to the China Sea, and long after political crises in Rome saw the withdrawal of the Greco-Roman merchants from the trading entrepots of Southeast Asia. Their withdrawal did not mean that the world trading system ceased. Their withdrawal may have been barely a minor ripple across the system as the Arab, Middle Eastern, Indian, K’uen Lun and Chinese merchants continued their ancient seafaring commerce. International Buddhism and the rise of urban culture Buddhism with its institutional links to the state, its location of key centres on trade routes and close association with urban centres, wealth-controlling and literate elites, its inspiration to erecting complex architectural features and encouragement of craft specialization in the production of cotton cloths, beads, moulds, polishers, ceramics, terracottas, artefacts in shell, stones and ivory to serve in the worship of holy things, provided a sigificant structural element in the emergence of socio-political complexity. As consumers, monks required vast quantities of donated food, cloths and ceremonial items. Monasteries needed to be near the sources of such items, both the people and the towns, the production centres, and along the highways of transportation. Institutional Buddhism played a key role in the expansion of trade in the period 200–500 AD, and had a close association with urbanism and complex state polities. Long distance exchange alone is insufficient to account for the proliferation of city states in this proto-historic period; other elements including the economic and religious restructuring had significant impact on the emerging polities (Morrison 1995, 216–218) as cities became sacred centres. U Thong and other centres of the Tha Chin River valley in western Thailand, which Vallibhotama identified on the basis of archaeological remains and cultural artefacts as having embraced Buddhism in the early proto-historic era, shared with the early muang of the peninsula the Buddhist cultural heritage

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

41

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

42

bequeathed to Asia by the historical Buddha. Chakrabarti’s analysis of the Buddhist canonical writings suggests that early Buddhism was city-based, enjoying the patronage of city-dwellers, kings and wealthy merchants. He notes that 95.37 percent of references in the literature (4,257 items) are to urban centres, with only 4.67 percent (208 items) to rural settlements (Chakrabarti 1995, 194). In the deep south facing the trade routes to Southeast Asia, the archaeological record shows that Buddhism was well established in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, then further up the coasts at Gujarat and Bengal, all areas which became heavily involved in the trade with Southeast Asia during the period from the sixth century AD onwards. Inscriptions show grants made to monasteries, and kings establishing monasteries in these areas, with some monasteries taking on the characteristics of centres of learning and then universities. Under the Maitraka rulers during the sixth to eighth centuries AD, one such centre of Buddhist learning was at Valabhi in Gujarat another at Nagapattinam in Tamil Nadu where the Chola kings gloried in their patronage of the Buddhist centre of learning whose fame drew pilgrims and patrons from China and Malaya. Buddhist centres of learning at Ratnagiri in Orissa, Paharpur in Bengal, Nalanda, Vikramsila and Odantapuri in Bihar flourished under the Buddhist Pala kings of Bengal and the Bhauma-Kara kings of Orissa. The fame of Indian Buddhism attracted pilgrims from overseas. From the seventh to twelfth centuries AD many monks made the journey from China to India and back, attracted to the famous centres of Buddhist learning in Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Bihar. Given the close links between Buddhism and the economically advantaged groups in society, it would appear that there was a strong prestige element in being linked with Buddhism, in having one’s name engraved on a list of donors to a Buddhist establishment or in endowing a Buddhist centre of learning. Buddhism’s external manifestations required considerable technical skills in construction, sculpture, textile weaving, printing, writing, painting, community management, medicine, urban dwelling, plumbing, as well as investment and commercial procedures. Buddhism’s spread in the archaeological record to Southeast Asia therefore may have been part of the adoption of technological innovation as much as philosophical or commercial origins. Buddhism itself clearly contributed to the development of urban cultures. When massive temple building overtook the simple erection of stupas, considerable physical and economic resources of the state were expended in support of Buddhism. Of necessity, these bespoke a prosperous community or kingdom. Early Buddhist city states It is not surprising then that a proliferation of Buddhist city states occurs across Thailand, on the peninsula at Kedah, a favourite port of call for Buddhist

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

42

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

43

pilgrims sailing across the Bay of Bengal to India, Tambralinga (Nakhon Sri Thammarat), in the valleys of the Chao Phraya and Pasak and on the Khorat plateau between sixth and eleventh centuries AD. Vallibhotama has suggested that the T’ai-Lao peoples inhabited the region up to the Mun River, whilst the southern part of the Khorat plateau was occupied by the Mon-Khmer peoples who seem to have established an early pre-Khmer Mon Buddhist civilization in the Mun River basin up to Aranyaprathet similar to that of the Dvaravati culture of central Thailand. Inscriptions in the Mon language on four terracotta Buddhist votive tablets found at Muang Fa Daed in Kalasin province, Buddhist silver plaques and other Buddhist remains indicate that Theravada Buddhism from central Thailand was established here by the seventh century and continued into the late Dvaravati period around the tenth–eleventh centuries (Diskul 1979, 369) At Sri Thep in the Pasak valley on the route connecting the Chao Phraya valley with the civilizations in the Mun and Chi river systems, Dhida Saraya found an extensive proto-historic state dating from the sixth to eleventh centuries which exhibited traits of both Dvaravati Theravada Buddhism and Chenla Hinduism (Saraya 1984, 136). Archaeological evidence from ancient settlements, religious monuments and secular artefacts indicate communication between the Khorat plateau and the Pasak valley in this period proceeded from the coastal area of the western Chao Phraya valley along the old waterways to Chainat and Nakhon Sawan then across the mountain range to Sri Thep before going further east via the Don Phraya Klang pass to the upper valleys of the Mun and Chi river systems. From the Chi River, the merchant and traveller could proceed to the Upper Mekong valley in Laos and the early state of Chenla. Aerial photographs show that Sri Thep in the first phase of its history (sixth–eleventh centuries AD) was oval in plan with an inner and outer section similar to Muang Bon in Nakhon Sawan and is considered part of Dvaravati culture. Its defensive moats and ramparts were used for water control and provided passage to the waterways outside the city. Monuments inside the city at Khlang Nai show similarities to the Wat Khlong at Kubua, Ratburi, also part of the Dvaravati culture. Saraya suggests that Sri Thep’s vitality resulted from its location at the crossroads of economic and cultural influence between the Dvaravati culture of the Chao Phraya valley and the Indian-influenced pre-Angkorian culture of Laos and Cambodia (Saraya 1984, 136). On the basis of his analysis of a further set of inscriptions relating to a state existing in the ninth and tenth centuries in the northeast hinterland of the Chao Phraya valley called Sri Chanasa, Saraya believes that Sri Thep and Sri Chanasa are one and the same polity over which, in the sixth century according to the Sri Thep inscription (K. 978) a ruler exercising leadership status compared himself to King Bhavavarman of Chenla and commemorated in the inscription his own rise to power (Saraya 1984, 142–144). Contemporaneous with U Thong and Nakhon Chaisri in the western Chao Phraya valley, Sri Thep’s

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

43

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

44

position in the exchange network of towns in the Nakhon Sawan region was superseded in the eleventh century by the Khmer administrative outpost at Lavo on the Lopburi River when the hinterland trade route changed, by-passing Sri Thep, as goods and merchants moved directly from Lavo to Nakhon Sawan and thence to the Khorat plateau. Overseas traders coming to Lavo soon made this state the centre for international communication in this part of the Chao Phraya valley. Sab Champa, excavated by Veerapan Maleipan in Lopburi province, exhibits similar socio-cultural developments. Here, Buddhist images and fragments of a sandstone Wheel of the Law dated sixth to seventh centuries AD, mark this polity as being part of the Dvaravati culture. Built on an earlier Neolithic site, Sab Champa shares cultural traits with U Thong and Nakhon Pathom, also prehistoric sites which developed into Buddhist city states in the proto-historic era (Veerapan 1979, 337–341). At Chansen, Bronsen’s analysis of ceramic artefacts of Chinese, Burmese and Ceylonese origin, led him to suggest that here there was sub-regional economic integration, a developing local elite, an increase in local economic activity and a large volume of long-distance trade. Such trade provided the revenue flow to sustain the erection of public works, temples, palaces and maintain a military or police-like establishment. State development provided the expansionist incentive to exert control over material and human resources, with which to fuel the trade and administer the bureaucracy required to reap the economic benefits from the activity (Bronson 1979, 334). Perhaps these early Buddhist city states were more interested in controlling manpower and material resources, than constructing large scale ceremonial state monuments along Angkorian lines. These sites–U Thong, Nakhon Pathom, Kubua, Chansen, Sab Champa in central Thailand—are, for M. C. Subhadradis Diskul, the cradle of Dvaravati culture which spread north to Haripunjaya, northeast along the Mun and Chi rivers of the Khorat plateau, east to Aranyaprathet and south down the peninsula (Diskul 1979, 364). The shared Buddhist culture informed the polities of Dvaravati and Srivijaya which were pre-eminent in the region from the eighth century to the eleventh century. As shown by the Ligor (Nakhon Sri Thammarat) inscription of 775 AD and other ‘Dvaravati’ cultural remains, their social structures evolved during this time from single city state, muang, to the more complexly organized mondhon,11 incorporating a much larger number of centres in a shared culture. Coins demonstrate one element of this shared culture as issued in the various urbanized centres at Oc-Eo, the Mon centres of Thailand and southern Burma, the Pyu cities of Beikthano, Halin and Sriksetra, the Arakanese cities of Khanyavati 11

A group or ‘circle’ of Iron Age sites, often moated, and sharing a common material culture which exhibit features of urbanization such as religious, (e.g. temples, stupas) and political (e.g. palaces) structures indicative of a more complex socio-political organization beyond the simple village (ban) complex. The mondhon probably gave rise to the first chiefdoms and kingdoms. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

44

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

45

and Vaisali, and the ‘Srivijayan’ centres of the peninsula and the archipelagian world. In the eighth century AD, Dvaravati cast silver coins, the minting of which was retained as a state monopoly. The coins of the ‘six markets’ were described as ‘small like elm-seeds’ and about 14 mm in diameter (Gutman 1978, 9). One Dvaravati coin weighed 7.5 g (Gutman 1978, 11). In the mainland centres, where coinage was based on the Conch/Srivatsa model of Pegu, silver appears to have been the preferred metal for casting coins, while gold was preferred in the island regions (Wicks 1992, 313). Gutman has noted that most of the Dvaravati coins found in Thailand have a conch on the obverse indicating that this was perhaps a Mon emblem. The srivatsa motif on the reverse reflects the royal power and functions and is associated with Puranci and Buddhist cosmology, the microcosmic alliances of the king and his role in protecting the country’s prosperity. Fish, lotus, tortoise or wavy lines appear on some coins (Gutman 1978, 13) such as that found at U Thong which has a large fish. On the ‘rising sun’ coins from Oc-Eo, U Thong and Beikthano, a stylized human figure appears. Later Dvaravati coins had a bunch of three stalks tied in the centre. Each urban centre appears to have had its own stylistic motif on its coins. Thus the conch on the obverse is found on the coins of Nakhon Pathom and Prachin Buri and occurs around Pegu following what Gutman has called the ‘westward drift of Mon culture’ (Gutman 1978, 17). When Dvaravati was overcome by the Khmer expansion from 802 AD onwards, the local casting of coins ceased and was replaced by barter, cowrie shells or metal lumps and bars. It was not until the fourteenth century that the use of coins is again found, in association with the activities of European and Muslim traders. The ‘Dvaravati’ centres of central and northeast Thailand, of which Nakhon Pathom is known to have been the largest, measuring 3,700 x 2,000 metres with a seventh century chedi, Chula Chedi Pathom, at its centre, all exhibit remains of fortified enclosures by which Smith distinguishes them from the temple building societies of lower Cambodia. Such fortified towns, in the Menam basin from Nakhon Pathom to Prachinburi, and in the northeast at Muang Fa Daed, may indicate the presence of an organized political life amongst relatively equal centres which may have engaged in intermittent warfare, rather than the dominance over a wide area of a single centre characterized by temple building (Smith 1979, 454–455). The plans of these fortified towns given by Quaritch Wales (1969) and their comparative sizes as identified by Smith (1979, 455) indicate habitation areas ranging from 700 x 700 metres at Chansen, 775 x 730 metres at Kampheng Sen, to 2,000 x 1,000 metres at Muang Fa Daed, 1,690 x 840 metres at U Thong, 2,010 x 800 metres at Kubua, and 1,500 x 800 metres at Dong Si Maha Pot (Prachinburi). These sizes compare favorably with those of Oc-Eo (3,000 x 1,500 metres), Pagan (1,190 metres square) and some of the Chinese cities of the Warring States period (Smith 1979, 454). As Smith has suggested, the rise of such fortified centres in the Menam basin

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

45

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

46

and in northeast Thailand represents significant socio-political development between the seventh and ninth centuries. At the beginning of the ninth century, the Dvaravati culture had probably reached its peak. In the north, the Mon Dvaravati kingdom of Haripunjaya probably survived until the late thirteenth century leaving a legacy of magnificent Buddhist sculpture, terracotta and stucco reliefs evoking the Amaravati and post-Gupta styles of India yet incorporating those elements of local genius which represented the first flowering of indigenous Buddhist culture in Thailand. It may be seen as the essential base to which Thailand returned after the Khmer period (ninth to thirteenth centuries), when Theravada Buddhism became the official state religion of the Sukhothai culture. Ceramics, cultural diplomacy and the emergent T’ai The Arab geographer, Masudi, writing about 943 AD, commented on the ships from China meeting the Muslim ships from Oman and Siraf, a port on the Persian Gulf in Sassanian times, at the trading centre of Kalah (Kedah) on the west coast of the Malay peninsula. Chinese ceramics, silks and other textiles transported thence to meet the demands of the Persian and Arabian markets followed the maritime silk route detailed in the writings of Masudi and his fellow Arab-Islamic geographers (Ferrand 1913, 91–93; Guy 1986, 9). Their charts and knowledge of astronomical navigation sustained knowledge of the maritime communications between east and west during the ninth to twelfth centuries (Hua Tao 1991, 142). Along the sea lanes from India to the Mediterranean, Chinese silks and porcelain were transported, appearing in markets from Lyons to Mogadishu, their patterns and colours becoming incorporated in the cultural and artistic context of Mediterranean potters and designers (McPherson 1991, 58). Chinese ceramics at five peninsular sites–Tungtuk, Tha Chana, Laem Pho-Payang, Tha Rua River and Takria–document this trade. Here occur Changsha wares from Hunan province, bowels, ewers, cups jars for the Muslim markets; Ding ware from Hebei, Yue ware from Zhejian (Ho 1991, 291). Ongoing links between the peninsular states and the Arabic world are evidenced in the Middle Easternware sherds, Basra turquoise ware and other items found at Kho Khao. At Songkhla, Sung coins have been found, whilst large quantities of early Sung ceramics of the Yue type green ware, Qingbai ware, black, white wares and large green and brown storage jars have been found at Chaiya, Nakhon Sri Thammarat, old Satingpra and other places. The peninsula ports were part of a local redistribution system, the cargoes of Sung ceramics being unloaded at Ratburi and Nakhon Sri Thammarat to supply the local market. In the Sung period from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, southern Thailand had an essential role as a channel for Chinese and Middle Eastern communications. Nakhon Sri Thammarat came to prominence as the centre for regional trade in ceramics

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

46

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

47

interfacing with southern Fujian and Longquan in Zhejiang which had replaced Guangdong (Ho 1991, 301). It is possible that the extension of control of the Khmer King Suryavarman I (1002–1050 AD) over Lopburi and the lower Chao Phraya valley to the Kra Isthmus may have been motivated by a desire to control access to the international trading routes via the peninsular ports. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Srivijaya was no longer the power it had been during Dvaravati times when seventh century Chinese Buddhist pilgrims stopped there en route to India. By the eleventh century a different set of political and cultural dynamics was drawing the upper peninsular states into the developments on mainland Southeast Asia (Whitmore and Hall 1976, 319). Takua Pa, Kedah and Tambralinga were key players in these developments. In the age of the Cholas of south India (850–1279 AD), their centuries-old commercial links with the Coromandel Coast made them a preferred destination on the west coast of the peninsula for international traders. Just as Suryavarman I of Angkor died (1050 AD), the Burmese, established at Pagan since the mid-ninth century, were expanding into southern Mon territory, taking Thaton in 1057 and moving into the Kra peninsula. The Chola sacking of the Mon port of Pappala on the Pegu coast, according to the Tanjore inscription, may be seen in the context of emergent polities seeking to re-align the axes of commercial power in the peninsular world. Aniruddha (Anawrahta) of Pagan soon moved further south to Mergui, supported Ceylon against the Cholas, who in turn supported the peninsular states against the exigencies of the Burmese. Thus within 25 years of the first Chola raid on Sumatran Srivijaya in 1025 AD, the balance of power amongst competing regional polities was being contested in the peninsular region, a consequence of its strategic importance in the international commercial network. Takuapa on the Kra isthmus became the centre of this conflict between the former hegemonic polity, Srivijaya, and the newly emerging Burmese, Khmers, Ceylonese and Chola polities. The second Chola raid of 1067 AD on Takuapa seems to have destroyed it as the chief entrepot on the west coast of the Malay peninsula, this role shifting to Kedah in the late eleventh century. Mindful of this conflict,Tambralinga on the east coast, in the Khmer sphere of influence, in 1070 AD sent a mission to the Chinese Sung court, its first since 1016 AD, perhaps signalling its intention to be seen as allied with this more powerful Chinese sphere. If such was the intention, it seems to have failed, for by the mid-twelfth century Tambralinga seems to have come within the Ceylonese, rather than Khmer, sphere of influence, a position apparently contested by the Burmese at Pagan (see Whitmore and Hall, 1976). In 1176 AD King Narapathisithu of Pagan (1174–1211 AD) sent his own expedition to the Kra isthmus to establish control of Tambralinga. Recognized as a centre of Theravada Buddhist learning in the twelfth century, Tambralinga’s religious and political ties with Ceylon gave way to the eco-

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

47

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

48

nomic exigencies of the Burmese international trade policy. Kyanzitta (1077–1112 AD) of Pagan sent religious missions to both north and south India and Ceylon as part of this drive to establish close economic ties around the Bay of Bengal and draw the trade revenues towards the Pegu coast. The Ceylonese chronicle, the Culavamsa, records the Burmese claim to the ports on the west coast of the peninsula in the twelfth century at Mergui, Tenasserim, Takuapa and Phuket. The importance of the trans-peninsular routes to international trade may be seen in the interruption to Burmese-Ceylonese relations in the 1160s, when Burmese monopoly of the elephant trade inhibited access across the peninsula to the Khmer Angkorian polity. Ceylon felt so strongly that it raided the southern Burmese coast and normal relations were only restored in 1186 AD with a guarantee from the Burmese of continued Ceylonese access to the Angkorian regions. The upper peninsula and isthmian states in the twelfth century (see Whitmore and Hall, 1976: 319 ff) clearly played a key role in sustaining the international trading networks linking the Arab world, the Coromandel Coast, Ceylon, the Bay of Bengal, with the Burmese at Pagan, the Khmer of Angkor and Sung China. It is likely that the linkages with these polities were religious, cultural and economic rather than direct political control. The T’ai beachhead states and Nakhon Sri Thammarat In the twelfth century, Nakhon Sri Thammarat was the pre-eminent centre for Theravada Buddhist religious culture and commerce on the peninsula. It had a close relationship with Ceylon, based on these religious/cultural ties. In the reign of the Ceylonese king, Parakramabahu II (1153–1186 AD) of Dambedeniya, according to the Ceylonese chronicle, the Mahavamsa, an eminent Buddhist monk named Dhammakitti was invited to Ceylon from Nakhon Sri Thammarat (Paranavitana 1932, 190). The rise of Nakhon Sri Thammarat to commercial and political prominence and the parallel decline of Chaiya in the twelfth century coincided with the establishment of Theravada Buddhism and the displacement of the rival Mahayana Buddhist school. These religious, cultural, commercial and political developments reflected the changing pattern of international rivalries being played out in the peninsula states between the Cholas, the Burmese, the Ceylonese and the Khmer in the twelfth century. Into this cultural and political cauldron irrupted the T’ai drawn by the pre-eminence of Nakhon Sri Thammarat, the obvious commercial and political advantages stemming from its international trading links, and perhaps a desire to shortcircuit the Burmese at Pagan in gaining a monopoly position on the peninsula. The story of their establishment in the T’ai beachhead states at Fang, Payao, Kampaengbejr, Chieng Saen, Chalieng, Chieng Rung from at least the tenth century has been ably told by Professors Charnwit

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

48

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

49

Kasetsiri (1976), and Kachorn Sukhabanij (1957). Suffice it to say here that the T’ai were well established in the north and central parts of the Menam valley by the ninth century and came under titular Khmer overlordship as the Mon polity contracted in the face of Khmer expansion. There was no sudden rise of the T’ai at Sukhothai in the thirteenth century. In the centuries between Jayavarman II (802–850 AD) and Jayavarman VII (1181–1219 AD) of Angkor, two distinct dynastic lines, the Sri Dhammasokaraja line and the U Thong line challenged the Khmer and the Mon for predominance in the region until their mid-thirteen century victory by the forces of the Sukhothai chief administered a decisive defeat in a contest which had been going on for some centuries. Sukhabanij has shown that the T’ai appearance on the historical scene was neither sudden nor peaceful, nor was it a spontaneous nationalistic revolt against a Khmer overlord. T’ai contact with Mon Theravada Buddhism during the eleventh century religious revival had provided the impetus for their further politico-cultural interactions with the wider Buddhist world of Mon/Ceylonese institutionalized religion (Wyatt 1984, 3). Nakhon Sri Thammarat’s reputation for international religious and cultural diplomacy attracted the T’ai/Syam, perhaps in a way similar to the attraction Thaton had held for Aniruddha. It is this interaction with the wider world of international Buddhist urbanized culture which provided the essential dynamic of change as the thirteenth century opened.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

49

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

50

References Abu-Lughod, J. 1993. Discontinuities and Persistence: One world system or a succession of systems? The World System: Five hundred Years or Five Thousand? A. G. Frank and B. K. Gills, eds. London: Routledge, pp. 278–291. Adams, R. McC. 1974. Anthropological Perspectives on Ancient Trade. Current Anthropology. 15 (3): 239–258. Adams, R. M. 1966. The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and Prehispanic Mexico. Chicago: Aldine. Agarwal, D. P. 1984. The Archaeology of India. New Delhi: Selectbook Service Syndicate. Alden, J. R. 1982. Trade and Politics in Proto-Elamite Iran. Current Anthropology. 23(6): 613– 635. Allen, J. Golson, J. and R. Jones, eds. 1977. Sunda and Sahul: Prehistoric Studies in Southeast Asia, Melanesia and Australia. London: Academic Press. Allen, J. 1990. Agriculture, Hydraulics and Urbanism at Satingpra. Asian Perspectives. 28(2): 163–177. Amin, S. 1993. The Ancient World-Systems Versus the Modern Capitalist WorldSystem. The World System: Five hundred Years or Five Thousand? A. G. Frank and B. K. Gills, eds. London: Routledge, pp. 247–277. Anderson, D. 1989. Prehistoric Human Adaptations to Environments in Thailand. Culture and Environment in Thailand: A Symposium of the Siam Society. Bangkok: Duang Kamol, pp. 101–124. Ansari, Z. D. and M. K. Dhavalikar. 1971. New Light on the Prehistoric Cultures of Central India. World Archaeology. 2(3): 337–346. Asthana, S. History and Archaeology of India’s Contacts with Other Countries from earliest times to 300 BC. Delhi: BR Publishing Corporation. Backus, C. 1981. The Nan-chao Kingdom and T’ang China’s Southwestern Frontier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bag, A. K. 1985. Science and Civilization in India: Harappan Period (c3000 BC–1500 BC). New Delhi: Navrang. Bakel, M. van, R. Hagesteijn, and P. van de Velde, eds. 1994. Pivot Politics: Changing Cultural Identities in Early State Formation Processes. Leiden: Het Spinhuis. Barber, E. W. 1999. The Mummies of Urumchi. London: Macmillan. Barnes, G. L. 1995. An Introduction to Buddhist archaeology. World Archaeology. 27(2): 165–182. Basham, A. L. 1954. The Wonder that Was India: A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent before the coming of the Muslims. London: Sidgwick and Jackson. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

50

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

51

Bayard, D. 1970. Excavation at Non Nok Tha, Northeastern Thailand, 1968: an interim report. Asian Perspectives 13: 109–144. Bayard, D. 1971. Non Nok Tha: The 1968 Excavation: Procedure, stratigraphy and a summary of the evidence. Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology 4. University of Otago, Dunedin. Bayard, D. 1984. A Tentative Regional Phase Chronology for Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Archaeology at the XV Pacific Science Congress: The Origins of Agriculture, Metallurgy and the State in Mainland Southeast Asia. D. Bayard, ed. University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology, Vol. 16, Dunedin, pp. 161–166. Bayard, D. 1992. Models, Scenarios, Variables and Suppositions: Approaches to the Rise of Social Complexity in Mainland Southeast Asia, 700 BC–500 AD. Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia. I.Glover, Suchitta P., and J. Villiers, eds. Bangkok, White Lotus, pp. 13–38. Beale, T. W. 1973. Early Trade in highland Iran: a view from a source area. World Archaeology. 5(2): 133–145. Beckwith, C. I. 1987. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the early Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Begley, A. 1983. Arikamedu Reconsidered. American Journal of Archaeology. 87(4): 460–481. Bellwood, P. 1978. Man’s Conquest of the Pacific. Auckland, Collins. Bellwood, P. 1985. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. North Ryde, Academic Press. Bellwood, P., J. Fox, and D. Tryon, eds. 1995. The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Canberra, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Department of Anthropology. Bender, B. 1978. Gatherer-hunter to farmer: a social perspective. World Archaeology. 10(2): 204–222. Benedict, P. 1942. Thai, Kadai and Indonesian: A New Alignment in Southeastern Asia. American Anthropologist. 44: 576–601. Benedict, P. 1976. Austro-Thai and Austroasiatic. Austro-Asiatic Studies I. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, pp. 1–36. Benjamin, G. 1976. Austroasiatic Subgroupings and Prehistory in the Malay Peninsula. Austro-Asiatic Studies I. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 37–128. Bennet, A. 1990. Prehistoric copper smelting in Central Thailand. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. I. and E. Glover, eds. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 561, Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

51

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

52

pp. 109–119. Betts, A. V. G. 1987. The Hunter’s perspective: 7th millennium BC rock carvings from eastern Jordan. World Archaeology. 19(2): 214–225. Boeles, J. J. 1986. A Note on Tamil Relations with South Thailand and the Identification of Ptolemy’s Tacola. The Archaeology of Peninsular Siam: Collected Articles from the Journal of the Siam Society. Bangkok: The Siam Society, pp. 118–122. Boulnois, L. 1966. The Silk Road. D. Chamberlain, trans. London: Allen and Unwin. Brandauer, F. P. and C. C. Huang, eds. 1994. Imperial Rulership and Cultural Change in Traditional China. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Bronson, B. 1977. The Earliest Farming: Demography as Cause and Consequence. Origins of Agriculture. C. A. Reed, ed. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, pp. 23–47. Bronson, B. 1990. Glass and Beads at Khuan Lukpad, Southern Thailand. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. I. and E. Glover, eds. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, (International Series), 561, pp. 213–229. Bronson, B. 1992. Patterns in the Early Southeast Asian Metals Trade. Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia. I. Glover, Suchitta P., and J. Villiers, eds. Bangkok, White Lotus, pp. 63–114. Brown, R. 1988. The Ceramics of South-East Asia: Their Dating and Identification. Second ed. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Brumfel, E. M. and T. K. Earle. 1987. Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai. 1966. The Teaching of Buddha. rev. ed. 1975. Tokyo: Buddhist Promoting Foundation. Burn, A. R. 1965. The Pelican History of Greece. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books. Burney, C. and D. M. Lang. 1971. The Peoples of the Hills: Ancient Ararat and the Caucasus. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Byrne, D. 1995. Buddhist stupa and Thai social practice. World Archaeology. 27(2): 266–281. Casal, J-M. 1949. Fouilles de Virampatnam-Arikamedu. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Casson, L. 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Casson, L. 1984. Ancient Trade and Society. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Casson, L. 1989. The Periplus Maris Erythraei: Text with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ceci, L. 1984. Shell midden deposits as coastal resources. World Archaeology. 16(1): 62–74. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

52

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

53

Chakrabarti, D. K. 1995. Buddhist sites across South Asia as influenced by political and economic forces. World Archaeology. 27(2): 185–202. Chakrabarti, D. K. 1995(a). The Archaeology of Ancient Indian Cities. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Chamberlain, A. T. 1991. A Chronological Framework for Human Origins. World Archaeology. 23 (2): 138–148. Chang, K. C. 1963. The Archaeology of Ancient China. Fourth ed. 1986. New Haven and London, Yale University Press. Chang, K. C. 1975. Ancient Trade as Economics or as Ecology. Ancient Civilization and Trade. J. A. Sabloff, and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, eds. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 211–223. Chang, K. C. 1981. Archaeology and Chinese historiography. World Archaeology. 13(2):156 – 169. Chang, K. C. 1989. Ancient China and its anthropological significance. Archaeological Thought in America. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–166. Chang, T-T. 1976. The Rice Cultures. The Early History of Agriculture. London, Royal Society Philosophical Transactions B Biological Sciences, Vol. 275. Charlesworth, M. P. 1924. Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprint 1961. Hildesheim. Charlesworth, M. P. 1951. Roman Trade with India: A Resurvey. Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson. P.R. Coleman-Norton, ed. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp 131–143. Chew, S. C. 1999. Ecological Relations and the Decline of Civilizations in the Bronze Age World-System: Mesopotamia and Harappa 2500 BC–1700 BC. Ecology and the World System. W.L. Goldfrank, D. Goodman, A. Szasz, eds. Westport: Greenwood Press, pp. 87–106. Childe, V. G. 1930. The Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Childe, V. G. 1940. India and the West before Darius. Antiquity. 14(1940): 5–15. Clark, H. R. 1991. Community, Trade and Networks: Southern Fujian from 3rd to 13th centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, H. R. 1991. The Politics of Trade and the Establishment of the Quanzhou Trade Superintendency. China and the Maritime Silk Route. Proceedings of the UNESCO Quanzhou International Seminar on China and the Maritime Routes of the Silk Roads. Quanzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House, pp. 376–394. Clark, H. R. 1994. Three Studies on the Local History of Southern Fujian. Journal of Sung-Yuan Studies. 24: Cleuziou, S. 1986. Dilmun and Makkan during the third and early second millennia BC. Bahrain through the Ages: the Archaeology. S.H.A.A. Khalifa, and Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

53

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

54

M. Rice, eds. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 143–155. Coedes, G. 1975. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. W.F. Vella, ed., and S. B. Cowing, trans. Canberra: Australian National University Press. Cohen, R. and E. R. Service. 1978. Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Coningham, R. A. E. 1995. Monks, caves and kings: a reassessment of the nature of early Buddhism in Sri Lanka. World Archaeology. 27(2): 222–242. Coote, V. 1990. Mining in Southwest Thailand. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. I. and E. Glover, eds. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 561, pp. 134–137. Crawford, H. E. W. 1973. Mesopotamia’s invisible exports in the third millennium BC. World Archaeology. 5(2): 232–242. Crawford, O. G. S. 1938. Tin Deposits in the Near East. Antiquity. 12(45): 79–81. Crawford, O. G. S. 1939. Iranian Tin. Antiquity. 13(49) 195–197. Curtin, P. D. 1984. Cross-Cultural Trade in World History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dani, A. H. 1986. Bahrain and the Indus Civilisation. Bahrain through the Ages: the Archaeology. S.H.A.A. Khalifa, and M. Rice, eds. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 383–388. Dani, A. H. and V. M. Masson, eds. 1992 History of civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. 1. The Dawn of Civilization: earliest times to 700BC. Unesco Publishing. David, N., J. Sterner, and K. Gavua. 1988. Why Pots are Decorated. Current Anthropology. 29(3): 365–389. DeMarrais, E., L. J. Castillo, and T. Earle. 1996. Ideology, Materialization, and Power Strategies. Current Anthropology. 37 (1): 15–27. Dhavalikar, M K. 1974. The Beginning of Coinage in India. World Archaeology. 6(1): 330–338. Dikshit, M. G. 1969. History of Indian Glass. Bombay: University of Bombay. Diskul, M. C. Subhadradis. 1979. The Development of Dvaravati Sculpture and a Recent Find from North-east Thailand. Early South East Asia. R.B. Smith and W. Watson, eds. New York and Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, pp. 360–370. Diskul, M. C. Subhadradis. 1986, sixth ed. Art in Thailand: A Brief History. Bangkok, Amarin Press. Diskul, M. C. Subhadradis. 1980. The Art of Srivijaya. Paris and Kuala Lumpur: UNESCO and OUP. Ducrocq, S. 1999. Siamopithecus eocaenus, a late Eocene anthropoid primate from Thailand: its contribution to the evolution of anthropoids in Southeast Asia. Journal of Human Evolution, 36 (6): 613–635. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

54

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

55

Dowson, T. A. 1994. Reading art, writing history: rock art and social change in southern Africa. World Archaeology. 25(3): 332–345. Earle Smith, C. 1973. ed. Man and His Foods: Studies in the Ethnobotany of Nutrition-Contemporary, Primitive and Prehistoric Non-European Diets. Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Ebrey, P. B. and P. N. Gregory. 1993. Religion and Society in T’ang and Sung China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Edens, C. 1986. Bahrain and the Arabian Gulf during the second millennium BC: urban crisis and colonialism. Bahrain through the Ages: the Archaeology. S.H.A.A. Khalifa and M. Rice, eds. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 195–216. Edens, C. 1992. Dynamics of Trade in the Ancient Mesopotamian “World System.” American Anthropologist. 94: 118–139. Eggermont, P. H. L. 1966. The Murundas and the Ancient Trade Route from Taxila to Ujjain. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 11(3):257–296. Eidem, J. and F. Hojlund. 1993. Trade or diplomacy? Assyria and Dilmun in the eighteenth century BC. World Archaeology. 24 (3): 441–448. Ellen, R F. 1990. Trade, Environment, and the Reproduction of Local Systems in the Moluccas. E. F. Moran, ed. The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to Practice. Ann. Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 191–203. Engelhardt, R. A. 1989. Forest-Gatherers and Strand-Loopers. Culture and Environment in Thailand: A Symposium of the Siam Society. Bangkok, Duang Kamol, pp.125–142. Evans, I. H. N. 1931. On some pottery objects from Surat. Journal of the Siam Society. 24(2): 207–209. Evans, J G. 1969. Land and Freshwater Mollusca in archaeology: chronological aspects. World Archaeology. 1(2): 170–183. Fairservis, W. 1989. An Epigenetic View of the Harappan Culture. C.C. LambergKarlovsky, ed. Archaeological Thought in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, B. 1990. Explaining War. The Anthropology of War. J. Haas, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–55. Ferrand, G. 1904. Madagascar et Les Iles Uaq-Uaq. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Ferrand. G. 1913. Relations de Voyages et Textes Géographiques Arabes, Persans et Turks Relatifs à l’Extrême-Orient du VIIIe AU XVIIIe Siècles. Tomes I et II. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Forbes, A. D. W. 1986. The “CIN-HQ” (Yunnanese Chinese) Muslims of North Thailand. Journal of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. 7(1): 173–186. Forbes, A. D. W. 1986. The “Panthay” (Yunnanese Chinese) Muslims of Burma. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

55

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

56

Journal of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. 7(2): 384–394. Forbes, A. D. W. 1987. The “CIN-HQ” (Yunnanese Chinese) Caravan Trade with North Thailand during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Journal of Asian History. 21(1): 1–47. Forbes, A. D. W. 1998. The role of Hui Muslims in the Traditional Caravan Trade between Yunnan and Thailand. Marchands et hommes d’affaires asiatiques dans l’ocean Indien et la Mer de Chine 13e-20e siècles. D. and J. Lombard, eds. Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, pp. 289–294. Francis, P. 1990. Glass Beads in Asia. Part 1. Introduction. Asian Perspectives. 28(1): 1–22. Francis, P. 1990(a) Glass Beads in Asia. Part 2. Indo-Pacific Beads. Asian Perspectives. 29(1): 1–23. Francis, P. 1991. Beadmaking at Arikamedu and beyond. World Archaeology. 23(1): 28–43. Franck, I. M. and D. M. Brownstone. 1986. The Silk Road: A History. New York and Oxford: Facts on File Publications. Franke, H. 1983. Sung Embassies: Some General Observations. China Among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and its Neighbours, 10th–14th Centuries. Morris Rossabi, ed. Berkley: University of California Press, pp. 116–144. Friedman, J. and M. J. Rowlands. 1977. Notes towards an epigenetic model of the evolution of ‘civilisation’. J. Friedman, and M. J. Rowlands, eds. The Evolution of Social Systems. London: Duckworth, pp. 211–276. Gerini, G. E. 1909. Researches on Ptolemy’s Geography of Eastern Asia (Further India and Indo-Malay Archipelago). Reprint 1974. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation. Gibson, D. B. and M. N. Geselowitz. 1988. The Evolution of Complex Society in Late Prehistoric Europe. Tribe and Polity in Late Prehistoric Europe: Demography, Production, and Exchange in the Evolution of Complex Social Systems. D.B. Gibson, and M. N. Geselowitz, eds. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 3–37. Giles, H. A. 1923. The Travels of Fa-hsien (399–414 AD), or Record of the Buddhistic Kingdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gills, B. K. and A. G. Frank. World System Cycles, Crises, and Hegemonic Shifts, 1700 BC to 1700 AD. The World System: Five hundred Years or Five Thousand? A.G. Frank, and B K Gills, eds. London: Routledge, pp. 143–196. Glover, I. 1989. Early Trade Between India and Southeast Asia: A Link in the Development of a World Trading System. University of Hull Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Occasional Papers, No 16, Hull. Glover, I. 1990. Ban Don Ta Phet 1984 - 85. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

56

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

57

Archaeologists in Western Europe. I. and E. Glover, eds. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 561, pp. 139–177. Glover, I, Suchitta, P. and J. Villiers, eds. 1992. Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia. Bangkok: White Lotus. Glover, I. and J. Henderson. 1995. Early Glass in South and South East Asia and China: Art, Interaction & Commerce. R. Scot and J. Guy, eds. London: University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, Colloquies on Art & Archaeology in Asia No. 17, pp. 141–169. Goitein, S. D. 1967-78. Mediterranean Society. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gorman, C. 1971. The Hoabinhian and after: subsistence patterns in Southeast Asia during the late Pleistocene and early recent periods. World Archaeology. 2 (3): 300–320. Gorman, C. 1973. Excavations at Spirit Cave, north Thailand: some interim interpretations. Asian Perspectives. 13: 79–107. Gorman, C. 1977. A Priori Models and Thai Prehistory: A Reconsideration of the Beginnings of Agriculture in Southeastern Asia. Origins of Agriculture. C. A. Reed, ed. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, pp. 321–355. Grave. P. 1995. Beyond the mandala: Buddhist landscapes and upland-lowland interaction in north-west Thailand AD 1200–1650. World Archaeology. 27(2): 243–265. Gregory, P. N. and P. B. Ebrey. 1993. The Religious and Historical Landscape. In Religion and Society in T’ang and Sung China. P. B. Ebrey, and P. N. Gregory, eds. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 1–44. Griffin, P. B. and W. G. Solheim II. 1988. Ethnoarchaeological Research in Asia. Asian Perspectives. 28(2): 145–162. Grousset, R. 1932. In the Footsteps of the Buddha. London: George Routledge. Gungwu, W. 1958. The Nanhai Trade. Reprint 1998. Singapore: Times Academic Press. Gungwu, W. 1989. Introduction. Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries. D. G. Marr and A C. Milner, eds. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. xii - xviii. Gurumurthy, S. 1981. Ceramic Traditions in South India Down to 300 AD. Madras: United Printers’ Syndicate. Gutman, P. 1978. The Ancient Coinage of Southeast Asia. Journal of the Siam Society. 66(1): 8–21. Guy, J. S. 1986. Oriental Trade Ceramics in Southeast Asia Ninth to Sixteenth Centuries. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Guy, J. S. 1993. Thai Ceramics: The James and Elaine Connell Collection. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Hagesteijn, R. R. 1994. Kyanzittha and Beyond: Amalgamating Cultural Identities Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

57

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

58

in Early Myanmar. M. van Bakel, R. Hagesteijn, and P van de Velde, eds. Pivot Politics: Changing Cultural Identities in Early State Formation Processes. Leiden: Het Spinhuis, pp. 181–195. Haldane, C. 1993. Direct evidence for organic cargoes in the Late Bronze Age. World Archaeology. 24(3): 348–360. Hall, D. G. E. 1968. A History of South-East Asia. Third ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Hall, K. R. 1980. Trade and Statecraft in the Age of the Colas. New Delhi: Shakti Malik Abhinav Publications. Hall, K. R. 1985 Maritime Trade and State Development in Early Southeast Asia. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press. Hammond, M. 1972. The City in the Ancient World. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Hanks, L. 1972. Rice and Man: Agricultural Ecology in Southeast Asia. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Harlan, J. R. 1977. The Origins of Cereal Agriculture in the Old World. Origins of Agriculture. C. A. Reed, ed. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 357–383. Harmatta, J, B. N. Puri, and G. F. Etemadi, eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. II. The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic civilizations: 700 BC to AD 250. Unesco Publishing. Hartwell, R. 1966. Markets, Technology and the Structure of Enterprise in the Development of the Eleventh-Century Chinese Iron and Steel Industry. Journal of Economic History. 26(1): 29–58. Hawkes, K. 1993. Why Hunter-Gatherers Work: An Ancient Version of the Problem of Public Goods. Current Anthropology. 34 (4 ): 341–351. Headland, T. and L. A. Reid. 1989. Hunter-Gatherers and Their Neighbours from Prehistory to the Present. Current Anthropology. 30(1): 43–66. Heng, L. S. 1990. A Tripod Pottery Complex in Peninsular Malaysia. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. I. and E. Glover eds. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 561. Heider, K. G. 1957. New Archaeological Discoveries in Kanchanaburi. Journal of the Siam Society. 45(1): 61–70. Herodotus. The Histories. A. de Selincourt, trans.; intro and notes by J. Marincola. Rev. ed. 1996. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Herre, W. and M. Rohrs. 1977. Zoological Considerations on the Origins of Farming and Domestication. Origins of Agriculture. C. A. Reed, ed. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 245–279. Higham, C. F. W. 1977. Economic Change in Prehistoric Thailand. Origins of Agriculture. C. A. Reed, ed. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, pp. 385–412.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

58

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

59

Higham, C. F. W. 1989. The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Higham, C. F. W. 1990. The Excavation of Khok Phanom Di, a Prehistoric Site in Central Thailand. Volume I: The Excavation, Chronology and Human Burials. London: Society of Antiquaries of London, Research Report no. XLVII. Higham C. F. W. and R. Bannanurag. 1991. The Excavation of Khok Phanom Di, A Prehistoric Site in Central Thailand. Vol II: The Biological Remains (Part 1). London: Society of Antiquaries of London, Research Report no.XLVIII. Higham, C. F. W., R. Bannanurag, G. Mason, and N. Tayles. 1992. Human biology, environment and ritual at Khok Phanom Di. World Archaeology. 24(1): 35–54. Higham, C. F. W. 1993. The Excavation of Khok Phanom Di. Volume III (part 1): The Material Culture. London, Society of Antiquaries of London, Research Report no.L Higham, C. F. W. 1996. The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Higham, C. F. W., and Rachanie Thosarat. 1998. Prehistoric Thailand: From Early Settlement to Sukhothai. Bangkok, River Books. Hinz, W. 1972. The Lost World of Elam: Recreation of a Vanished Civilization. trans. J. Barnes. London: Sidgwick and Jackson. Hirth, F. and W. W. Rockhill. trans. 1911. Chau Ju-Kua: On the Chinese and Arab Trade of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. St Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences. Ho, Chuimei. 1991. Chinese Presence in Southern Thailand before 1500AD from Archaeological Evidence. China and the Maritime Silk Route. Proceedings of the UNESCO Quanzhou International Seminar on China and the Maritime Routes of the Silk Roads. Quanzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House, pp. 290–303. Ho, Ping-Ti. 1966. Lo-yang, AD 495–534: A Study of Physical and SocioEconomic Planning of a Metropolitan Area. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. 26: 52–101. Ho, Ping-Ti. 1969. The loess and the origin of Chinese agriculture. American Historical Review. 75: 1–36. Horridge, A. 1995. The Austronesian Conquest of the Sea - Upwind. The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. P. Bellwood, J. Fox, and D. Tryon eds. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Department of Anthropology. Hua Tao. 1991. Ibn Khurdadhbah’s Description about the Maritime Route to China and its position in the Arab-Islamic Geographical Literature. China and the

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

59

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

60

Maritime Silk Route. Proceedings of the UNESCO Quanzhou International Seminar on China and the Maritime Routes of the Silk Roads. Quanzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House, pp. 131–143. Hublin, J. J. 1999. The Quest for Adam. Archaeology. 52 (4): 26–31. Hudson, G. F. 1931. Europe and China: A Survey of their Relations from the Earliest Times to 1800. Reprint 1961. Boston: Beacon Press. Hutterer, K. L. 1977. Reinterpreting the Southeast Asian Palaeolithic. Sunda and Sahul. Prehistoric Studies in Southeast Asia, Melanesia and Australia. J. Allen, J. Golson, and R. Jones, eds. New York: Academic Press. Hutterer, K. L. ed. 1977. Economic Exchange and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia: Perspectives for Prehistory, History and Ethnography. Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, no. 17. Hutterer, K L., T. Rambo, and G. Lovelace, eds. 1985. Cultural Values and Human Ecology in Southeast Asia. Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, no. 27. Hutterer, K. L. 1988. Ethnic Diversity and the Control of Natural Resources in Southeast Asia. Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan. no. 32. Isaac, G. 1969. Studies of Early Culture in East Africa. World Archaeology. 1(1): 1–28. Isaac, G. 1971. The Diet of Early Man: Aspects of Archaeological Evidence from Lower and Middle Pleistocene Sites in Africa. World Archaeology. 2(3): 278–299. Jacob. J. M. 1979. Pre-Angkor Cambodia: Evidence from the Inscriptions in Khmer concerning the Common People and their Environment. Early South East Asia: Essays in Archaeology, History and Historical Geography. R. B. Smith, and W. Watson, eds. New York and Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, pp. 406–426. Jayawickrama, N. A. 1968.trans. The Sheaf of Garlands of the Epochs of the Conqueror: being a translation of Jinakalamalinipakaranam of Ratanaphanna Thera. London: The Pali Text Society. Johnson, G. A. 1975. Locational Analysis and the Investigation of Uruk Local Exchange Systems. Ancient Civilization and Trade. J. A. Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, eds. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 285–337. Jung-pang Lo. 1955. The Emergence of China as a Sea Power during the Late Sung and Early Yuan Periods. Far Eastern Quarterly. 14 (4): 489–504. Jung-pang Lo. 1969. Maritime Commerce and its Relation to the Sung Navy. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 12(1): 5–100.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

60

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

61

Jung-pang Lo. 1970. Chinese Shipping and East-West Trade from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Century. Societies et Compagnies de Commerce en Orient et dans l’Ocean Indien. Michel Mollat, ed. Paris: SEVPEN, pp. 167–175. Kaplan, D. 1963. Men, Monuments and Political Systems. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. 19(2): 397–410. Kasetsiri, C. 1976. The Rise of Ayudhya: A History of Siam in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Kennedy, J. 1977. From Stage to Development in Prehistoric Thailand: An Exploration of the Origins of Growth, Exchange and Variability in Southeast Asia. Economic Exchange and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia: Perspectives for Prehistory, History and Ethnography. K. L. Hutterer, ed. Ann Arbor: Centre for South and South East Asian Studies, University of Michigan. Kenoyer, J. M., M. Vidale, and K. K. Bhan. Contemporary Stone Beadmaking in Khambhat, India: patterns of craft specialization and organization of production as reflected in the archaeological record. World Archaeology. 23(1): 44–63. Khalifa, S. H. A. A. and M. Rice. 1986. Bahrain through the Ages: the Archaeology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Kiernan, K. J. Spies, and J. Dunkley. 1988. Prehistoric Occupation and Burial Sites in the Mountains of the Nam Khong Area, Mae Hong Son Province, Northwestern Thailand. Australian Archaeology. 27: 24–44. Kijngam A, C.F.W. Higham, and W. Wiriyaromp. 1980. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Northeast Thailand. Dunedin: University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology, Vol. 15. Kirch, P. V. 1990. Specialization and Exchange in the Lapita Complex of Oceania (1600–500 BC). Asian Perspectives. 29(2): 25–38. Klimburg Salter, D. E. 1982. The Silk Route and the Diamond Path: Esoteric Buddhist Art on the Trans-Himalayan Trade Routes. Los Angeles: UCLA Art Council. Knuth, E. 1962. Further Report on the Sai-Yok Excavations and on the Work at the Picture Cave. Journal of the Siam Society. 50(1): 19–23. Kurtz, D. V. 1994. Cultural Identity, Politics and Legitimation. M. van Bakel, R. Hagesteijn, and P. van de Velde, eds. Pivot Politics: Changing Cultural Identities in Early State Formation Processes. Leiden: Het Spinhuis, pp. 31–43. Lahiri, L. 1986. trans. I-Ching. Chinese Monks in India: Biography of Eminent Monks who went to the Western World in Search of the Law During the Great T’ang Dynasty. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Lamberg-Karlvosky, C. C. 1974. The Rise and Fall of Civilizations: Modern

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

61

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

62

Archaeological Approaches to Ancient Cultures. Menlo Park: Cummings Publishing Co. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1975. Third Millennium Modes of Exchange and Modes of Production. Ancient Civilization and Trade. J.A. Sabloff and C C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, eds. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 341–365. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1989. Mesopotamia, Central Asia and the Indus Valley: so the kings were killed. Archaeological Thought in America. C.C. LambergKarlovsky, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 241–270. Leakey, M. 1999. Perspectives on the Past. Archaeology. 52(4): 32–35. Lombard, D. and J. Aubin, eds. 1988. Marchands et hommes d’affaires asiatiques dans l’océan Indien et la Mer de Chine 13e-20e siècles. Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales. Limbrey, S. 1990. Edaphic opportunism? A discussion of soil factors in relation to the beginnings of plant husbandry in south-west Asia. World Archaeology. 22(1): 45–52. Lo, J-P. 1970. Chinese Shipping and East-West Trade from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Century. in Sociétés et Compagnies de Commerce en Orient et dans l’Océan Indien. M. Mollat, ed. Paris: SEVPEN, pp. 167–176. Lyons, E. 1973. Two Dvaravati Figurines. Journal of the Siam Society. 61(1): 193–201. Ma, L. J. C. 1971. Commercial Development and Urban Change in Sung China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Geographical Publication No. 6. Ma Touan-Lin. 1883. Ethnographie des Peuples Etrangers à la Chine. Ouvrage composé au XIIIe siècle de notre ère. trans. Hervey de Saint-Denys. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Mabbett, I. W. 1977. The Indianization of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the Prehistoric Sources. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 8(1): 1–14. Mabbett, I. W. 1977. The Indianization of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the Historic Sources. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 8(2): 143–161. Mackerras, C. 1972. ed. and trans. The Uighur Empire according to the T’ang Dynastic Histories: A Study in Sino-Uighur Relations 744–840. Canberra: Australian National University Press. Maloney, B. K. 1991. The Pollen, Pteridophyte Spore and Microscopic Charcoal: Conclusions. The Excavation of Khok Phanom Di, A Prehistoric Site in Central Thailand. Vol II: The Biological Remains (Part 1). London: Society of Antiquaries of London, Research Report no. 48, pp. 91–94. Maloney, B. K. 1992. Late Holocene climatic change in Southeast Asia: the palynological evidence and its implications for archaeology. World Archaeology. 24(1): 29 – 33.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

62

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

63

Masry, A. H. 1981. Traditions of archaeological research in the Near East. World Archaeology. 13(2): 222–239. McGrail, S. 1985. Towards a classification of water transport. World Archaeology. 16(3): 289–303. McPherson, K. 1991.China and the Maritime Silk Route. Proceedings of the UNESCO Quanzhou International Seminar on China and the Maritime Routes of the Silk Roads. Quanzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House, pp. 55–60. Miksic, J. N. and C. T. Yap. 1990. Fine-bodied White Earthenwares of Southeast Asia: Some X-Ray Fluorescence Tests. Asian Perspectives. 28(1): 45–0. Mollat M. 1970 ed. Sociétés et Compagnies de Commerce en Orient et dans l’Océan Indien. Paris: SEVPEN. Moore, E. 1990. Moated Settlement in the Mun Basin, Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. I. and E. Glover, eds., Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, (International Series), 561, pp 201–211. Moore, E. and S. Siribhadra. 1992. Palaces of the Gods: Khmer Art and Architecture in Thailand. Bangkok: Asia Books. Moorey, P. R. S. 1986. The emergence of the light, horse-drawn chariot in the Near-East c. 2000– 1500 BC. World Archaeology. 18(2): 196–215. Moran, E. F. 1990. The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to Practice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Moran, E. F. 1990. Ecosystem Ecology in Biology and Anthropology: A Critical Assessment. E. F. Moran, ed. The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to Practice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 3–40. Moran, E. F. 1996. Transforming Societies, Transforming Anthropology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Morrison, K. D. 1995. Trade, urbanism, and agricultural expansion: Buddhistic monastic institutions and the state in the Early Historic western Deccan. World Archaeology. 27(2): 203– 221. Murty, M. L. K. 1981. Hunter-gatherer ecosystems and archaeological patterns of subsistence behaviour on the south-east coast of India: an ethnographic model. World Archaeology. 13(1): 47–58. Narada Maha Thera. 1973. The Buddha and His Teachings. Second ed. Singapore: Singapore Buddhist Meditation Centre. Natapintu, S. 1988. Current research on ancient copper-base metallurgy in Thailand. Prehistoric Studies: The Stone and Metal Ages in Thailand. Bangkok: Thai Antiquity Working Group, pp. 107–24.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

63

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

64

Natapintu, S., V. C. Piggott, and U. Theetiparivatra. 1990. The Thailand Archaeometallurgy Project 1984 - 85: Research in the Development of Prehistoric Metal Use in Northeast Thailand. Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia. I. Glover, Suchitta P. and J. Villiers, eds. Bangkok: White Lotus, pp. 47–62. Natapintu, S. 1996. Ban Chiang: A World Heritage in Thailand. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department. Nielsen, E. 1962. The Thai Danish Prehistoric Expedition 1960–1962. Journal of the Siam Society. 50 (1): 7–14. Oates, J. 1993. Trade and power in the fifth and fourth millennia BC: new evidence from northern Mesopotamia. World Archaeology. 24(3): 403–421. O’Connor, S. J. 1986. An Ekamukhalinga from Peninsular Siam. The Archaeology of Peninsular Siam: Collected Articles from the Journal of the Siam Society. Bangkok: The Siam Society, pp. 111–117. O’Connor, S. J. Si Chon: 1986. An Early Settlement in Peninsular Thailand. The Archaeology of Peninsular Siam: Collected Articles from the Journal of the Siam Society. Bangkok: The Siam Society, pp. 123–134. O’Connor, S. J. 1986. Tambralinga and the Khmer Empire. The Archaeology of Peninsular Siam: Collected Articles from the Journal of the Siam Society. Bangkok: The Siam Society, pp. 135–149. O’Connor, S. J. 1986. Some Early Siva Lingas in Nakhon Si Thammarat, Peninsular Thailand. The Archaeology of Peninsular Siam: Collected Articles from the Journal of the Siam Society. Bangkok: The Siam Society, pp. 159–163. Oppenheimer, S. 1998. Eden in the East: The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia. Reprint 1999. London: Phoenix. Paranavitana, S. 1932. Religious Intercourse between Ceylon and Siam in the 13th–15th Centuries. Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 32(85): 190–213. Pattabiramin, P. Z. 1946. Les Fouilles d’Arikamedou (Podouke). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; Pondichéry: Bibliothèque Coloniale. Peacock, D. P. S. 1970. The scientific analysis of ancient ceramics: a review. World Archaeology. 1(3): 375–389. Penny, J. S. 1984. Fish in the Water and Rice in the Paddy: Contributions to Studies of the Southeast Asian Iron Age. Southeast Asian Archaeology at the XV Pacific Science Congress: The Origins of Agriculture, Metallurgy and the State in Mainland Southeast Asia. D. Bayard, ed, University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology, Vol. 16, Dunedin, pp. 152–157. Phansomboon, S. 1957. A Bioserological Consideration of the Migration of the Thai Race. Journal of the Siam Society. 45: 55–64. Phillips, E. D. The Scythian domination in Western Asia: its record in history, scripture and archaeology. World Archaeology. 2(2): 129–138. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

64

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

65

Pietrusewsky, M. 1982. The Ancient Inhabitants of Ban Chiang: The Evidence from the Human Skeletal and Dental Remains. Expedition. 24(4): 42–50. Pookajorn, S. 1990. Hoabinhian cave excavations in Ban Kao District, West Thailand. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 561, pp. 11–25. Pope, G. G. et al. 1978-1986. Palaeoanthropological Investigations of the ThaiAmerican Expedition to Northern Thailand: an Interim Report. Asian Perpsectives, 21:147–63. Possehl, G. L. and M. H. Raval 1989. Harappan Civilization and Rojdi. Leiden and New York: E J Brill. Postgate, J. N. 1992. The Land of Assur and the yoke of Assur. World Archaeology. 23(3): 248–263. Potts, D. T. 1993. Rethinking some aspects of trade in the Arabian Gulf. World Archaeology. 24(3): 423–440. Potts, D. T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations. London: The Athlone Press. Potts, T. F. 1993. Patterns of trade in third-millennium BC Mesopotamia and Iran. World Archaeology. 24(3): 379–402. Price, T. D. and J. A. Brown. eds. 1985. Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: the Emergence of Cultural Complexity. New York: Academic Press. Price, D. H. 1994. Wittfogel’s Neglected Hydraulic/Hydroagricultural Distinction. Journal of Anthropological Research. 50(2): 187–204. Pritchard, J. B. 1950. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Quanzhou International Seminar on China and the Maritime Routes of the Silk Roads Organization Committee. 1991. China and the Maritime Silk Route. UNESCO: Fujian People’s Publishing House. Quaritch Wales, H. G. 1953. The Mountain of God: A Study in early Religion and Kingship. London: Bernard Quaritch. Quaritch Wales, H. G. 1957. Prehistory and Religion in Southeast Asia. London: Bernard Quaritch. Quaritch Wales, H. G. 1957. An Early Buddhist Civilization in Eastern Siam. Journal of the Siam Society. 45(1): 42–60. Quaritch Wales, H. G. 1965. Angkor and Rome: A Historical Comparison. London: Bernard Quaritch. Quaritch Wales, H. G. 1967. The Indianization of China and of South-East Asia. London: Bernard Quaritch. Quaritch Wales, H. G. 1969. Dvaravati: The Earliest Kingdom of Siam. London: Bernard Quaritch. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

65

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

66

Quaritch Wales, H. G. 1974. The Making of Greater India. London: Bernard Quaritch. Rao, S. R. 1985. Lothal A Harappan Port Town. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Rao, S. R. 1986. Trade and cultural contacts between Bahrain and India in the third and second millennia BC. Bahrain through the Ages: the Archaeology. S.H.A.A. Khalifa, and M. Rice, eds. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 376–382. Rappaport, R. A. 1990. Ecosystems, Populations and People. E.F. Moran, ed. The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to Practice. Ann. Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 41–74. Ratnagar, S. 1981. The Westerly Trade of the Harappa Civilization. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Rawson, J. 1993. Sets or Singletons? Uses of Chinese Ceramics: 10 th–14th Centuries. Journal of Sung-Yuan Studies. 23: 71–94. Ray, H. P. 1986. Monastery and Guild: Commerce under the Satavahanas. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Ray, H. P. 1994. Kanheri: the archaeology of an early Buddhist pilgrimage centre in western India. World Archaeology. 26(1): 35–46. Reade, J. 1986. Commerce or Conquest: variations in the Mesopotamia-Dilmun relationship. Bahrain through the Ages: the Archaeology. S.H.A.A. Khalifa and M. Rice, eds. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 325–334. Reischauer, E. O. 1955. Ennin’s Travels in T’ang China. New York: The Ronald Press Company. Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and Communication. Ancient Civilization and Trade, J.A. Sabloff and C C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, eds. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 3–37. Renouf, M. A. P. 1984. Northern coastal hunter-fishers: an archaeological model. World Archaeology. 16(1): 18–27. Reynolds, T. E. G. 1990. Problems in the Stone Age of Thailand. Journal of the Siam Society, 78(1): 109–114. Reynolds, T. E. G. 1991. Revolution or resolution? The archaeology of modern human origins. World Archaeology. 23(2): 155–166. Reynolds, T. E. G. 1992. Excavations at Banyan Valley Cave, Northern Thailand: a report on the 1972 season. Asian Perspectives, 31: 77–98. Rice, P. M. 1989. Ceramic diversity, production and use. R. D. Leonard and G. T. Jones, eds. Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, M., K. Smalley, B. Sykes, and R. Hedges. 1993. Archaeology and genetics: analysing DNA from skeletal remains. World Archaeology. 25(1): 18–28. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

66

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

67

Rogers, P. 1996. Northeast Thailand from Prehistoric to Modern Times. Bangkok: Duang Kamol. Rooney, D. F. A Field Guide to Glazed Thai Ceramics. Asian Perspectives. 28(2): 125–143. Rossabi, M., ed. 1983. China among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and its Neigbours, 10th–14th Centuries. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rowley-Conwy, P. 1984. Postglacial foraging and early farming economies in Japan and Korea: a west European perspective. World Archaeology. 16(1): 28–42. Rubel, P. and A. Rosman. 1994. The Past and the Future of Anthropology. Journal of Anthropological Research. 50(4): 335–343. Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine. Santoni M., J-P. Pautreau, and S. Prishanchit. 1990. Excavations at Obluang, Province of Chiang Mai, Thailand. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. I. and E. Glover, eds. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series) 561, pp. 37–54. Santoni M., J-P. Pautreau, and S. Prishanchit. 1990. Stone Tool manufacturing areas in the Province of Nan, Thailand. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. I. and E. Glover, eds. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series) 561, pp. 55–63. Saraya, D. 1992. The Hinterland State of Sri Thep Sri Deva–A Reconsideration. Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia. I. Glover, Suchitta P. and J. Villiers, eds. Bangkok: White Lotus. Sather, C. 1995. Sea Nomads and Rainforest Hunter-Gatherers: Foraging Adaptations in the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. P. Bellwood, J.J. Fox, and D Tryon, eds. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, pp. 229–241. Sauer, C. O. 1952. Agricultural Origins and Dispersals. New York: American Geographical Society. Schafer, E. H. 1963. The Golden Peaches of Samarkand: A Study of T’ang Exotics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963. Schneider, J. 1977. Was there a Precapitalist World-System? Journal of Peasant Studies. 6(1): 20–29. Reprint.Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. 1991. C. Chase-Dunn, and T. D. Hall, eds. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 45–66. Service, E. R. 1975. Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: W. W. Norton. Service, E. R. 1978. Classical and Modern Theories of the Origins of Government. Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. R. Cohen Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

67

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

68

and E. R. Service, eds. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. pp. 21–33. Shaw, J. C. 1987. Introducing Thai Ceramics, also Burmese and Khmer. Chiang Mai: Duangphorn Kemasingki. Silverman, S. 1979. The Peasant Concept in Anthropology. Journal of Peasant Studies. 7(1): 49–69. Slayman, A. L. 1999. A Cache of Vintage Ships. Archaeology. 52: 36–39. Smith, A. 1995. The need for Lapita: explaining change in the Late Holocene Pacific archaeological record. World Archaeology. 26(3): 366–379. Smith, B. D. 1995. The Emergence of Agriculture. New York: Scientific American Library. Smith, J. M. and F. Plunkett. 1968. Gold Money in Mongol Iran. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 11(2): 273–297. Smith, J. M. 1969. The Silver Currency of Mongol Iran. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 12(1): 16–41. Smith, R. B. and W. Watson, eds. 1979. Early South East Asia: Essays in Archaeology, History and Historical Geography. New York and Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. So Kee Long. 1994. The Trade Ceramics Industry in Southern Fukien During the Sung. Journal of Sung-Yuan Studies. 24: 1–20. Solheim, W. G. II 1972. An Earlier Agricultural Revolution. Scientific American. 226: 34–41. Solheim, W. G.. II 1985. Nusantao Traders Beyond Southeast Asia. Paper presented at Research Conference on Early Southeast Asia, Bangkok and Nakhon Pathom, 8–13 April, 1985. Published in Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia. I. Glover, Suchitta P. and J. Villiers, eds. Bangkok: White Lotus, 1992, pp. 199–212. Solheim, W. G. II. 1990. A Brief History of the Dongson Concept. Asian Perspectives. 28(1): 23–30. Sorensen, P. 1963. North-south indications of a prehistoric migration into Thailand. East and West, 14: 211–217. Sorensen, P. 1990. Kettledrums of Heger Type 1: Some Observations. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. I. and E. Glover, eds. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 561, pp. 195–200. Spencer, G. W. 1969. Religious Networks and Royal Influence in Eleventh Century South India. Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient. 12(1): 42–55. Stargardt, J. 1983. The Environmental and Economic Archaeology of South

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

68

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

69

Thailand. Studies in Southeast Asian Archaeology 1, BAR International Series 158. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Stark, M. T. Ceramic production and community specialization: a Kalinga ethnoarchaeological study. World Archaeology. 23 (1): 64–78. Steele, J. 1994. Communication networks and dispersal patterns in human evolution: a simple simulation model. World Archaeology. 26 (2): 126–143. Stopford, J. 1994. Some approaches to the archaeology of Christian pilgrimage. World Archaeology. 26(1): 57–72. Stringer, C. and R. McKie. 1996. African Exodus: The Origins of Modern Humanity. New York: Henry Holt. Sukhabanij, K. 1956. Was Nam Thom the first King of Sukhodaya. Journal of the Siam Society. 44(2): 139–144. Sukhabanij, K. 1957. The Thai Beach-Head States in the 11th-12th Centuries. Silpakorn Journal. 1(3-4): 1–19. Sukhabanij, K. 1958. Proposed Origin of the Siamese Thai. A lecture delivered at the U.S Information Centre, Bangkok, 23 January 1958. Takakusu, J. 1986. trans. A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Peninsula (AD 671–695) by I-Tsing. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tattersall, I. 1999. Rethinking Human Evolution. Archaeology. 52 (4): 22–25. Terwiel, B. J. 1978. The Origin of the T’ai Peoples Reconsidered. Oriens Extremus. 25(2): 239–258. Tessitore, J. 1990. View from the East Mountain: An Examination of the Relationship between the Dong Son and Lake Tien Civilizations in the First Millennium BC. Asian Perspectives. 28 (1): 31–44. Thomas, K. D. 1993. Molecular Biology and Archaeology: a Prospectus for interdisciplinary Research. World Archaeology. 25 (1): 2–17. Tiemi, C. and Z. Yinyun. 1991. Paleolithic Chronology and possible Co-existence of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens in China. World Archaeology. 23(2): 149–154. Tosi, M. 1986. Early Maritime Cultures of the Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean. S. H. A. A. Khalifa and M. Rice, eds. Bahrain through the Ages: the Archaeology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 94–107. Trigger, B. 1971. Archaeology and Ecology. World Archaeology. 2(3): 321–336. Trigger, B. 1990. Monumental architecture: a thermodynamic explanation of symbolic behaviour. World Archaeology. 22(2): 119–132. Twitchett, D. C. 1963. Financial Administration under the T’ang Dynasty. Cambridge: The University Press. Twitchett, D. C. 1965. Provincial Autonomy and Central Finance in Late T’ang. Asia Major. n. s. 11(2): 211–232. Twitchett, D. C. 1966. Chinese Social History from the Seventh to the Tenth

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

69

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

70

Centuries. The Tunhuang Documents and their Implications. Past and Present. 35(3): 28–53. Twitchett, D. C. 1968. Merchant, Trade and Government in Late T’ang. Asia Major. n. s. 14: 63–95. Twitchett, D. C. 1970. Economic and Social Changes in T’ang and Sung China. in Traditional China. J. T. C. Liu and Wei-ming Tu, eds. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc. pp. 38–41. Ucko, P. 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains. World Archaeology. 1 (2): 262–280. Underhill, A. P. 1991. Pottery production in chiefdoms: the Longshan Period in northern China. World Archaeology. 23(1): 12–27. UNESCO. 1991. China and the Maritime Silk Route. Proceedings of the UNESCO Quanzhou International Seminar on China and the Maritime Routes of the Silk Roads. Quanzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House. Vallibhotama, S. 1984. The Relevance of Moated Settlements to the Formation of States in Thailand. Southeast Asian Archaeology at the XV Pacific Science Congress: The Origins of Agriculture, Metallurgy and the State in Mainland Southeast Asia. D. Bayard, ed. University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology, Vol. 16, Dunedin, pp. 123–129 Vallibhotama, S. 1989. Political and Cultural Continuities at Dvaravati Sites. Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries. D. G. Marr and A. C. Milner, eds. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 229–238. Vallibhotama, S. 1990. A Northeastern Site of Civilization. Bangkok: Pinkanet Printing Centre. Vallibhotama, S. 1992. Early Urban Centres in the Chao Phraya Valley of Central Thailand. Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia. I. Glover, Suchitta P, and J. Villiers, eds. Bangkok: White Lotus, pp. 123–129. Van Heekeren, H. R. 1961. A Preliminary Note on the Excavation of the Sai-Yok Rock Shelter. Journal of the Siam Society. 49(2): 99–108 Veraprassert, M. 1992. Klong Thom: An Ancient Bead-Manufacturing Location and an Ancient Entrepot. Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia. I. Glover, Suchitta P, and J. Villiers, eds. Bangkok: White Lotus, pp. 149–162. Vincent, B. 1988. Prehistoric Ceramics of Northeastern Thailand with special reference to Ban Na Di. Oxford: BAR International Series 461. Warmington, E. H. 1928. The Commerce Between the Roman Empire and India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Revised ed. 1974. New York: Octagon. Warmington, E. H. and M. Carey. 1929. The Ancient Explorers. London: Methuen.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

70

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

71

Revised ed. 1963. London: Pelican. Watson, B. 1961. trans. Records of the Grand Historian of China. New York: Columbia University Press. Watson, W. 1970. The Chinese contribution to Eastern nomad culture in the pre-Han and early Han periods. World Archaeology. 2(2):139–149. Weisgerber, G. 1984. Makan and Meluha – third millennium BC copper production in Oman and the evidence of contact with the Indus Valley. South Asian Archaeology 1981. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Association of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. B. Allchin, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 196–200. Weisgerber, G. 1986. Dilmun–A Trading Entrepot: evidence from historical and archaeological sources. Bahrain through the Ages: the Archaeology. S.H. A. A. Khalifa and M. Rice, eds. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp.135–142. Welch, D. J. 1984. Settlement Pattern as an Indicator of Subsistence and Political Organization in the Phimai Region, Thailand. Southeast Asian Archaeology at the XV Pacific Science Congress: The Origins of Agriculture, Metallurgy and the State in Mainland Southeast Asia. D. Bayard, ed.University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology, Vol. 16, Dunedin, pp. 129–149. Welch, D. J. and J. R. McNeill. 1990. Excavations at Ban Tamyae and Non Ban Kham, Phimai Region, Northeast Thailand. Asian Perspectives. 28(2): 99–123. Wheatley, P. 1961. The Golden Khersonese. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Wheatley. P. 1961a. Sung Maritime Trade. Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 32(2): 5–134. Wheatley, P. 1970. Archaeology and the Chinese City. World Archaeology. 2(2): 159–185. Wheatley, P. 1975. Satyanrta in Suvarnadvipa: From Reciprocity to Redistribution in Ancient Southeast Asia. Ancient Civilization and Trade. J.A.Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, eds. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Wheatley, P. 1983. Nagara and Commandery: Origins of the Southeast Asian Urban Traditions. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Wheeler, R. E. M., A. Ghosh, and K. Deva. 1946. Arikamedu: An Indo-Roman trading station on the coast of India. Ancient India 2: 17–124. Wheeler, R. E. M. 1954. Rome beyond the Imperial Frontiers. London: Bell and Sons. Wheeler, R. E. M. 1966. Civilizations of the Indus Valley and Beyond. London: Thames and Hudson.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

71

9/8/05, 8:54

HELEN JAMES

72

White, J. C. 1984. Ethnoecology at Ban Chiang and the emergence of Plant Domestication in Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian Archaeology at the XV Pacific Science Congress: The Origins of Agriculture, Metallurgy and the State in Mainland Southeast Asia. D. Bayard, ed. University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology, Vol. 16, Dunedin, pp. 26–34. White, J. C. 1990. The Ban Chiang Chronology Revisited. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 561, pp. 121–129. Whitehouse, D. 1970. Siraf: a medieval port on the Persian Gulf. World Archaeology. 2(2): 141–158. Whitley, D. S. 1994. By the hunter, for the gatherer: art, social relations and subsistence change in the prehistoric Great Basin. World Archaeology. 25(3): 362–373. Whitmore, J. K. and K. R. Hall. 1976. Explorations in Early Southeast Asian History: The Origins of Southeast Asian Statecraft. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Wicks, R. 1992. Money, Markets and Trade. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Wilen, R. N. 1989. Excavations at Non Pa Kluay, Northeast Thailand. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 517. Wilkinson, D. 1993. Civilizations, Cores, World Economies, and Oikumenes. The World System: Five hundred Years or Five Thousand? A.G. Frank and B. K. Gills, eds. London: Routledge, pp. 221–246. Wolters, O. W. 1967. Early Indonesian Commerce: A Study of the Origins of Srivijaya. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Wolters, O. W. 1970. The Fall of Srivijaya in Malay History. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Wolters, O. W. 1979. Khmer ‘Hinduism’ in the Seventh Century. Early South East Asia: Essays in Archaeology, History and Historical Geography. R. B. Smith and W. Watson, eds. 1979. New York and Kuala Lumpur. Oxford University Press, pp. 427–442. Wright, H. E. 1977. Environmental Change and the Origin of Agriculture in the Old and New Worlds. C. A. Reed, ed. Origins of Agriculture. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, pp. 281–318. Wright, H. T. 1978. Toward an Explanation of the Origin of the State. R. Cohen and E. R. Service, eds. Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. pp. 49–5. Wright, M. 1992. Ayudhya and its place in Pre-Modern Southeast Asia. Journal of the Siam Society. 80(1): 81–86. Wyatt, D. K. 1975. The Crystal Sands: The Chronicles of Nagara Sri Dhammaraja.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

72

9/8/05, 8:54

Trade, Culture and Society in Thailand before 1200 AD

73

Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Wyatt, D. K. 1984. Thailand: A Short History. New Haven: Yale University Press. Yen, D. E. 1977. Hoabinhian horticulture? the evidence and the questions from Northwest Thailand. Sunda and Sahul. Prehistoric Studies in Southeast Asia, Melanesia and Australia. J. Allen, J. Golson, and R. Jones, eds. London: Academic Press. Yen, D. E. 1982. Ban Chiang Pottery and Rice: A Discussion of the Inclusions in the Pottery Matrix. Expedition. 24(4): 51–64. Ying-shih Yu. 1967. Trade and Expansion in Han China: A Study in the Structure of Sino-Barbarian Economic Relations. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Yoffee, N. and A. Sherratt. 1993. Archaeological Theory: who sets the agenda? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yoffee, N. 1993. Too many chiefs? (or, Safe texts for the ‘90s). N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, eds. 1993. Archaeological Theory: who sets the agenda? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 60–78. Zeilin, R. N. 1994. Accounting for the prehistoric long-distance movement of goods with a measure of style. World Archaeology. 26(2): 208–234. Zurcher, E. 1959. The Buddhist Conquest of China: the Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Leiden: Brill.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P001-073

73

9/8/05, 8:54

[47-03-067] P074-089

74

9/8/05, 8:55

BEFORE ANGKOR: EARLY HISTORIC COMMUNITIES IN NORTHEAST THAILAND Sarah Talbot But there is now one great question: who inhabited this region at the time of the invasion of Mahendravarman? (Jacques 1989, 17)

Abstract This paper outlines the epigraphic and archaeological evidence for the Early Historic communities of Northeast Thailand immediately before 802 AD, the traditional date for the beginning of Angkor. The Early Historic period (c. 500-800 AD) followed the pre-literate Iron Age (c.500 BC - 500 AD) and is usually described in terms of two poles of influence, the ostensibly independent states of Khmer-Hindu Chenla to the south and Mon-Buddhist Dvaravati to the west (Quaritch Wales 1969; Vallibhotama 1976; Groslier 1980; Jacques 1989; Brown 1996, 39). Yet these terms are increasingly problematic and any cultural and political distinction between Mon and Khmer in the Northeast is probably not justified until at least 1000 AD (Keyes 1974, 504; Siribhadra et al. 1997, 25). While the Early Historic communities of the Northeast remain little-known and little-understood there is significant evidence that they shared pan-regional traits, used elements also seen in Khmer and Dvaravati artistic styles, but also had unique characteristics which can still be seen in the epigraphic and archaeological traces that they left behind. Early inscriptions in Northeast Thailand Inscriptions provide some of the most important information about early polities in the wider region, as evidenced by the significant recent study of Vickery (1998) of pre-Angkorian Cambodia. A number of early inscriptions have also been found in Northeast Thailand (Aymonier 1901, 1999; Lunet de Lajonquière 1908; Seidenfaden 1922; Jacob 1979; Jacques 1989; Bauer 1991, 55; Vickery 1994, 1998). The best-known are Sanskrit records left by the sixth century Dangraek overlords from the south (Jacques 1989; Vickery 1994, 1998). Although only three or four Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

75

9/8/05, 8:55

75

SARAH TALBOT

76

pre-seventh-century inscriptions have survived from the southern Mekong, sixteen are known from the area of the Dangraek Range, that is, northern Cambodia and adjacent Thailand (Briggs 1951; Coedès 1937-1954, 1964, 1966, 1968; Jacob 1978, 1979; Jacques 1979, 1990; Smith 1979; Vickery 1998).1 These were erected by local rulers who claimed the status of overlords or even royalty, and have been referred to as the Dangraek chieftains because of their interest in the area, although, with at least one exception, they may never have actually ruled there (Vickery 1998, 71). The exception is that of a fifth century king called Devanika, whose undated inscription is probably also the earliest (K.365 of Wat Luong Kan near Wat Phu in Laos) (Vickery 1998, 73). The other inscriptions record the dynasty of Bhavavarman and his brother Citrasena-Mahendravarman. Bhavavarman established a capital, Bhavapura, at or near Sambor Prei Kuk (Jacques and Freeman 1997, 56). Concurrently, his younger brother led exploratory expeditions far to the north beyond the Dangraek Range (Jacques and Freeman 1997, 57) that are recorded in brief inscriptions describing (temporary) successes and the placing of lingas. Nine inscriptions refer to CitrasenaMahendravarman’s victories beyond the Dangraek Range, including one (K.1102) recovered as far north as Ban Dong Aem, about forty kilometres north of Khon Kaen (Seidenfaden 1922, 57–60; Jacques 1989, 17; Vickery 1998, 75). According to traditional interpretations, this evidence of activity in the north in the sixth and early seventh centuries was followed during the reign of Isanavarman (610–628 AD) by some sort of suzerainty by the kingdom of Chenla over the region (Briggs 1951, 49). However, evidence of any southern control in the northeast at this time is far from compelling. The Khmer kings do not appear again in the region’s inscriptions for some centuries (Seidenfaden 1922, 32–64; Briggs 1951, 103; Brown 1996, 20; Jacques and Freeman 1997, 69). Any political or military influence by rulers from the south over the Mun River area at this time is likely to have been short-lived (Higham 1989), with each inscription a simple cry of victory not implying a permanent occupation of the country (Coedès 1928a, 118; Vickery 1998, 79). In addition to these opportunistic overlords from the south, local leaders themselves left historical evidence. These inscriptions are carved in various Sanskrit, Khmer and Mon forms that show various degrees of contact and it is difficult to determine exactly how the languages were used (Bauer 1991).2 A series of short 1

Such inscriptions were found at Stung Treng (K.116 and K.359), Thma Kre (K.122), Khorat (K.514), Basak (K.363), Ubon (K.496, K.497, K.508 and K.509), Khon Kaen (K.1102), Phimai (K.1106), Surin (K.377), Ta Phraya (K.969), Battambang (K.213), Sri Thep (K.978) and Wat Phu (K.365) (Vickery 1998, 71–75). 2 Vickery’s (1998) recent work did not include many of these inscriptions, partly because their discovery and publication is ongoing and partly because they often differ considerably from those of pre-Angkorian Cambodia (1998, 95, 92n.31 cf. Jacob 1979, see also Jacques 1989; Bauer 1991). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

76

9/8/05, 8:55

Before Angkor: Early Historic Communities in Northeast Thailand

77

Buddhist inscriptions in Sanskrit has been found in the region, most on sema stones and dating to the eighth century (Seidenfaden 1922; Groslier 1980; Bauer 1991, Figure H; Jacques 1989).3 In one example, a seventh-eighth century Sanskrit inscription (K.404) with Mon characteristics from Nong Hin Tan in Chaiyaphum province mentions a king called Jaya Singhavarman (Jacques 1989, 18; Brown 1996, 38). Other inscriptions refer to a polity called Sambuka (shell) (K.577 on the base of a Buddha image from Lopburi) or Sankhapura (sankha shell) (K.1082 found in Yasothon province). This was perhaps a polity in Yasothon province, and had leaders whose names ended, like that of Citrasena, with the suffix -sena (Jacques 1989, 19). Another example, an eighth century inscription (K.1000) from the Prasat Hin Phimai mentions an otherwise unknown king called Sauryavarman (Saurya valour, might) with Buddhist affiliations (Jacques 1989, 19). In a better-known example, at the site of Hin Khon (stone marker) near Muang Sema were installed two Khmer and idiosyncratic Sanskrit inscriptions (K.388 and K.389) (Aymonier 1901; Bauer 1991; Brown 1996, 26; Vickery 1998, 132). The Hin Khon inscriptions use mediocre Khmer mixed with Mon (Jacques 1989, 18), and while often described as pre-Angkorian, they may instead relate to a somewhat later period and an isolated local dialect (Bauer 1991; Vickery 1998, 132; cf. Jacob 1979). Whatever the case, both were dedications by a Buddhist monk identified as King Nrpendradhiphativarman, (Jacques 1989, 19; Moore 1988, 5; Brown 1996, 26). According to these texts, Nripendradhiphativarman erected four sema stones, founded a Buddhist temple and monastery which he granted with ten pairs of cattle, gold and silver utensils, rice-fields and a plantation of twenty betel nut trees (Higham 1989, 281). The two inscriptions also refer to otherwise unknown kings and polities, including one Soryavarman, perhaps related to a Buddhist king Sauryavarman who ruled in the Phimai region in the eighth century (K.1000) (Brown 1996, 27; Jacques 1969, 60), although the former’s name is suspiciously Angkorian (Vickery 1998, 132). The most compelling evidence for a major early polity in the region relates to an eighth century Buddhist community called Sri Canasa or Sri Canasapura (Brown 1996, 26). Canasa is meaningless in both Sanskrit and Khmer (Jacques 1989, 19). Sri Canasa was mentioned on a stela (K.400) found at the tenth century temple sanctuary of Bo Ika near Muang Sema (Higham and Thosarat 1998, 195). On one side of the stele is a Sanskrit and Khmer inscription dating to 868 AD (Bo Ika B) (Jacques 1989, 19; see also Brown 1996, 25; Vickery 1998, 132). It commemorates the foundation of a gold linga and a gift of slaves by one Ansadeva who

3

Such inscriptions have been recovered in Udon (K.981, K.982, K.983), Khon Kaen (K.984, K.985, K.986, KhK.25), Kalasin (K.510, K511, Ks.3, Ks.5), and Chaiyaphum provinces (K.403, K.404, K.512, K.965, K.977, Jy.8, Jy.ii, Jy.iii, Jy.10, Jy.11, Jy.12, Jy.13) (Bauer 1991). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

77

9/8/05, 8:55

SARAH TALBOT

78

obtained outside of Kambudesa an abandoned domain (Brown 1996, 25). On the other side an earlier seventh century Sanskrit inscription (Bo Ika A) commemorates donations of buffalo, cattle and male and female slaves to a Buddhist community (sangha) by the lord or ruler (isvara) of Sri Canasa (Brown 1996, 25–26). Dharmacakras or stone Wheels of the Law from nearby Muang Sema correspondingly date to this period or slightly later and Muang Sema is the most likely location for the polity of Sri Canasa (Brown 1996, 26 cf. Saraya 1984, 1985). The name Sri Canasapura also appears on an apparently relocated Sanskrit and Khmer inscription (K.949) that was found at Ayutthaya (Brown 1996, 25; Vickery 1998, 200n). This inscription was first erected in 937 AD to the glory of a ruler called Mangalavarman and it names five of his ancestral predecessors, none of whom appear in any of the early Cambodian inscriptions (Brown 1996, 25). The earliest king mentioned was one Bhagadatta, whose name ends with a datta suffix, which in seventh-eighth century Cambodia was typical of a pon (Vickery 1998, 200), a particular, indigenous, title that deserves greater comment. Early Khmer inscriptions reveal a complex hierarchy of Khmer—not Indic —official titles was in place by the early seventh century (Vickery 1998, 21). One of the most important titles was the matrilineally inherited male title pon, passed on to the sister’s son, and probably the same as the Funanese fan (Vickery 1998; Higham 2001). In the oldest dated inscription, K.600/611 from Angkor Borei, a principal official pon Uy offered personnel and animals to an ancestral female deity called the k-pon kamratan an (Vickery 1998, 191). The Chinese visitors to Funan had recorded that several scores of families have a pond in common where they draw water, and pon were very likely the leaders of such large villages, associated with communal lands located near a pond or travan and with a clan house acting as ritual centre (Vickery 1998; see also Coedès 1968, 59). Evidence from the extensive Iron Age cemetery site at Noen U-Loke near Phimai, such as clustered burials, rich female and male graves, the intensification of grave wealth, and the construction of water features, and suggests that a proto-pon system of community leadership may perhaps be traced back into the Iron Age in the upper Mun region (Talbot 2002). According to Vickery (1998, 21), the first varman kings were pon, or heirs of pon, and the Bhagadatta-Mangalavarman inscription thus records the dynastic history of an upper Mun ruling family that had made the transition from pon-ship to kingship. In addition to the Sanskrit and Khmer inscriptions, a small amount of early epigraphic evidence from Northeast Thailand is in Mon. The first Old Mon inscriptions were discovered in 1968 on votive tablets from Muang Fa Daet (Bauer 1991, 55), and since the early 1970s, over thirty others have been found in Thailand and Burma (Bauer 1991, 31; Hla 1991). It is important to note that Pali was the only known scholarly language used in the Dvaravati kingdoms to the west and the use

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

78

9/8/05, 8:55

Before Angkor: Early Historic Communities in Northeast Thailand

79

of Old Mon is a distinctive characteristic of early Northeastern communities (Jacques 1989, 17). Pre-ninth century Mon inscriptions have been found on sema standing stones (Bauer 1991, 55) and terracotta votive tablets (Brown 1996, 38) in the region. A short undated inscription in the National Museum in Khon Kaen is entirely in Mon, except for a telling Khmer phrase meaning lord of the lower surface and designating kingship (Jacques 1989, 19). Ancient remnants of Mon can still be heard today in villages such as Phra Bung, 50 kilometres south of Khorat (Hla 1991). The Nyah Kur language is spoken in approximately twenty-five villages in Khorat, Petchabun and Chaiyaphum provinces, and thought to be an offshoot of Old Mon, linked to local sixth-seventh century Dvaravati kingdoms (Hla 1991). Early temples of the Northeast A succession of brick temples can be linked to the political consolidation of pre-Angkorian elites in Cambodia (Parmentier 1927; Boisselier 1955, 1966; Bénisti 1970; Jacques and Freeman 1997; Siribhadra et al. 1997, 26). While most Khmerstyle temples in Thailand postdate the tenth century, there are a few earlier examples (Vallibhotama 1976; Charernsupkul 1981; Siribhadra et al. 1997, 31). Thailand’s oldest lintel, currently on display at Wat Supatanaram in Ubon Rachathani province, belongs to the early seventh century and is carved in a style transitional between those of Thala Borivat (early seventh century) and Sambor Prei Kuk (c. 600–635) (Subhadradis Diskul 1991, 14; Siribhadra et al. 1997, 27; Freeman 1996, 189). The earliest significant Khmer monument in Thailand is Prasat Khao Noi, in eastern Thailand near the Cambodian border (Freeman 1996, 129; Siribhadra et al. 1997, 79). An inhumation burial discovered behind one structure at the site suggests a late prehistoric occupation prior to construction of the temple complex (Higham and Thosarat 1998, 193). The temple’s lintels are in the Sambor Prei Kuk and Prei Kmeng (c. 635–700) styles and Saivite lingas and pedestals were also recovered there (Freeman 1996, 130). The leader of a polity called Jyesthapura, who had been appointed by Isanavarman of Sambor Prei Kuk, placed a Sanskrit and Khmer inscription at the site in 637 AD (K.506) (Higham and Thosarat 1998, 193; Vickery 1998). The temple was reconstructed in the eleventh century (Freeman 1996). In the northeastern province of Surin lies the Prasat Phum Pon, which is the oldest known Khmer structure in Thailand in good original condition and has a lintel from the late seventh century (Subhadradis Diskul 1991, 14; Siribhadra et al. 1992, 85; Krairiksh 1972, 68–69; Vallibhotama 1976). Another lintel of unknown origin is in the Kompong Preah (c. 706–825) style, the only such example known in Thailand, and was possibly stolen from an as-yet-undiscovered temple along the Thai-Cambodian border (Siribhadra et al. 1997, 44).

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

79

9/8/05, 8:55

SARAH TALBOT

80

Two important early Khmer sites lie on the periphery of the Khorat Plateau. The mountain of Phu Kao in southern Laos is topped with a spring and a natural rock formation resembling a linga, and has been an important religious site for many centuries (Aymonier 1901, 188; Briggs 1951, 44, Freeman 1996, 200–205; Santoni et al. 1997; Vickery 1998). The existing complex of Wat Phu dates mainly to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, but was founded much earlier. Associated with this complex is an ancient walled city approximately 2 km square lying 5 km to the east on the bank of the Mekong (Santoni et al. 1997). The surrounding plain was densely occupied, and traces of ancient irrigation channels, reservoirs, roads, monuments, walls and villages remain (Santoni et al. 1997). The undated K.365 inscription from nearby Wat Luong Kau named the maharajadhiraja Devanika who has been linked to this region, as has the city of Shrestapura, although the latter attribution is uncertain (Briggs 1951,40; Santoni et al. 1997; Vickery 1998, 39, 73, 411–413). Whatever its name, the city was an important political and trading centre in the sixth and seventh centuries and the sanctuary of Wat Phu remained associated with the power of successive Khmer kings (Santoni et al. 1997). Nearby, on the east bank of the Mekong, the small site of Huei Thamo indicates the importance of control of trade and military access up and down the river (Freeman 1996, 198–199; Nalesini 1998). To the north, the Mekong valley beyond the Mun confluence has been described as the area of accumulation because of its eclectic culture, including influences from as far away as Champa (Vallibhotama 1976; Brown 1996, 24–27). This is epitomized in the much-rebuilt monument of Pra That Phanom at Nakhon Phanom, still one of the most revered shrines in Northeast Thailand and a major centre of pilgrimage (Vallibhotama 1976; Subhadradis Diskul 1991, 8; Brown 1996, 28). The monument collapsed in 1975, revealing an inner core of a ninth-century Khmer Hindu shrine that had been turned into a Buddhist monument in the early thirteenth century. A tall finial was added in the seventeenth century, and another in 1940 (Subhadradis Diskul 1991, 8). Pra That Phanom has subsequently been reconstructed in a Laotian style. In addition, several important Angkorian stone temples in the upper Mun River valley were built at the sites of earlier brick structures. A series of brick temples underlie the late twelfth century sandstone temple of the Prasat Phanom Rung, situated on an extinct volcano on the route from the Tonle Sap to Phimai, and date to the seventh or eighth centuries, contemporary with the earliest of eleven inscriptions found there (Higham and Thosarat 1998, 200). Within the temple enclosure, the remains of a small tenth century brick and sandstone tower are dwarfed by a sandstone prang (tower) (Siribhadra et al. 1997, 267). Recent excavations at the Prasat Phanom Wan revealed prehistoric remains including a number of Iron Age burials (Phongdam 1997; Higham and Thosarat 1998 Fig. 310). During resto-

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

80

9/8/05, 8:55

Before Angkor: Early Historic Communities in Northeast Thailand

81

ration, the monument was dismantled and a square 160 centimetre wide brick structure filled with soil was found just beneath the central tower. The bricks for this foundation would seem to have been removed from an earlier adjacent brick structure (Thosarat pers. comm.). Also at Prasat Phanom Wan lie the remains of a small red sandstone and brick tower dating from the seventh to ninth centuries (Siribhadra et al. 1997, 103). Finally, while the Angkorian period occupation at the Prasat Hin Phimai is the most obvious (Briggs 1951, 178; Seidenfaden 1932; Jacques 1989), there is evidence of a significant prehistoric occupation and of considerable activity at the site in the centuries immediately before Angkor (Pichard 1976; Talbot 2000, 2001, 2002; Talbot and Janthed 2002). Citrasena-Mahendravarman felt it necessary to leave an inscription at Phimai in the sixth century, and recent excavation suggests the site was a religious centre in the eighth century, with the discovery of fingermarked bricks, probably from a religious structure, lying re-used beneath the central sanctuary of the temple (Talbot 2000, 2001, 2002; Talbot and Janthed 2002). In the temple wall lies a re-used stone engraved with an eighth century Buddhist inscription (K.1000) (Briggs 1951, 181; Jacques 1969, 1989; Jacques and Freeman 1997, 149). Jayavarman VI, responsible for the central sanctuary, came from a royal family that had been ensconced for generations at Mahidharapura, most probably Phimai itself (Jacques and Freeman 1997, 147; Briggs 1951, 178). A 1050 inscription from Phanom Rung (K.384) sets out the family history of the Mahidarapura dynasty and makes clear that this lineage had ruled the region autonomously in alliance with but not as vassals to the kings of Angkor (Briggs 1951, 178; Siribhadra et al. 1997, 267).4 4

Although often overlooked, Northeast Thailand was essential for the Khmers for centuries (Groslier 1985–86, 38), and many of the Angkorian kings had a strong, perhaps even personal interest in the Mun valley. In 877, Indravarman I (877–889) asserted his authority on a series of inscriptions from southern Cambodia to Northeast Thailand (Jacques and Freeman 1997, 64). Yasovarman I (889–900) was crowned in 889, the same year he founded one hundred ashramas in Cambodia and Northeast Thailand, including one at Prasat Phanom Rung (Jacques 1989; 1996). Traces of the reigns of Harshavarman I (912–922), Isanavarman II (925), Rajendravarman (944–968), Jayavarman V (968–1000) and Suryavarman I (1002–1049) also appear in inscriptions from Thailand (Jacques 1989, 20–22). Although Jayavarman VI’s (1080–1107) consecration probably took place at Yasodharapura, no monuments there can be attributed to him and it is by no means certain that he actually ruled from Angkor. According to the Ta Phrom inscription: Having obtained the supreme royalty in the Holy city of Yasodharapura, King Jayavarmadeva [Jayavarman VI], conqueror of the mass of his enemies, planted pillars of glory in all directions, up to the sea, and fixed the residence of his race at Mahidharapura (Briggs 1951, 179). Suryavarman II (1113–1150) whose Angkor Wat was partly inspired by the Prasat Hin Phimai (Briggs 1951, 187–196), apparently spent much time in the Mun region (Briggs 1951, 189, 235). Considerable construction was undertaken in the region as part of Jayavarman VII’s (1181–1219) unprecedented building programme (Briggs 1951, 209–237; Coedès 1963, 82–107; Jacques 1989; Welch 1997) and one of the famous statues of the king in meditation can still be seen in Phimai. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

81

9/8/05, 8:55

SARAH TALBOT

82

The Prakhon Chai hoard Sculpture from the upper Mun provides some of the earliest evidence for contact between Southeast Asia and India. For example, a small bronze standing Buddha image found at Nakhon Ratchasima is in the southeastern Indian or Ceylonese Amaravati or Anuradhapura style (100–400 AD) (Subhadradis Diskul 1991, 3). However, the portable nature of such isolated sculptures makes their interpretation problematic, and more relevant to the current discussion is an extraordinary hoard found at Prakhon Chai in Buriram province. In 1964, after a heavy rainstorm, local villagers accidentally discovered more than three hundred Buddhist bronzes wrapped in cloth within an underground chamber at a small, deserted, seventh century brick temple (Illustrated London News 1965; Boisselier 1967; Bunker 1971–2; Le Bonheur 1972; Lerner 1984; Chutiwongs 1994). Some images have been dated to the sixth century, and the bronzes are some of the earliest Mahayana Buddhist sculptures in Southeast Asia (Viryabus 1974, 199; Lerner 1984, 100), showing a synthesis of Dvaravati and pre-Angkor styles mixed with a considerable measure of local traits (Chutiwongs 1994, 42). While a very few statuettes resembled Dvaravati-style Buddha figures from central Thailand (Bunker 1971–2, 67; Chutiwongs 1994, 39), most were reminiscent of the pre-Angkorian Cambodian styles of Prei Kmeng, Prasat Andet and Kampong Preah. Some figures resembled late seventh century bronze Mahayana Bodhisattva figures found at Ak Yum and Ban Tanot; others silver images of the Buddha, Avalokitesvara and two goddesses found at Khon Buri in Nakhon Ratchasima province and at the nearby moated site of Ban Fai (Briggs 1951, 87; Rawson 1967, Figure 7; Bunker 1971–2; Brown 1996, 89). The sculptures appear to be the products of a longstanding and mature local artistic tradition linked to a Mahayana religious belief and awarding special importance to the Bodhisattva Maitreya or Avalokitesvara (Patry Laidy 1994). These images can also be linked to the site of Sri Thep, on the margins of the Khorat Plateau, which was once strategically located on a route linking the Mekong and Mun rivers with the Chao Phaya valley (Lunet de Lajonquière 1908, 198–200 and Figure 3; Lerner 1984; Saraya 1984, 1985; Brown 1996, 36; Higham and Thosarat 1998, 181). The site is best known for its diverse tradition of sixth to thirteenth century monuments and sculptures (Quaritch Wales 1969; Jacques 1989, 18; Brown 1996; Higham and Thosarat 1998, 165). At the nearby Thammorat Cave, related sculptures suggest nothing as much as the Prakon Chai bronze image types translated into relief (Brown 1996, 33, 89).

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

82

9/8/05, 8:55

Before Angkor: Early Historic Communities in Northeast Thailand

83

Muang Fa Daet - “une civilisation de stèles” Another early artistic tradition of Northeast Thailand is represented at Muang Fa Daet, 30 km north of Ban Chiang Hian on the northern side of the Chi River, and at 171 hectares one of the largest archaeological sites on the Khorat Plateau (Higham 1989, 282; FAD n.d.). The site is located near the confluence of the Pao and the Chi rivers in an area favourable for rice cultivation and in a strategic position to control riverine trade (Higham 1989, 282). Local tradition tells how Chao Fa Ra-ngum founded the moated and walled city of Muang Fa Daet in 621 AD and governed the town as an independent ruler owing fealty to nobody, although his power was limited to the town itself and a few outposts held for defensive purposes (Seidenfaden 1954, 645). While the earliest occupation at the site in fact dates to the Iron Age, most of the site belongs to the later first millennium AD. Muang Fa Daet was progressively enlarged over centuries, and has moats, ramparts and a rectangular 15 hectare water reservoir similar to seen at other contemporary sites such as Chansen and Sambor Prei Kuk (Higham 1989, 283). Dvaravati-style finds from the site range from brick stupa bases to small votive tablets (Subhadradis Diskul 1956; Quaritch Wales 1969, 113). The most significant artefacts are the famous sema standing stones, representing a local “civilisation de stèles” apparently largely independent of Dvaravati or Khmer political influences and only slightly and lately Khmerized (Groslier 1980; see also Subhadradis Diskul 1956; Quaritch Wales 1969; Boisselier 1972; Brown 1996, 21). At Muang Fa Daet the stones are exceptional: over 1 m tall, carved with Buddhist scenes from the Jataka tales, and found in extraordinarily numbers. Over one hundred have been recorded, and local people told Seidenfaden (1954) that there were once over two thousand. While non-figurative sema appear as early as the seventh century, the pictorial sema from the Muang Fa Daet appear slightly later judging by the Cham and pre-Angkorian-Khmer style headdresses and costumes, and perhaps continued into the eleventh century (Krairiksh 1974, 57; Brown 1996). The most famous sema features an image of the Buddha flanked by Indra and Brahma in a composition also known from Nakhon Pathom (Quaritch Wales 1969, 108). Another represents the Buddha’s journey to the city of Kabilahadsu, and shows a town wall and gateway defended by soldiers (Quaritch Wales 1969, 108; Krairiksh 1972, 96–97; Higham 1989 Fig. 5:15). The style of the sema carvings has typically been considered as provincial Dvaravati (Quaritch Wales 1969, 111), but they may perhaps better considered as unique objects which incorporated characteristics associated with Dvaravati, preAngkorian Cambodia, and Champa into an indigenous form (Boisselier 1972; Chutiwongs 1994, 36–39; Brown 1996, 29).

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

83

9/8/05, 8:55

SARAH TALBOT

84

The Kantarawichai ubosoth and its silver plaques Additional evidence of this local artistic tradition comes from the small moated and ramparted mound of Kantarawichai, just 20 km west of Muang Fa Daet (Subhadradis Diskul 1979, 364; Higham 1989, 283; Chutiwongs 1994, 39). In 1972, the Thai Fine Arts Department uncovered the brick and laterite foundations of an early Buddhist ordination hall (ubosoth) measuring approximately 37 by 10 m (Subhadradis Diskul 1979, 360–365). Large numbers of Dvaravati-style ceramics and terracotta votive tablets used to adorn Buddhist stupas were recovered, but the most remarkable finds were contained within a small terracotta bowl, originally enshrined under the structures main Buddha image (Subhadradis Diskul 1979). The bowl contained sixty-six silver repoussé plaques, most measuring 5 by 10 cm, depicting Buddha images, divine or royal figures, stupas, and dharmacakras. The stupa types depicted are similar to those of central Thai Dvaravati sites such as Nakhon Pathom, and indicate similar examples were also present in the northeast, although only their bases remain (Subhadradis Diskul 1979, 368). The style of the images resembles the late Dvaravati style of the tenth to eleventh centuries, although the square face of one figure resembles Khmer styles and there were distinctive local elements (Subhadradis Diskul 1979, 367). The designs relate closely to those of the Muang Fa Daet sema (Brown 1996, 94). For example, one plaque features an image of the Buddha descending from Tavatimsa Heaven, also seen on one sema (Subhadradis Diskul 1979, 366). Muang Sema This is a moated centre similar to Muang Fa Daet, but this time in an area nodal to communication between the Mun and Chao Phaya river valleys (Higham 1989, 284). Muang Sema, the most likely location of the early Buddhist kingdom of Sri Canasapura, was walled and enlarged at least twice and has a rectangular enclosure measuring 800 by 1,800 m (Higham and Thosarat 1998, 194; Hanwong 1991). Recent excavations at Muang Sema recovered a Dvaravati cultural layer some 1 m thick between layers of Iron Age and Khmer ceramics (Thosarat pers. comm.). The Thai Fine Arts Department recorded mounds of brick, stone and laterite at the site that were apparently the remains of early religious structures (Quaritch Wales 1969, 102). Nearby, at Wat Thammachak Semaram, lies a 13 m long eighth century red sandstone reclining Buddha, the largest in Thailand, in a northeastern Dvaravati style (Hanwong 1991; Brown 1996, 30). A number of Dvaravati-style Buddha images, currently in the Maha Wirawong National Museum in Nakhon Ratchasima, were found, together with standing stones, deer statues, Bodhisattva tablets (Quaritch Wales 1969, 102; Brown 1996, 30; Higham and Thosarat 1998,

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

84

9/8/05, 8:55

Before Angkor: Early Historic Communities in Northeast Thailand

85

195) and a dharmacakra, which is the most easterly yet recovered (Brown 1996, 25, 29). Muang Sema was clearly home to an important Buddhist polity in the preAngkorian period. By the late tenth century, it had been joined by a Hindu neighbour, in the form of the ancient city called Muang Khorakhapura located near modern Nakhon Ratchasima city. The Khmer style temples of Prasat Muang Khaek and Prasat Non Ku formed the religious centres of this little-known community (Siribhadra et al. 1997, 87). Summary: Northeast Thailand before Angkor The story of the Angkor is often told from a perspective located to the south of the Dangreak Range. Yet, many of the important social, political and artistic changes that were associated with pre-Angkorian Cambodia, particularly the adoption of brick religious architecture, the use of inscriptions, the creation of new artistic traditions and the emergence of ruling elites, occurred at the same time in the Mun River valley. Prehistoric sites such as Noen U-Loke hint at increasingly social complexity in the late Iron Age. By the seventh century new forms of material culture were appearing, such as the temple of the Prasat Phum Phon, the sculptures of Prakhon Chai and the sema stones at Muang Fa Daet. While Prasat Khao Noi in eastern Thailand can plausibly be linked to Isanavarman I through the polity of Jyesthapura, independent local elites in the upper Mun region were probably also exploring new relationships between power, ritual and material culture on their own terms. There are historic traces of these polities including Sri Canasa and those ruled by Sauryavarman and Mahidharavarman. By the eighth century, critical structural change was underway to the south under Jayavarman I and his successors. The social consolidation these rulers achieved during the eighth century in Cambodia was unique, and as such it laid the foundations for the unprecedented power and hierarchy of Angkor. The people of the upper Mun River valley must, however, have been well aware of developments occurring in the communities of their southern peers, and perhaps wished to retain as much of an equal footing as possible. They too constructed temples and sculptures in the prevailing styles, which on the Khorat Plateau often included elements shared with the Buddhist Dvaravati culture to the west and local artistic traditions. From the late ninth century, many inscriptions from Northeast Thailand refer to the historic kings of Angkor. Much remains to be learned about the role of Northeast Thailand in the polity of Angkor. Even after 802, ties of mutual allegiance between Cambodian kings and pre-existing elites of Northeast Thailand were perhaps often more common than political domination, that is until the dynasty of Mahidharapura, when the one Mun River dynasty became the very rulers of Angkor.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

85

9/8/05, 8:55

SARAH TALBOT

86

References Aymonier, E. Le Cambodge II Les Provinces Siamoises. Paris: Ernst Leroux, 1901. Aymonier, E. Khmer Heritage in Thailand. Bangkok: White Lotus, 1999. Bauer, C. Notes on Mon epigraphy. Journal of the Siam Society 79/1 (1991): 31–83. Bénisti, M. Rapports entre le premier art khmer et l’art indien. Mémoire Archéologique V. Paris: Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1970. Boisselier, J. La Statuaire khmère et son évolution. Saigon: Publications de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême Orient, 1955. Boisselier, J. Le Cambodge. Manuel d’Archaeologie d’Extrême-Orient Asie du Sud-Est 1. Paris: Picard, 1966. Boisselier, J. Notes sur l’art du bronze dans l’ancien cambodge. Artibus Asiae 2 (1967): 275–334. Boisselier, J. Travaux de la mission archéologique française en Thaïlande. Arts Asiatiques 25 (1972): 27–90. Briggs, L. The Ancient Khmer Empire. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 4, no.1 (1951): 1–295. Brown, Robert. The Dvaravati Wheels of the Law and the Indianization of South East Asia. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Bunker, E. Pre-Angkor period bronzes from Pra Kon Chai. Archives of Asian Art 25(1971–2): 67–76. Chutiwongs, N. Southeast Asian sculptures from the seventh to ninth centuries. In Buddha of the Future, ed. N. Chutiwongs and D. Patry Leidy. New York: Asia Society Galleries, 1994. Coedès, G. Les capitales de Jayavarman II. Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’ExtrêmeOrient 28(1928):113–23. Coedès, G. Inscriptions du Cambodge. 7 vols. Hanoi/Paris: Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1937, 1942, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1964. Coedès, G. The Making of Southeast Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966. Coedès, G. The Indianised States of Southeast Asia. Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1968. Fine Arts Department of Thailand. Khon Kaen National Museum Guide. Khon Kaen: Fine Arts Department, n.d. Freeman, M. A Guide to Khmer Temples in Thailand and Laos. Bangkok: River Books, 1996. Groslier, B. Prospection des sites Khmers du Siam. In Coûts et Profits en Archéologie, edited by B. Groslier. Cahier no 1. Paris: CNRS, 1980. Groslier, B. For a geographic history of Cambodia. Seksa Khmer 8-9 (1985–1986): 31–76. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

86

9/8/05, 8:55

Before Angkor: Early Historic Communities in Northeast Thailand

87

Hanwong, T. Reclining Buddha at Wat Thammachak Semaram. Silpakorn Journal 34/6(1991): 61–77. Higham, C. F. W. The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Higham, C. F. W. The Civilization of Angkor. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001. Higham, C. F. W. and Thosarat, R. Prehistoric Thailand from Early Settlement to Sukhothai. Bangkok: River Books, 1998. Nai Pan Hla. The major role of the Mons in Southeast Asia. Journal of the Siam Society 79 (1991): 13-19. Illustrated London News. Unique early Cambodian sculptures discovered. Illustrated London News, August 28 1965, p.37. Jacob, J. The ecology of Angkor. In Nature and Man in Southeast Asia, ed. P. Stott. London: School of Oriental and Asian Studies, 1978. Jacob, J. Pre-Angkor Cambodia: evidence from the inscriptions in Khmer concerning the common people and their environment. In Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries, ed. D. Marr and A. Milner. Singpaore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1979. Jacques, C. Etudes d’épigraphie cambodgienne. Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient 56(1969): 57–74. Jacques, C. ‘Funan’, ‘Zhenla’: the reality concealed by these views of Indochina. In Early South East Asia, ed. R. Smith and W. Watson. London: Oxford University Press, 1979. Jacques, C. The Khmer in Thailand: what the inscriptions inform us. SPAFA Digest 10(1989): 16–24. Jacques, C. and Freeman, M. Angkor Cities and Temples. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997. Keyes, C. A note on the ancient towns and citadels of Northeastern Thailand. Southeast Asia Studies 11/4(1974): 497–506. Krairiksh, P. Art Styles in Thailand. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, 1972. Krairiksh, P. Semas with scenes from the Mahanipata-jatakas in the National Museum at Khon Kaen. In Art and Archaeology in Thailand. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, 1974. Le Bonheur, A. Un bronze d’époque préangkorienne représentant Maitreya. Arts Asiatiques. 25(1972):129–54. Lerner, M. The Flame and the Lotus. Indian and Southeast Asian Art from the Kronos Collections. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1984. Lunet de Lajonquière, E. Bulletin de la commission archéologique d’Indochine. Le Domaine archéologique du Siam. Paris: Leroux, 1908.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

87

9/8/05, 8:55

SARAH TALBOT

88

Moore, E. Moated Sites in Early Northeast Thailand. British Archaeological Reports (International Series) 400: Oxford, 1988. Nalesini, O. The sanctuary of Huei Tham, and the historical problems raised by its survey. In Southeast Asian Archaeology 1998, ed. W. Lobo and S. Reintann, Hull: Centre for South-East Asian Studies, 1998. Parmentier, H. L’Art Khmer Primitif. Paris: Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1927. Patry Leidy, D. The Bodhisattva Maitreya, Prakhon Chai and the practice of Buddhism in Southeast Asia. In Buddha of the Future, ed. N. Chutiwongs and D. Patry Leidy. New York: Asia Society Galleries, 1994. Phongdam, B. Report on excavations at Prasat Phanom Wan (in Thai). Muang Boran 23/3(1997): 95–108. Pichard, P. Pimay Etude Architecturale du Temple. Paris: Ecole Française d’ExtrêmeOrient, 1976. Quaritch Wales, H. G. Dvaravati: The Earliest Kingdom of Siam. London: Bernard Quaritch, 1969. Rawson, P. The Art of Southeast Asia. London: Thames and Hudson, 1967. Santoni, M., Souksavatdy, V., Defente, D., Hawixbrock, C. and Liger, J-C. Excavations at Champassak and Wat Phu (Southern Laos). In Southeast Asian Archaeology 1997, ed. R. Ciarla and F. Rispoli. Rome: Instituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 1997. Saraya, D. The hinterland state of Sri Thep Sri Deva: a reconstruction. In Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia, ed. I. Glover, P. Suchitta and J. Villiers. Bangkok: White Lotus, 1984. Saraya, D. Si Thep was Sricanasa. Muang Boran 11/1(1985): 63–76. Seidenfaden, E. Complément et l’inventaire descriptif des monuments du Cambodge pour les quartre provinces du Siam occidental. Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient 22(1922): 55-100. Seidenfaden, E. Kanok Nakon: an ancient Mon settlement in Northeast Siam (Thailand) and its treasures of art. Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’ExtrêmeOrient 44/2(1954): 643–647. Siribhadra, S., Moore, E. and Freeman, M. Palaces of the Gods. Khmer Art and Architecture in Thailand. Bangkok: River Books, 1997. Smith, R. Mainland South East Asia in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries. In Early South East Asia, ed. R. Smith and W. Watson. London: Oxford University Press, 1979. Subhadradis Diskul, M. C. Muang Fa Daed: an ancient town in Northeast Thailand. Artibus Asiae 19(1956): 362–7. Subhadradis Diskul, M. C. The development of Dvaravati sculpture and recent finds from Northeast Thailand. In Early South East Asia, ed. R. Smith and W. Watson. London: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

88

9/8/05, 8:55

Before Angkor: Early Historic Communities in Northeast Thailand

89

Subhadradis Diskul, M. C. Art in Thailand. A Brief History. Bangkok: Amarin, 1991. Talbot, S. An excavation at a Khmer temple in Northeast Thailand. New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies 2/1(2000): 162–168. Talbot, S. Angkorian architectural ceramics from a Khmer temple in Northeast Thailand. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 21(2001): 114–118. Talbot, S. From the Iron Age to Angkor in Northeast Thailand. PhD thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2002. Talbot, S. and Janthed, C. Northeast Thailand before Angkor: evidence from an archaeological excavation at the Prasat Hin Phimai. Asian Perspectives 40/2(2002): 179–194. Vallibhotama, S. The Northeast of Thailand during the 7th to 11th centuries. Muang Boran 3/1(1976): 35–48. Vickery, M. Where and what was Zhenla? In Recherches Nouvelles sur le Cambodge. Publiées sous la Direction de François Bizot. Paris: Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1994. Vickery, M. Society, Economics and Politics in Pre-Angkor Cambodia. Tokyo: The Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for UNESCO, 1998. Viriyabus, C. Notes on the statuettes found at Khonburi, Korat. In Art and Archaeology in Thailand. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, 1974. Welch, D. Archaeological evidence of Khmer state political and economic organisation. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 16 (1997): 69–78.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P074-089

89

9/8/05, 8:55

ON RICE AND RICE FIELDS IN OLD L¤N N¤* TEXT, TRANSLATIONS, INTERPRETATIONS Hans Penth

Abstract The article treats in seven different sections aspects of rice and rice fields in northern Thailand’s past. It shows how fields were defined, assessed, and named, what rice was planted, how and what fields were donated to monasteries to help with their upkeep, who were the field administrators, and with statistics points out various considerations such as relevant fertility. Much cultural and old-time administrative matter is explained, including its particular vocabulary. The facts are nearly all taken from inscriptions.

1. Introduction The staple food of L¡n N¡ ≈â“ππ“ “Region of a Million Rice Fields’1 was and is rice. While preparation, irrigation and use of rice fields lay in private hands, their evaluation (assessment) for taxes and their administration was an important

*In the present article, the standard code-names of the Archive of L¡n N¡ Inscriptions (Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University) are used for inscriptions; names or codes used by other authors or institutions are indicated in the bibliography. Quotations from primary text sources are generally written in modern Standard Thai orthography. However, quotations between slashes / ... / conserve the original orthography of a text. Letters in parenthesis (...) are my own addition; letters in brackets [...] are doubtful readings. The number of dots .... in a text quotation indicates approximately the number of unreadable letters. Numbers are uniformly rendered as figures, though in the original they can be either numerals or words, or a mixture of both. For example: /π“ Õß√Õ^¬ 50 ‡¢“/ = π“ 250 ¢â“« “Rice fields of a size requiring 250 measures of seed-rice” (1.2.1.1 K¢ Wat Sao Hin c. 1480). Numbers in texts from old L¡n N¡ can be baffling; for instance: “The (construction) costs were 6,000 silver”  ‘Èπ‡ß‘π 6,000 æ—π (1.2.1.1 Wat Y¡ng Num 1523). “The N¡ Thai field of 100 measures seed-rice” /π“‰∂ 1001 √^Õ¬/ (1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498). 1 The oldest known Thai document to mention the name is a stone inscription from Chiang Khòng on the Mä Kh£ng River, dated 1554 (Penth 1980 The Toponym L¡n N¡; Penth 1988 Inscr. Wat Chiang S¡ 1553). However, the toponym must be much older than that because it appears already on European maps at least since 1448, spelled /Llana/ on the Leardo map of that year, and /lanna/ on Behaim’s globe of 1492 (Suárez 1999 Early Mapping: 107). 90

[47-03-067] P090-156

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

90

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

91

task of the local and state bureaucracy. Though L¡n N¡ and her southern neighbours, Sukh£thai and Ayuthay¡, had much in common concerning the administration of rice fields and rice, there were also differences. But while details from Old Sukh£ thai / Ayuthay¡ / central Thailand are rather well known, particulars from L¡n N¡ often are less well known and present problems. The following pages aim to explain some administrative details typical for L¡n N¡. In the absence of old archive material such as documents concerned with income from and administration of fields, a valuable source for information are stone inscriptions when they list the property of a monastery or report on donations to a monastery, and to a lesser extent chronicles. Old local law codices also have interesting material on rice and rice fields. But in spite of valuable efforts to handle these difficult texts, because of shortcomings in their publication (transcription, translation, general presentation) this source on the theoretical background (as opposed to the real cases reported in inscriptions) still cannot be conveniently and reliably tapped.2 In the present article, the difficult question of the ownership of fields, or of land in general, will largely be avoided. In theory the king owned all land but ordinary citizens, in particular cultivators, nonetheless had powerful claims if not downright possessory rights. Land for building a monastery could be bought.3 For the purpose of this paper it is assumed that individuals were the owners, unless they rented fields from others, that also monasteries could own fields, and that, when a monastery received the donation of a field, it became the de facto owner, because that is what the texts seem to say. Also, there still are a few monasteries which traditionally have owned fields, to the extent that their monks seldom

2

To mention only two L¡n N¡ law texts, rendered in Thai transcription and English translation: (1) Prasöt 1971 Mang R¡i S¡t (Thai text) and Griswold / Prasöt 1977 Judgments (the first 20 articles in English); (2) Arunrat / Wijeyewardene 1986 Laws of Mang R¡i (Thai text and English translation). 3 For instance, a stone inscription from the environs of Chiang Mai, probably dating from between 1450 - 1550, states that someone “bought land for founding a monastery” ´◊ÈÕ∑’Ë¥‘π  √â“ß«—¥. Unfortunately there are no details available because the text before and after this passage is destroyed (1.2.1.1 Wat Hua Nòng). An example from Phayao for 1474: “(Prince Yuthisathian, the former ruler of Phitsanu L£k who emigrated to Phay¡ Tilok and was made governor of Phayao, converted his beautiful residence B¡n Nòng Tao into a monastery.) He paid the king via Mün Ch¡ng P¢ K¡m 2,000 silver pieces stamped “5 Chiang Mai” as price for the ¡r¡ma property” ‡Õ“‡ß‘π≈“¬ 5 ‡™’¬ß„À¡à 2,000 ‰ª„À⇮â“À¡◊Ëπ™â“ߪŸÉ°“¡ ∂«“¬ ·°àæ√–‡ªìπ‡®â“„À⇪ìπ§à“Õ“√“¡ (1.5.1.1 B¡n Nòng Tao 1474). The silver money used here probably were kh¡ kh™m ¢“§’¡ silver pieces. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

91

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

92

or never make their (in principle obligatory) morning rounds for alms.4 Monasteries even “owned” villages and collected tax from them.5 How real that “ownership” was, whether an individual person only had the right to use the field, and whether a monastery only gained the right to the field’s or the village’s tax or to some of the usufruct (and not actual “title”), is another point. What mattered for the individual was that he had a plot of land at his disposal, and for the monastery it was important that it received a regular income from a specific field or village for its subsistence. It may well have been that this permanent income was comparable to an endowment fund or trust, and that it did not include actual ownership of the fund or trust; at least there is no known instance from inscriptions that a monastery sold its fields or villages, though practically all formerly donated fields at present have other owners and villages are no longer under a monastery. In terms of the country’s overall administration, in Ayuthay¡, at least in theory, rice field administration was under central control. Already early Ayuthay¡ had, among its 4 principal ministers and their departments, krom °√¡,6 one called krom n¡ π“ “Department for wet rice fields”, or “paddy fields”, which was headed by the khun n¡ ¢ÿππ“ and which was responsible for rice fields and other agricultural affairs. L¡n N¡ did not have such a central institution. Its rice fields and rice probably were supervised more from local levels. In terms of “ownership” and use of fields, in L¡n N¡ there may have been three kinds of fields. (1) Crown property, i.e. fields that were directly under the king and his immediate family.7 (2) State property, i.e. fields that belonged to the müang ‡¡◊Õß “country”. They were attached to the position of appointed governments officials, and their usufruct, or part of their produce, formed a part of the official’s rank and income (“official fields”). (3) Ordinary fields, “owned” and worked by private citizens. The exact difference between crown and state property is unknown and perhaps was somewhat fluent. Crown property fields and state property fields (n¡ khum π“¢ÿ¡ “rent field”)8 were rented out to private individuals. There were no permanent or official state farmers. 4

For instance Wat S™ Saw¡ng in A. San P¡ Tòng, Chiang Mai province. For instance, in 1495 Wat L™ near Phayao “had 6 villages since of old” ∫â“π°—∫«—¥¡’·µà ‚∫√“≥ 6 ∫â“π (1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495; see also below in footnote 20). 6 These four departments, or ministries, were collectively called jatusadom ®µÿ ¥¡¿å “the four pillars”. The four ministers were known as: Khun Müang ¢ÿπ‡¡◊Õß “Minister of General Country Affairs”, Khun Wang ¢ÿπ«—ß “Minister of Palace Affairs”, Khun Khlang ¢ÿπ§≈—ß “Minister of the Treasury”, and Khun N¡ ¢ÿππ“ “Minister of Rice Fields and Agricultural Affairs”. 7 Cf. “H.M. the king of Chiang Mai granted royal fields to this monastery” (follows a list of fields)  ¡‡¥Á® ... ‡®â“‡¡◊Õߪîß ‡™’¬ß„À¡à ¡’√“™‡¢µ∑—ÈßÀ≈“¬ Õ—π°ÆÀ¡“¬ ‰«â°—∫Õ“√“¡Õ—ππ’È (1.2.1.1 Wat Tap£th¡r¡m 1492). 8 The exact meaning and usage of the word khum ¢ÿ¡ present difficulties. It is usually understood as “pit, mine, a hole from which something desirable can be extracted; to exploit”. But for practical purposes it is often convenient to translate it as “for rent, rental, to rent”. 5

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

92

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

93

With few exceptions, for all fields a tax or rent had to be paid. Newly opened fields were tax exempt for some years.9 There were, and still are, two basically different kinds of fields. (1) Wet rice or paddy10 fields, n¡ π“ (seldom P. khetta ‡¢µ⁄µ, T. khet ‡¢µ; or Sk. kƒetra, T. kaset ‡°…µ√). The origin of the word n¡ is unknown but it seems to be common to most if not all Thai dialects. The fields are usually arranged in groups, one field or plot adjoining the next, separated from each other by low earth walls, khan n¡ §—ππ“. Individual fields or plots were counted with the help of the classifier rai ‰√à “a plot of field”, for instance π“ 3 ‰√à “3 plots wet rice fields”. In central Thailand also the word krathong °√–∑ß “vessel” was used and there is now the common classifier for a single plot, krathong n¡ °√–∑ßπ“, the word rai in this sense having fallen in disuse. At an unknown time, in central Thailand the word rai began to be used to indicate the size of fields, and of land in general. In this sense it is now used throughout Thailand as a standard surface measure equaling 1600 square meters (4 ng¡n ß“π or 400 square w¡ µ“√“ß«“). In L¡n N¡, however, rai continues to be used in the old meaning of “plot of field” though the expression used now is usually rai müang ‰√à‡¡◊Õß “rai of the local country, local rai”, to distinguish it from the official surface measure which is called rai ph¡s™ ‰√à¿“…’...’ “tax rai”. The fields have to be lightly flooded, with water at a certain level, during much of the rice growing period. The shape of an individual field, surrounded by its little earthen dams which retain the water, is usually rectangular in the plains. In hilly terrain fields can be of any shape and size because they have to follow the contours of the land to maintain an even flood level. In steep territory such rice fields take the form of irregular terraces. (2) Upland fields or plantations, also called dry fields, rai ‰√à. These are fields on elevated terrain, at the foot or on the flank of a hill, often made by clearing the forest and underbrush with fire, and used only for two to three seasons until the soil is exhausted (swidden farming). They depend on rain water (now often supplemented by modern irrigation methods) and can be used to grow certain varieties of rice that do not require flooding (“dry rice”, “hill rice”), or to grow other crops such as cotton, peppers, vegetables, also fruit trees, etc.

9

This is attested from several old law codices; cf. Art. 11 in Prasöt 1971 Mang R¡i S¡t: 6, and Griswold / Prasöt 1977 Judgments: 152. There may have been other cases of exemptions, with details as yet unknown, because an inscription of 1500 from N¡n mentions n¡ bia π“‡∫’Ȭ “cowry fields”, i.e. “taxable fields”, implying that there must have been tax exempted fields (1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500). 10 From Malay padi “(1) rice as a plant in the field; (2) rice in the ear; (3) rice in the husk, unhusked rice”. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

93

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

94

When reading of rai, therefore, one must decide whether an upland field, the classifier for a wet rice field, or the modern surface measure is meant. Since about 50-70 years or so, with the use of modern irrigation techniques and newly developed rice strains, these formerly rather clear differences between low lying wet rice fields n¡ and upland fields rai, tend to become less strict. Today it is often possible, after the wet rice has been harvested, to plant on the same field, a second and even a third rice crop of different variety, or, without flooding, an entirely different crop, for instance onions or other vegetables. In Old Sukh£thai, fields either were measured geometrically, i.e. their length and width were indicated by the linear measure w¡ «“,11 or they were counted in individual plots, rai ‰√à.12 An amount of rice was indicated, not in weight, but in measures of capacity such as sat  —¥13 and cart, i.e. cartload, kwian ‡°«’¬π, P. ratha.14 Field taxes, ¡kòn Õ“°√, were determined in cowries, bia ‡∫’È ¬,15 and were due annually.16

11

An example from Sukh£thai in 1399: “(The queen mother gave) a field which was 400 w¡ (by¡ma) long and 200 w¡ wide” khetta† catusataby¡ma† ¡y¡mena vi©©h¡rato (sic) by¡masatadvayantassa (inscr. # 93, Asok¡r¡ma, Sukh£thai, 1399+). The w¡, at present equal to 2 m, formerly was shorter. In the present article, it is equated to 1.75 m. 12 For example: “(The king) donated 400 rai (“plots of paddy fields”) to the monastery” /„À𓉫 °∫—Õ“√“¡ 400 „√/ (inscr. # 49, Wat Sòrasak, Sukh£thai, c.1418). 13 For example: “5 sat for the s¡ma¥eras and 10 sat for the monks” /‡®“ √“¡‡π√À“ ¥— ‡®“¿‘° ÿ ‘∫ ¥—/ (inscr. # 49, Wat Sòrasak 1418, Sukh£thai). - One sat was appr. 20 liters or 16 kg of husked rice. 14 For example: “She (the queen mother) gave 100 fields amounting to (= with a yield of) 10 carts” /∑à“π ª√¥‘ ∂“ π“ √Õ⬠π’ß ‡ªπ ‡¢â“  ‘∫ °«¬(π)/ (inscr. # 93, Asok¡r¡ma 1399+, Sukh£thai, face 1). From the same inscription, face 2, but with reference to a different monastery: “(The queen mother) donated 25 cart(loads)s of rice per year to the people in the monastery,” pañcav™sarath¡v™hi ¡y¡m¡r¡mik¡nañca anuvassa† ad¡payi. 15 For example: “N¡i Sòrasak asked (the king) for taxes (and was granted those) of 4 plots ... altogether 40,000 cowries” 𓬠Õ√ —°¥‘Ï¢ÕÕ“°√‰¥â 4 ∑’Ë ... ∑—Èß¡«≈‡ªÑπ‡∫’Ȭ 40,000 (inscr. # 49, Wat Sòrasak, Sukh£thai, c.1418). Cowries are small, oblong sea-shells widely used throughout South and Southeast Asia as a small monetary unit. According to the French merchant and currency specialist Tavernier, who between c. 1610-1650 travelled and traded here, they were only found in the Maldive Islands (southwest off the southern tip of India) and exported by the Maldives rulers; they were called cori in India (Tavernier 1718 Les six voyages (2): 18, 604. One wonders, therefore, whether his note on p. 484 that they were brought to Siam from the “Manilles” is a misprint or points to another source in Southeast Asia, perhaps located in the Philippines in the general area of Manila, and hence the different Thai name bia, seemingly unrelated to the Indian word cori). 16 Cf. “(she donated fields with) taxes consisting of 25 carts of rice at the beginning of each year” Õ“°√¢â“« 25 ‡°«’¬π ∑ÿ°√ÿàߪï (inscr. # 93, Asok¡r¡ma, Sukh£thai, 1399+). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

94

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

95

In Old L¡n N¡, ordinary plots of land could also be measured in length and width, often using the w¡,17 but likewise by specifying borders, or using a combination of both,18 though sometimes in an abbreviated or imprecise manner.19 However, rice fields do not seem to have been measured. Their physical dimensions, i.e. their size, hardly were of interest. I cannot remember one instance in which the w¡ or another measure was used to indicate the size of a rice field. Occasionally, they were counted as individual plots, rai (or rai müang).20 Rather, the size of a field was indicated by the amount of seed-rice needed. In the hilly North with its often odd-shaped wet rice fields, application of a linear measure, such as the w¡, to indicate the size of a field, would indeed have been difficult if not impossible. Rice was measured in capacity, for instance in certain baskets, but

17

Here are 3 examples. An inscription of 1617 from Chiang Sän describes the donation of a betel nut (areca) plantation or garden: “presented (the monastery) with an areca plantation at B¡n Chum Säng, long 34 w¡ (60 m), wide 15 w¡ (26 m)” ‰«â «πÀ¡“° (∑’Ë) ∫â“π™Ÿ¡· ß °—∫ ¬“« 34 «“ °«â“ß 15 «“ (1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¡ Kh¡o P¡n 1617). An inscription of 1489 from the former Müang Òi, 40 km north of Phayao in the border area of the provinces Chiang R¡i and Phayao, describes the donation of a salt field and a forest: “(Mün Thòng, governor of Müang Òi,) gave a salt-village (to Wat Mah¡ Wan). (The salt field was) long 40 w¡ (70 m), wide 40 w¡. He also donated a forest, P¡ L¡o, to this monastery, long 150 w¡ (260 m), wide 150 w¡ ‰«â∫â“π‡°≈◊Õ°—∫ («—¥¡À“«—π) (𓇰≈◊Õ) √’ 40 «“ °«â“ß 40 «“ ‰«âªÉ“Õ—π 1 ™◊Ëժɓ≈“« Õ—Èπ °—∫«—¥π’È √’ 150 «“ ≈«ß°«â“߉¥â 150 «“ (1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Wan 1489). 18 Cf. the description of the compound of Wat Chiang S¡ at Chiang Khòng on the Mä Kh£ng river (Yuan: Mä Khòng): “In the east the Mä Khòng is the border, in the west 50 w¡ (from the river), in the north and south the (agricultural lands of) villages are the border” (∑“ßµ–)«—πÕÕ° (·¡à)πÈ”¢Õß (/π—“ ¢√Õß/) ‡ªìπ·¥π (∑“ßµ–)«—πµ°·¥π 50 «“ Àπ„µâ Àπ‡Àπ◊Õ ‡¢µ∫â“π‡ªìπ·¥π (1.4.1.1 Wat Chiang S¡ 1554). 19 Cf. the vague description of the premises of Wat L™, Phayao, in 1495: “Jao S™ Mün of Phayao (Yuan: Phay¡o) had stones brought and set up to mark the land of the (monastery) compound (g¡makhetta) which has a circumference (?; parima¥ºala) of 700 w¡” ‡®â“ ’ËÀ¡◊Ëπæ–¬“« À◊ÈÕ‡Õ“À‘π¡“Ωíß °¥À¡“¬∑’Ë¥‘π À◊ÈÕ‡ªìπ§“¡‡¢µ ª√‘¡≥±≈‰¥â 700 «“ (1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495). 20 Here are two examples: “200 plots of paddy field (rai)” π“ 200 ‰√à (1.4.1.1 Mah¡ Th¡t Chiang Lä 1611). “The Lower Watergate field, 6 plots (rai), (of a size that needs) 12 (measures of) seed-rice /π“ ·∑ß“≈Ÿ¡ 6 ‰√ 12 ‡¢“/ = π“·µß“≈ÿà¡ 6 ‰√à 12 ¢â“« (1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

95

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

96

also in weight, particularly the mün À¡◊Ëπ, lit. “10,000”, or appr. 11 kg. Field taxes in L¡n N¡ were due annually21 and usually were accounted in cowries.22 Since this article relies much on donations made to monasteries in the past, some explanatory remarks about such donations are perhaps useful. Making donations in one form or another to holy sites is an old Therav¡da custom. Already king Asoka of north India (r. appr. 273 - 235 B.C.) recorded on a pillar erected at Lumbin™, the Buddha’s birthplace, that he had a stone image of May¡ (?) made, a stone pillar erected, and that he exempted the village of Lumbin™ from imposts and granted it the eight rights.23 Making donations of fields, persons, etc., to a monastery also is an old Therav¡da tradition; field donations are said to have begun around 100 - 50 B.C. in Lank¡.24 In L¡n N¡ such donations are attested since pre-Thai times, for instance in a Mon inscription of 1218 from Lamph¢n.25 The oldest known donation of a field made by a Thai dates from 1411 in the Phayao region,26 and the last from 1611 from a place north of Chiang R¡i,27 followed in 1617 by an areca garden at Chiang Sän.28 This does not mean that after c. 1600-1650 no more donations were made but they certainly became less frequent and finally probably stopped as L¡n N¡ continued to be occupied by the Burmese until their final forced withdrawal took

21

Cf. a passage in the Chronicle of Chiang Mai which refers to the years around 1290: “(King Mang R¡i) ordered to designate the districts in which to collect the rice field taxes in cowries (for Wat K¡n Th£m): each year 620,000 cowries for the monks’ food in the district of Jäm and 500,000 cowries for the administrators (?) in the district of Chä Ch¡ng” À◊ÈÕªí°·¢«π‡°Á∫‡∫’Ȭ§à“π“ªï ‰Àπ 620,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ‡ªìπ§à“®—ßÀ—π ·¢«π·®¡ 500,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ‡ªìπ§à“°‘π ·¢«π·™à™â“ß (CMA. N: 53; HPms: 2.8R; W: 39; U: 31). Also other taxes were due annually. In 1495 the two salt-producing villages of Wat L™ near Phayao had to send annual taxes in kind: “The village B¡n Nòng S¢ng Nüa ... sends 3,500 weight of salt per year” (c. 3.8 kg); the village B¡n Ch¡ng Tai sends 2,500 (weight of) salt per year” (c. 2.7 kg) ∫â“πÀπÕß Ÿß‡Àπ◊Õ ¡ß§≈ ...  à߇°≈◊Õ ¢«∫ 3,500 πÈ” ∫â“π™à“ß„µâ ...  à߇°≈◊Õ ¢«∫ 2,500 (1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495). An example for (resinous) oil in 1493 from the environs of Phayao: “(They shall bring lamp) oil ... (as a gift of) worship for the (principal) Buddha image in the monastery ... 10,000 weight units, every year (c. 11 kg)” πÈ”¡—π ... ∫Ÿ™“æ√–‡®â“«—¥ ... 10,000 πÈ” ®ÿäªï (1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng Mün 1493). 22 Here is one rare exception: “(In 1375 Phay¡ Kü N¡) donated rice fields as food for the relic (in Wat Suan Dòk, Chiang Mai) with a (tax) value of 10,000 silver ... until the end of the 5,000 years” (æ≠“°◊Õπ“) µ—Èßπ“‰«â „À⇪ìπ®—ßÀ—π·°àæ√–∏“®‡®â“π—Èπ À¡◊Ëπ‡ß‘πÀπ÷Ëß ... µàÕ‡∑à“»“ π“ 5000 ªï (MS.PN: 211). 23 Falk 1998 The Discovery of Lumbin™: 15-20. 24 “S. Paranavitana* pointed out that granting income from land which was vested in the monasteries was an innovation that seems to have originated during this very period (c. 100 - 50 B.C.; HP) in order to make the Sangha more independent on the liberality of individual supporters. - * University of Ceylon History of Ceylon, vol I, p.245, n.1” (Bechert 1992 Writing down the Tripi©aka: 49). 25 1.3.1.1 Wat K¢ Kut 1218. 26 1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wih¡n 1411. 27 1.4.1.1 Mah¡ Th¡t Chiang Lä 1611. 28 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¡ Kh¡o P¡n 1617. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

96

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

97

place between 1775 and 1804. King K¡wila (r. 1782-1816) who is known to have made many donations no longer included fields. But in other regions of Thailand such donations seem to have continued sporadically, for instance in 1808 in Ubon.29 In L¡n N¡ as well as in central Thailand, wet rice fields (hardly ever upland 30 fields), plantations, persons and other items, usually were donated to monasteries in order to provide them with a steady supply of food, income, and labour. Often a donation was not made to the monastery as a whole but to individual receivers in the monastery, for instance to the main Buddha image,31 to the jed™ (cetiya, st¢pa), the b£t (uposatha premises and building), or to the monks as a group.32 Before fields and persons (slaves) could be donated, they had to be selected and their choice had to be administratively processed. The administrative term for this procedure was täng ·µàß “to organize”. To make a donation was called “to place with” wai kap ‰«â°—∫,33 seldom “to give to” hü kap À◊ÈÕ°—∫.34 As one inscription of 1497 from Phayao refers to this procedure, “he ordered to organize fields and persons and to place them with this monastery” À◊ÈÕ·µàßπ“°—∫§π‰«â°—∫«—¥π’.È 35 These donations were meant to be an annual contribution towards a monastery’s subsistence and, in a more general way, to strengthen, khamch¢ §È”™Ÿ “prop up”, the Buddhist religion. They were not limited in time for a certain number of years. In principle, they were irreversible and were meant “for ever”, i.e. until the end of Buddhism which was thought to occur 5000 years after the death 29

2.3.1.1 Wat P¡ Luang 1808. I cannot remember having read of an upland field or rai being donated to a monastery. 31 An example from a Phayao monastery in 1411: “The king and the royal mother poured water on the earth (to show their sincerity) and donated rice fields of 975 measures seed rice, and 11 villages, to the Buddha image” π“ 975 ¢â“«π’È ∫â“π 11 ∫â“ππ’È ¡À“√“™ ¡À“‡∑«’ À¬“¥πÈ” ‚Õ¬∑“π „Àâ·°àæ√–‡®â“ (1.5.1.1 Wiang Kao Phayao 1411). The wih¡n with the monastery’s principal Buddha image is regarded as similar to, or a replica of, the living quarters of the Buddha. Hence it is an act of merit to provide for a steady supply of food for the image. In actual fact, the monastery handles the distribution of this “Buddha rice”, as it also handles the rice that is donated to the jed™ and other sacred objects, as food to be used for the monastery’s inhabitants. 32 For example: “(He donated) fields with 400,000 cowries (tax), of which 200,000 were for food for the Buddha image and 200,000 for food for the monks in this monastery” π“ 400,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ‰«â‡ªìπ ¢â“«æ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ 200,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ‰«â‡ªìπ®—ßÀ—π™“«‡®â“¬—ßÕ“√“¡π’È 200,000 ‡∫’Ȭ (1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497). See also below in section 5, Donation Packages. 33 For instance: “He asked (the king) for rice field (taxes) to be donated to the Buddha image” ¢Õπ“‰«â°—∫æ√–‡®â“ (1.3.1.1 Dòi Jam Tham 1502). Incidentally, Sukh£thai used the same expression: “The mah¡thera asked (the king) for rice field (taxes) to be donated (allocated) to the ¡r¡ma” æ√–¡À“‡∂√¢Õπ“‰«â°—∫Õ“√“¡ (inscr. # 49, Wat Sòrasak, Sukh£thai, c.1418). 34 For instance: “(The king) gave paddy fields to Wat Chiang S¡” À◊ÈÕ‡¢µ°—∫Õ“√“¡«—¥‡™’¬ß “ (1.4.1.1 Wat Chiang S¡ 1554). 35 1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497. 30

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

97

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

98

(Nibb¡na) of the Buddha.36 That idea was often expressed in inscriptions, albeit in an abbreviated manner which may puzzle a modern reader who is not familiar with the underlying ideas that (a) the Buddhist religion will last for a total of 5000 years counted from the death (Nibb¡na) of the Buddha, and that (b) the donation in question is meant to assist the religion from the day the donation was made until the end of the 5000 years. For example, an inscription of 1489 from a monastery near Chiang Mai says, when reporting on a donation of persons: “All of them in this group, also their children and grandchildren, are to be in the service of the Buddha image of this monastery, (with the generations) following each other until the end of the Religion (after its) 5000 years” ‡¢“∑—ÈßÀ≈“¬ΩŸßπ’È °—∫∑—Èß≈Ÿ°∑—ÈßÀ≈“π‡¢“ À◊ÈÕ‡ªìπÕÿªØ∞“°·°àæ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ „πÕ“√“¡∑’Ëπ’È  ◊∫Ê °—π‰ª µ√“∫µàÕ‡∑à“ ‘Èπ»“ π“ 5000 ªï.37 Similar an inscription of 1529 in Phrä: “(The King of Chiang Mai ordered the Prince of Phrä) to place 5 families and fields of 1,000 measures seed-rice with the (main) Buddha image of Wat Bupph¡ r¡m, until (the end of the Religion after its) 5000 years” ‰«â§π 5 §√—«π“ 1,000 ¢â“« °—∫ æ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“«—¥∫ÿææ“√“¡ µàÕ‡∑à“ 5000 «√√…“.38 Even a small donation helped to make the Religion shine: “(they founded this little wooden Buddha image) in order to make (the Religion) flourish (until the end of its span of) 5,000 years ‰«â ‚™µ°– 5000 «√√…“.39 36

The Buddha is said to have predicted (Cullavagga, Vin II 256.9-16) that his dhamma or religion might last for 1000 years but if women were admitted to the Order, its existence would only be 500 years. However, after his death this period was extended and by about 100 - 1 B.C. it had been lengthened to 5000 years (v. Hinüber 1996 Chips: 47, quoting (1) Lamotte 1958 Histoire: 210f; 215f; (2) Samantap¡s¡dik¡ 1291,18-26; (3) Nattier 1991 Once Upon a Future Time). Buddhaghosa (between A.D. 410-500), in his Manorathap¢ra¥™ (a commentary on the A¬guttara Nik¡ya), also records the prophecy of 5000 years; the Religion will decline in stages of 1000 years until it disappears entirely after 5000 years. (Griswold/Prasöt 1973 Epigraphy of Mah¡dharmar¡ja I: 84-85, 98-99, n.40, quoting Coedès 1956 Le 2500e anniversaire: 4ff and Hardy 1850 Eastern Monarchism: 427ff.) In L¡n N¡ it was thought that the Buddha himself had established his religion for 5000 years. An inscription of 1492 from Chiang Mai says: “Lord Buddha r™ S¡kyamun™ Gotama established his religion to last for 5000 years” æ√–æÿ∑∏»√’ “°¬¡ÿπ’ ‚§¥¡‡ªìπ‡®â“ ª√–¥‘…∞“π»“ π“ ‰«â 5000 ªï” (1.2.1.1 Wat Tap£th¡r¡m 1492). An inscription from Phayao, in the same year, accepts the figure of 5000 years and uses it for a dating of its own: “In (C.S.) 854, since the Buddha went to Nibb¡na - they give the Religion 5000 years - there have now passed 2037 years, and there are still to come 2963 years, in the year Tao Jai” »—°√“™‰¥â 854 µ—« ·µàæ√–‡®â“π‘ææ“π‰ª·≈â« ¬—߉«â»“ π“ 5000 ªï Õ—πæâπ‰ª‰¥â 2037 ªï Õ—π¬—ß®—°¡“ 2963 ªï‡µà“‰®â (1.5.1.1 Wat Wisuttha ¤r¡m Khòi Sum 1492). This kind of indicating a date, viz. counting the years elapsed and the years still remaining to make a total of 5000, is at the base of the various post-Nibb¡na eras (“Nibb¡nasakkar¡ja”), such as the Buddhasakkar¡ja (B.S.) æÿ∑∏»—°√“™ (æ.».) now in use in Thailand. 37 1.3.1.1 Wat Khuang Chum Käo 1489. 38 1.8.1.1 Wat Bupph¡r¡m 1529. 39 1.2.2.2 Wat Dòk Kham 1783. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

98

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

99

There were no title deeds to confirm the ownership of land and probably no documents attesting to someone’s right to use a certain plot of land. Major donations, because they affected tax income, presumably were recorded in the appropriate office, where persons worked whose titles included the words nangsü Àπ—ß ◊Õ “document, record”.40 But in general there probably was little “paperwork”. People of the local community knew who owned what. In the case of monasteries, where monks came and went, i.e. were ordained and often left the Order after some years, government officials, respected local citizens such as doctors, ex-monks and even persons without apparent distinction, all male, acted as witnesses who “knew”, h¢ (r¢) √Ÿâ. This was no mere formality; on occasion they had to testify even before an official investigator sent by the king himself.41 In order to better assure the continuity of donations, and to make known the name of a generous donor, donations and witnesses were listed (täm ·µâ¡ “written”, tòng µâÕß “inscribed) on specially prepared flat, ogee-shaped stone slabs or on square stone pillars (hin, lak, sel¡, sem¡, s™m¡ À‘π, À≈—°, ‡ ≈“, ‡ ¡“,  ’¡“). The inscribed stones were set up in the monastery that received the donation, usually in public view at the jed™ (st¢pa) or in the wih¡n, but sometimes in the ub£sot (uposatha hall) where access was restricted to monks and selected laymen only.42 The texts (j¡rik, j¡r™k,

40

Literally, “leather (nang) with writing (sü) on it”. The expression meant also “message, note” and now means “book”. 41 See for instance below in the section Rice Field Administrators: In about 1530 the king sent an official with the title phan nangsü t¡ng müang to Phayao in order to investigate an incident in which the local witness Sän Kh¡o Jòm testified. 42 In 1520 Wat S™ Köt, now a nearly vanished ruin a few hundred meters downstream from the Mä Ngat dam north of Chiang Mai, received such an exception: “The (two) Sän (Kh¡o) had this stone inscription (recording the donations) set up in the uposatha hall of Wat Phra Köt ‡®â“· πÀ◊ÈÕΩíß®“√’µπ’È ‰«â „πÕÿ‚∫ ∂«—¥æ√–‡°‘¥ (1.2.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1520). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

99

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

100

j¡rük, j¡rit ®“√‘ ° , ®“√’ ° , ®“√÷ ° , ®“√‘ ¥ )43 of the inscriptions were composed or supervised by officials. Stone inscriptions (hin j¡rük, sel¡ j¡rik À‘π®“√÷°, ‡ ≈“®“√‘° lit. “stone with text”)44 were official documents. They were charters or patents, documentary evidence that attested to old or new donations. Also their inscribing and setting up (fang hin j¡rük ΩíßÀ‘π®“√÷°, mostly shortened to fang j¡rik, fang j¡rit Ωíß®“√‘°, Ωíß®“√‘¥ lit. “to plant the (stone with) text”) was supervised by “the police”, d¡p rüan,45

43

It is maintained in northern Thailand that there is a difference between j¡rik, j¡r™k, j¡rük and j¡ rit. The first three words are understood as “inscription, writing, text”, while the other is thought to correspond to modern Thai j¡r™t ®“√’µ (P. c¡ritta) “conduct, customs, practices”, and in the case of donations to have the particular meaning of “covenant, (new) order of things, (new) arrangement”. It is reasoned that a donation, dealing with people and property, is a practice that begins a new local order, arrangement, or tradition. Indeed there is one inscription that uses the word katik¡ °µ‘°“, °¥‘°“ “covenant, agreement, arrangement” (which implies a new order of things) and says of a donation, “do not let the covenant (concerning the donation) be cancelled, do not let it be neglected nor withdrawn (and the donations) given to some other use” Õ¬à“À◊ÈÕ∂«¬°µ‘°“ Õ¬à“À◊ÈÕµ° À◊ÈÕ∂Õπ‰ª‰Àπ (1.4.1.1 Wat Chiang S¡ 1554). However, it may be simpler to assume that all four words are merely variants and go back to a common source, viz. j¡r- or j¡n-, spelled c¡r ®“√ “to draw a line, to incise, to write”, because: (1) There is the Khmer word j¡r /c¡r/ “to write with an iron stylus, to inscribe” (palmleaf manuscript, etc.), and there is the Central Thai word j¡n spelled /c¡r/ ®“√ with the same meaning. (2) There is the Old Mon word /carit/ (i.e. j¡rit ®“√‘¥) “to draw a line; a line”; there is also /c¡ kh™/ and /c¡ re/ “scribe” (Shorto 1971 Dic. Mon Inscriptions). (3) In Yuan inscriptions, the word j¡rit is treated, in terms of grammar and context, no different from j¡rik. (4) Possibly the different final consonants k / t in j¡rik etc. and j¡rit are parallels to a similar case involving p / k, viz. to the correct mondop (P. ma¥ºapa) which has the Yuan variant mondok. Incidentally, the word j¡rit is practically only found in the expression fang j¡rit Ωíß®“√‘µ “to plant (a stone with a) j¡r™t”, viz. to set up a stone with j¡rit. The only exception known so far is “the monk ordered that there be a j¡rit for the monastery” À◊ÈÕ¡’®“√‘¥°—∫Õ“√“¡Õ—ππ’È; later on two officials came and “set up the j¡rit” Ωíß®“√‘¥ (1.3.1.1 Weluwan ¤r¡m 1488). Also, so far j¡rit has been found attested only between 1488 - 1560. In the present article, j¡rik, j¡r™k, j¡rük and j¡rit, are equally translated as “(inscribed) text, inscription”, or similar. 44 In pre-Thai times, in 1219, the Lamph¢n Mon used the expression/sel¡lekh’, sel¡lekkha/ “stone (with) inscription” (1.3.1.1 Wat Dòn 1219). That goes back to P. lekha “writing, inscription, letter”, in Old Mon lekh’ “writing, written record” (Shorto 1971 Dic. Mon Inscriptions). 45 For example: “Mün Y¡ D¡p Rüan ordered d¡p rüan officers to come here and to set up (the stone inscribed with) the donation charter” ‡®â“À¡◊π Ë ≠“ ¥“∫‡√◊Õπ À◊ÕÈ ™“«∑â“«¥“∫‡√◊Õπ¡“Ωíß®“√‘¥ (1.4.1.1 Wat Phan Tòng Täm 1488). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

100

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

101

or by other state officials.46 If they became damaged, they could be copied on new stones.47 The acquisition of a suitable stone, hin À‘π (occasionally spelled /À√‘π)/, and the engraving of the text seem to have been taken care of privately and locally and presumably were regarded as an act of merit. One inscription from Sukh£thai mentions the name of the man who supplied the stone and the name of another who was the engraver, or who sponsored or supervised the engraving.48 But usually neither the supplier of the stone, nor the author nor the scribe of the text are mentioned.49 The time from the day when the donation was made, until the erection of the donation inscription, usually was not long. Here is an example. On 5 August 1495 Phay¡ Käo and his mother were jointly consecrated ruler (the prince was only 12 or 13 years old). Thereafter the queen mother donated gold to gild a newlymade, big Buddha image and re-assigned the old monastery slaves and servants to include the new image in their work. The image was inaugurated on 28 December 1495, and the inscription was set up on 26 June 1496; obviously by then everything had been carried out as requested.50 By the way, the shortness of this intermediate span of time, is the reason why historians usually accept the last date of an event

46

The setting up of such a donation charter document on a stone is often described in terms similar to the following. (After a monk had transferred the merit for constructing the monastery to the Mah¡ Thew™, mother of the king, she) ordered a charter for this monastery (which was to indicate its property: premises of 27 x 60 w¡; and 4 families of slaves) ... L¡m Mün Suwan and Mün Nòi Kham, the lawyer, received the words of the Mah¡ Thew™ and had the charter issued (and set up on stone) so that the monastery will be secure until the (end of the) 5000 years of the Religion

À◊ÈÕ¡’®“√’µ°—∫Õ“√“¡π’È ... ‡®â“≈à“¡À¡◊Ëπ ÿ«√√≥, ‡®â“À¡◊ËππâÕ¬§”§¥’ À“°√—∫§”¡À“‡∑«’‡®â“ À◊ÈÕΩíß®“√’µÕ—ππ’ȇæ◊ËÕ«—¥Õ“√“¡Õ—ππ’È ¡—ËπµàÕ‡∑à“»“ π“æ√–(æÿ∑∏)‡®â“ 5000 ªï (1.3.1.1 Weluwan ¤r¡m 1488). Here is how, in 1496, a stone inscription from a monastery in the Phayao region describes the setting up of this inscription, after the king of Chiang Mai, Phay¡ Käo, had donated taxes from fields and people to a monastery: “Sän Kaly¡na, Mün L¡m N¡ H£r¡thibod™ (and) Phan Nangsü T¡ng Müang S™ Mangkhala received the king’s order to come here, write (“chisel”) the inscription and to set (the charter) up, (to last) until the end of the Religion” ‡®â“· π°—≈¬“≥– ‡®â“À¡◊Ëπ≈à“¡π“ ‚À√“∏‘∫¥’ (·≈–) ‡®â“æ—πÀπ—ß ◊Õµà“߇¡◊Õß »√’¡ß— §≈– √—∫Õ“™≠“æ√–‡ªìπ‡®â“ (∑’)Ë À◊ÕÈ ¡“µâÕß®“√÷° (·≈–) Ωí߉«âµÕà ‡∑à“ ‘πÈ »“ π“ (1.5.1.1 Wat B¡n D¡n 1496). 47 This seems to have been a rare event; hardly any stone inscription copies are known from L¡n N¡. Here is an example: In 1491 a newly appointed governor of Phay¡o noticed old broken inscribed stones, had them recopied on new stones, investigated the subject matter laid down in the text, and restored debt-slaves to a monastery (1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng 1491 and 1491 (2)). 48 Inscr. # 14 Wat Khem¡, Sukh£thai, 1536. 49 Here is a rare exception: “Written by Uttama Pany¡ Wijit” Õÿµµ¡–ªí≠≠“«‘®‘µ√ ≈‘¢‘µ·≈â«·≈ (last sentence of the Phayao stone inscription 1.5.1.1 Wat Kl¡ng 1490). 50 1.4.1.1 Wat S™ Sutth¡w¡t 1496. The monastery still exists; it is in Wiang P¡ Pao, about 90 km north of Chiang Mai on the way to Chiang R¡i. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

101

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

102

mentioned in an inscription, as the date of that inscription, in case the date of the execution of the inscription is not expressly mentioned.51 It must have been tempting for provincial administrators or local influential persons to tamper with a donation, to use part or all of it for themselves, and even to cancel it, ao òk ‡Õ“ÕÕ° “to take off, to take away”. Such misuse or outright theft of donation is several times reported in inscriptions after the donations had been returned by later officials who succeeded the wrongdoers in office.52 To safeguard donations against malappropriation, inscriptions contained admonitionssuch as “whoever will come as governor and administer this country, do not take (the donation) away”.53 Other inscriptions bless those who will respect a donation and heavily curse those who will not: “Nobody shall take (the donation) away. If someone takes it away, may he die and fall into the Av™ci hell !”54 On occasion, presumably because of serious infractions, a later royal order reconfirmed earlier donations. For instance in 1496, in the Phayao region, a direct royal order55 reconfirmed in detail, with the consent of the assembled local authorities, donations which had been made as long as 85 years ago and whose particulars had been laid down in an earlier inscription in the year 1411.56 Some cases concerning slaves, and not only re-dedications, are rather curious. In 1554, Phay¡ Mä Ku gathered the descendants, 22 families, of the original 40 families of four white-clad ascetics who had been donated to the reliquary Phra Th¡t Dòi Nòi (between San P¡ Tòng and Jòm Tòng, Chiang Mai province) by N¡ng J¡m Thew™.57 Since the Mon queen J¡m Thew™ presumably ruled Lamph¢n in about 750 A.D., 800 years would have elapsed between the original dedication and the re-confirmation !

51

It is true that there is speculation that several inscriptions were written long after events. But as far as I know, it has not yet been possible to definitely identify such a case. 52 Here is a summary of such an event, as recorded in 1513 in Wat Nòng Kw¡ng of Müang Òi in the southern part of Chiang R¡i province. In 1466 Mün Mah¡, the governor of Müang Òi, built Wat Nòng Kw¡ng and decreed: “That village which I have built, that areca plantation which I have set up, and also rice fields of 30 measures seed-rice with 9,000 cowries tax which I have newly opened up, I donate them all to this monastery”. But when Mün S¡m became governor he revoked the donation (for unstated reasons). However, when Mün Kham Ch¡ng became governor in 1513, he restored Mün Mah¡’s former donations (1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513). 53 ‡®â“‰∑ºŸâ „¥¡“°‘π‡¡◊Õßπ’È Õ¬à“‡Õ“ÕÕ° ·¥ (1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Wan 1489). Another example, already mentioned, uses the word katik¡: “Do not let the covenant (concerning the donation) be cancelled, do not let it be neglected nor revoked (and the donations) given to some other use” Õ¬à“À◊ÈÕ∂«¬°µ‘°“ Õ¬à“À◊ÈÕµ° À◊ÈÕ∂Õπ‰ª‰Àπ (1.4.1.1 Wat Chiang S¡ 1554). 54 ‰ºÕ¬à“‡Õ“ÕÕ° º‘ºŸâ „¥‡Õ“ÕÕ° À◊È¡—𵓬 µ°Õ«’®‘π√° (1.2.1.1 Wat Y¡ng Num 1523). 55 1.5.1.1 Wat Phra Kham 1496. 56 1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wih¡n 1411. 57 1.2.1.1 Jula Khir™ 1554). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

102

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

103

Misuse of donated persons or land for other purposes was regarded as “to disturb a settled order, to break up an arrangement” klua klao °≈—È«‡°≈â“ and future officials were likewise warned in inscriptions not to disturb the donated persons in their assigned religious duties by sending them to do other work,58 in particular public work (corvée) and military service,59 and not to revoke land donations.60 The above mentioned expression, ao òk “take off”, could be used for both, people and fields.61 Such donations were perceived to create religious merit (puñña, kuªala), and the donor usually formulated a wish concerning the aim towards which this merit should count; often it was to become an arahant under the future Buddha Ariyametteyya, or to also become a Buddha, and to have a great many worldly possessions during the rebirths that precede the final life which will be ended by going to Nibb¡na (Nirv¡¥a). Frequently the wish was expressed that the merit go to the king.62 Mentioned together with a donation of fields can be a donation of people, sometimes simply called “person”, khon §π, but often more to the point, “(bond-) slave, bondsman, servant”, kh¡ ¢â“. Or else they could be counted as “family”, khrua §√—«, or “house(hold)”, rüan / hüan ‡√◊Õπ; in such case the family head was named (it could be a woman), and sometimes the dependents were listed. Not all donated persons were slaves in the Western sense. Generally, the inscriptions differentiate between “to donate persons as alms”, th¡n khon ∑“π§π (from P. d¡na “gift”) and “to assign persons”, wai khon ‰«â§π, meaning that their 58

For instance: “Whoever comes to administrate Müang Òi ... do not disturb any of them” ºŸâ „¥¡“

°‘π‡¡◊ÕßÕÕ¬ ... Õ¬à“°≈—È«‡°≈Ⓡ¢“ —°§π (1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Wan 1489). 59

For instance: “(Future) princes and nobles (who will administrate this country), do not disturb (the 10 donated families in their work for the monastery), do not order them to do any kind of public work” ‡®â“¢ÿπºŸâ „¥ Õ¬à“‰¥â°≈—È«‡°≈â“ „ à°“√∫â“π °“√‡¡◊Õß ·°à‡¢“ —°Õ—π (1.4.1.1 Wat Pr¡s¡t 1496). “Local administrators are in no case permitted to employ (the 22 families donated to the service of the reliquary) in warfare or for public work” Õ¬à“À◊ÈÕ ¢ÿπª° ¢ÿ𷧫âπ „ à°“√»÷° °“√‡«’¬°  —°Õ—π (1.2.1.1 Jula Khir™ 1554). 60 For example: In 1513 the governor of Müang Òi donated a large plot of land to the main Buddha image of a monastery. In an inscription he exhorted his successors: “Whoever in future will be the lord to come and govern the country, ... do not revoke nor disturb (my donation)” ‡®â“‰∑ºŸâ „¥â¡“°‘π ‡¡◊Õ߇¡◊ËÕ≈Ÿπ ... Õ¬à“‡Õ“ÕÕ° Õ¬à“°≈—È«Õ¬à“‡°≈â“ ·¥ (1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513). 61 For example: “Do not take away the persons and the n¡ kluai rice field(s) of 30 measures seed-rice (which were donated to the Buddha image)” Õ¬à“‡Õ“§π°—∫π“°≈⫬ 30 ¢â“«π’ÈÕÕ° (1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng 1491 (2)). 62 For example: “Concerning the merit I made in donating land to this Buddha image, may the merit (go to and) make vastly prosper both their Majesties, mother and son” ¥â«¬∫ÿ≠Õ—π°ŸÀ◊ÈÕ∑’Ë·°à æ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“π’È ∫ÿ≠Õ—ππ’È®÷ß®”‡√‘≠·°àæ√–‡ªìπ‡®â“ ·¡à≈Ÿ°∑—Èß Õß ®ßÀπ—° (1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513). A brief survey of pious Buddhist wishes and their historical development is in v. Hinüber 1996 Chips: 47 ff. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

103

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

104

public duties, such as corvée etc., was not towards a prince etc., but had been transferred to a monastery.63 Slaves in L¡n N¡ kept a considerable amount of personal freedom, which had to do with the reason why they had become slaves. Very broadly speaking, there were two kinds of slaves, “real slaves” and “honorary slaves”. I shall disregard here the scholastic view of some thammas¡t (dharmaª¡stra) that there are five kinds of slaves64 or even seven kinds with many sub-categories65 because in L¡n N¡ these theoretical divisions were hardly applied in daily life. Many, perhaps the majority of the “real slaves”, were persons who had borrowed money, ngön ‡ß‘π “silver”, from individuals or from a monastery (whose wealth could be used much as a bank loan today),66 had gone bankrupt, and had become a money-slave, khon ngön §π‡ß‘π “a man (who owes) silver”, of the creditor.67 It was customary that the borrower’s person with or without his immediate 63

Cf. 1.2.1.1 Wat S™ Suphan 1509, where every ‘assigned’ person had to provide annually five pieces of the three most used general tools: slashing knife, ax, and spade. The ‘donated’ persons had to take care of the main Buddha image. 64 For instance MRS.CKcy.A+W: 48f/109f, Art. 66. Thammas¡t (dharmaª¡stra) “the knowledge about what is naturally right and proper” is a general appellation for the former Northern law collections, or law codices, of which there were a great many local varieties. Originally presumably a codified blend of traditional Thai and Indic elements, the later versions added Burmese and Ayuthay¡ elements. They were replaced during the decades around 1900 by modernized Bangkok law which became the sole law for the entire country. 65 See for instance Lingat 1931 Esclavage privée: 293-296. 66 As already mentioned, the actual “owner” of the money, hence the creditor, often was not the monastery as an institution but usually certain entities within the monastery, such as the principal Buddha image, the Scriptures, etc. The granting of loans taken out of a monastery’s treasure was intended to be of profit for the monastery. Monasteries even were sometimes given an amount of silver with the express purpose to serve as a revolving fund for lending out in order to help finance specific needs. For instance, in 1500 the king of Chiang Mai and his mother gave to Wat Phra Th¡t Hariphunchai two funds, one of 1,100 silver and the other of 5,700 silver. The interest, dòk ¥Õ° (mod. Thai dòk bia ¥Õ°‡∫’Ȭ “flowers from the cowries”), gained from the first was to be used for buying betel and miang (fermented tea leaves for chewing as a tonic); the interest from the other was “for rice to put in alms-bowls”. Both funds were a gift of worship for the Dhamma scriptures in the monastery library (1.3.1.1 WPT Hariphunchai 1509). 67 Here is an example from the Phayao area in the years around 1485: “Formerly a family, the family of ¤i Hao Kham Ling, had borrowed and not paid back (kin °‘π eaten up) 500 silver from the Buddha image. Phò Nòi, the phan n¡ rüan, poured water and donated them as slaves to the Buddha image (of Wat P¡ Mai in Wiang Lò)” ·µà°àÕπ §π§√—« 1 ™◊ËÕ Õ⓬‡À“§”À≈‘ß §√—« 1 °‘π‡ß‘πæ√–‡®â“ 500 æ—ππ“‡√◊Õπ æàÕπâÕ¬ À¬“¥πÈ”‰«â‡ªìπ¢â“æ√– (1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497). At the time, becoming a money slave was so common that the famous Burmese / Mon law codex, the Dhammavil¡sa Dhammasattha, contains the restriction: “Monks and Brahmans are not allowed to become slaves, even if they need money and offer themselves as slaves.” (Nai 1992 Dhammas¡t Texts: 589.) Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

104

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

105

family served as collateral or bond. If he defaulted on his payments, he as collateral could be seized and made to work for the creditor as a money-slave or bondsman. The law even said that he had to sell himself.68 If another person bought the debt, thai ‰∂à,69 from the original creditor, this money-slave changed creditors, or masters; likewise, if the bond-slave did not fancy his present master, he could persuade another person to buy his debt. If he himself saved enough money (which he could do since he had much freedom for personal activities), he could pay back his debt and thus redeem himself. If his creditor donated him to a monastery, he became a “person donated as alms (d¡na)” or “donated person”, khon sin th¡n §π ‘π∑“π. The buying out of a monastery slave, or his own self-redemption, seems to have been difficult and exceptional,70 and a monastery slave with his offspring tended to stay permanently bonded. Still, his (her) status offered advantages; for instance, he could not be conscripted for public or the prince’s work (corvée), could not be displaced, i.e. taken away from his particular religious site and duties, and even enemy armies would be reluctant to move him abroad as war booty.71 “Honorary slaves” were persons who, out of their own pious free will, or because of an order, became permanent attendants of, for instance, the principal Buddha image in a monastery. They too held certain privileges. An inscription of 1496 expressly distinguishes between the two kinds of slaves, khon ngön §π‡ß‘π 68

“(If the debt cannot be repaid) the debtor shall sell himself (as debt slave)” /ºŸâ°Ÿâπ—ÈπÀ◊È¢“¬µ—«¡—π ‡Õ“‡∑‘Õ–/ (MRS.CKcy.A+W: 31 / 95 (Art. 29)). 69 The usual translation of thai ‰∂à with “to redeem” in this context is not appropriate because the person was not freed of his debts; he and his debts were merely transferred to a new creditor. 70 Here is one such rare example: around 1525, a person only identified as phay¡ æ≠“ “prince, ruler”, paid a monastery in Phayao the sum of 300 silver because the slave woman of the monastery’s Buddha image, who by then was around 40 years old, had taken up service with a son of that person (1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng c. 1530). 71 Here is an example. In 1567 Queen Wisuttha Thew™ of Chiang Mai donated five villages in three forests and the revenue of the entire region to the service of a monastery that carried her name, Wat Wisutth¡r¡m. The villagers were not to be used for outside or public work (1.2.3.1 Wat Wisutth¡r¡m 1567; a silver-foil document with the royal seal). The monastery still exists under the same name and is located in B¡n Pä, north of Hòt near the Mä Ping. In 1632 King Sutth£ Thammar¡cha of Burma (i.e. Thalun; HP) waged war at F¡ng, Chiang Mai and Lamph¢n. He ordered to send the inhabitants of the five villages to Burma. The villagers maintained that they were protected from displacement by a written command from Queen Wisuttha Thew™. King Sutth£, upon seeing the document with the royal seal, acknowledged its validity and allowed the villagers back to the service of Wat Wisutth¡r¡m as before (Krais™ 1984 Kep phak sai s¡: 129, quoting from an old palmleaf document in B¡n Thung near Wat Wisutth¡r¡m). I have not seen that palmleaf ms. But there is a somewhat less factual and more chatty version of the Sutth£ episode on pp. 7.1 - 20.4 in a palmleaf manuscript that the Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University, borrowed from Mr Krais™ Nimm¡nhemin in 1990 and microfilmed as no. 90.166.03 023-023 in the same year. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

105

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

106

“debt persons” and khon yin d™ §π¬‘π¥’ “voluntary persons”.72 Even ranking government officials and other socially better placed persons could be debt slaves as well as or honorary slaves.73 Often, therefore, the Thai word kh¡ ¢â“ cannot be translated as “slave” but should be understood as “servant” or “debtor”, also “adherent, supporter”. 2. The Rice Field Specification Formula Part 1: Size and Taxes of a Field A complete description of a field comprised four specifics: size, tax value, name and location. These specifics were made up of eight basic elements arranged in a certain sequence. Since the sequence was usually strictly followed, one can call the whole arrangement a formula for rice field specification. Disturbed text passages can often be cleared up if one remembers the elements and their sequence. However, I do not think I have ever seen the full formula employed for any one field. Mostly one or more elements were left out, presumably because the remainder was already sufficient for the occasion. The formula therefore was more of a blank theoretical convention that could be filled in with specific elements as the need arose. This is the complete formula. The numbers 25 and 5,000 are fictitious and can in a real case be substituted according to circumstances. The name of the field can occupy either of the two positions indicated, with the one in parenthesis probably less often used: N¡ π“ - Name - 25 - Kh¡o ¢â“« - (N¡ π“ - Name) - Kh¡ §à“ - 5,000 - Bia ‡∫’Ȭ - Location i.e. Field - Name - 25 - Seed Rice - (Field - Name) - Tax - 5,000 - Cowries - Location Very often, perhaps mostly, fields were described only by the two specifics, size and tax rate, which were expressed in a basic formula of six elements. In this section we shall examine these two specifics. In the next section we shall consider the remaining two specifics, viz. the name of the field and its location. That basic formula is: N¡ π“ - 25 - Kh¡o ¢â“« - Kh¡ §à“ - 5,000 - Bia ‡∫’Ȭ i.e.

72 73

1.5.1.1 Wat B¡n D¡n 1496. See below in the section Donation Packages: Wat Phan Tòng Täm, 1488. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

106

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

107

Field - 25 - Seed Rice - Tax - 5,000 - Cowries or in full “A field (of a size that requires) 25 (measures) seed-rice (with an annual) tax of 5,000 cowries.” The basic formula of two specifics with six elements was often abbreviated. In the following presentation the same fictive example is used throughout, and is then illustrated by a concrete example. The abbreviations have the diamond ◆ replacing an element that is missing from the formula.

π“ 25 ¢â“« §à“ 5,000 ‡∫’Ȭ π“ 30 ¢â“« §à“ 9,000 ‡∫’Ȭ

Example: “A field of 30 measures seed-rice with a tax of 9,000 cowries.74

π“ 25 ¢â“« §à“ 5,000 ◆ π“ ... 21,685 ¢â“« º‘®–(π—∫)¢â“«‡ªìπ§à“ «à“‰¥â 4,686,00075

Example: “A field ... of 21,685 measures seed-rice; (the harvest return from) the seed-rice calculated as tax amounting to 4,686 000 cowries”.76

π“ 25 ¢â“« ◆ 5,000 ◆ π“ 20 ¢â“« 5,000

Example: “A field of 20 measures seed-rice with a tax of 5,000 cowries”.77

π“ 25 ¢â“« ◆◆◆ π“ 975 ¢â“«

Example: “A field of 975 measures seed-rice”.78

π“ ◆◆◆ 5,000 ‡∫’Ȭ π“ 82,000 ‡∫’Ȭ

Example: “A field with a tax of 82,000 cowries”.79

π“ ◆◆◆ 5,000 ◆ π“ 500,000

Example: “A field with a tax of 500,000 cowries”.80 74

1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513. 1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wih¡n 1411. 76 1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wi¡n 1411. 77 1.4.1.1 Wat B¡n Y¡ng M¡k Muang 1479. 78 1.5.1.1 Wiang Kao Phayao 1411. 79 1.4.1.1 Dòi Tham Phra 1484. 80 1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512. 75

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

107

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

108

◆ 25 ¢â“« ◆◆◆ Example: 500 ¢â“« “A field of 500 measures seed-rice”.81 The elements of the formula denote the following details. The first element, n¡ π“, is “field” in general, here “field for growing wet rice, paddy field”. The word can also mean other “fields”, for instance n¡ klüa π“ ‡°≈◊Õ “salt field”,82 and it is also used in the abstract sense as in n¡ bun π“∫ÿ≠ “a field of merit”, meaning a continuous occasion to make merit, such as a monastery which one supports. But here, obviously, it means a wet rice or paddy field. The second element is a figure of modest size, often not more than 100, and quantifies the third element, kh¡o, which in inscriptions is spelled /‡¢“/ or /‡¢â“/ khao “rice”. This is the old orthography of modern Standard Thai kh¡o ¢â“«, dating from a time when the word was pronounced with a short diphthong ao, not yet with a long /¡o/. It is still spoken (and written) khao for instance in the Yuan dialect of north Thailand. But kh¡o here does not mean “rice for consumption”. It is a shortened expression for kh¡o chüa ¢â“«‡™◊ÈÕ (= ¢â“«∑”æ—π∏ÿ)å “seed-rice”, and the figure preceding kh¡o ¢â“« is the number of measuring units, i.e. the amount, of seed-rice needed for this particular field. The name of the measuring unit is not mentioned. The reason behind this is an obviously very old tradition that indicates the size of a field by informing one on how much seed will make full use of it, and not by pointing out its physical extension. Even today a northern farmer will not ask, “how large is this field?” but, “how much seed-rice is needed for this field?” The Yuan, as the Khün, the Lü and the northern L¡o, did not measure the surface in terms of length and width83 but in terms of seed-rice needed. The often curved, winding and terraced fields indeed would be nearly impossible to measure using a linear system such as the w¡.84

81

Context: “Jao S™ Mün Phay¡o ... wished to donate food to the Buddha image, (ricefields of) 500 measures seed-rice” ‡®â“ ’ËÀ¡◊Ëπ欓« ... „§√à¡—°‡ªìπ®—ßÀ—π·°àæ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ 500 ¢â“« (1.5.1.1 Wat Kao Yòt 1412). 82 Brine from underlying rock-salt evaporates on the surface of the soil, turns into a thin layer of salt, is raked together and then, by dissolution in water and renewed evaporation (boiling, tom klüa µâ¡‡°≈◊Õ “to cook salt”), is processed into edible salt. 83 “De nos jours, les Lu’ comme les Laotiens ne mesurent pas les rizières.” (Rispaud 1937 Les noms: 110; similarly Guignard 1912/1971 Dict.: LIII.) 84 Also in Old Europe linear measures were hardly used to indicate the size of a field. Here the amount of ploughing that could be done in one day served as indicator. Cf. for instance German Tagwerk, i.e. the area ploughed in one day, or Joch, the surface that a team (Joch) of oxen could work in a day, c. 35 - 70 Ar “are”, or between 3,500 and 7,000 sqm. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

108

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

109

According to a Phayao chronicle,85 reporting on the time when Phayao was founded, about 1000 years ago according to tradition, the first ruler decreed that “each person was to work (a) rice field(s) with 50,000 (or 5 mün) rice-seed”, §π ‰ÀπÀ◊ÈÕ‡¬’¬ π“ 50,000 ¢â“«‡™◊ÈÕ. This amount of 5 mün rice-seed per person (c. 55 kg) is a modern-time amount for a surface manageable by one person. It is therefore possible that the whole passage only projects the situation from the time the author wrote, back into the past. But at least it shows that when that chronicle was written or re-composed, perhaps in the nineteenth century, the author took for granted that also in the old days the surface or size of a rice field was determined by the amount of seed needed. A palm leaf text, dating perhaps from about 1875 - 1900, which deals with the tax situation in about 1720-50 in the Chiang Sän area for rai, upland or dry rice fields, says: “I shall explain the matter of the traditional dry rice fields (rai) at Th¡ Ò. (1) For a field of (a size that requires) 1 bung-basket of seed-rice, the tax is 1,000 cowries, (plus) 400 cowries commission fee for the tax-collector.86 (2) If 1 yang-basket (of seed-rice) is enough (for the field), the tax is 400 cowries, (plus) 200 cowries commission fee. (3) If 1 yäng-basket of seed-rice is sufficient, the tax is 200 cowries, (plus) 100 cowries commission fee. The writing fee (“cost for ledger and pencil”) is not included in the commission fee.”87

µ“¡∫ÿ√“≥ Õ—π®—°·°â ‰√à∑à“ÕâÕ ¡’ —ππ’È. (1) ‰√àÀπ÷Ëß À≈—ß 1 ‡ ’Ȭߢ⓫‡™◊ÈÕ ∫ÿß 1 ¥—ßÕ—Èπ, ‡™“æ—π‡∫’Ȭ, ¬“°ºŸâ®—¥ 400 ‡∫’Ȭ. (2) °—π‡ ’È¬ß ¬—ß 1, ‡™“ 400 ‡∫’Ȭ, ¬“° 200 ‡∫’Ȭ. (3) °—π‡ ’È¬ß‡™◊ÈÕ ·¬ß 1, ‡™“ 200 ‡∫’Ȭ, ¬“° 100 ‡∫’Ȭ. §à“ªíõ∫ §à“ Õ ∫à¡’„𬓰π—Èπ.88

85

PAY.WSB. One can also understand that the 400 cowries commission fee are included in the tax: “... the tax is 1,000 cowries, 400 (of which) are commission fee for the tax-collector.” Similarly in the two following instances. 87 One could perhaps also understand, “No writing fee is imposed for that commission-work,” i.e. the tax collector himself is to bear the expense for the stationery used to record the taxation. 88 A palmleaf ms called “History of Chiang R¡i and Chiang Sän” Àπ—ß ◊Õæ◊Èπ‡¡◊Õß ‡™’¬ß√“¬ ‡™’¬ß· π of Wat Methangkar¡w¡t, A. Müang, Phrä; SRI microfilm 81.088.05.081-083, p.39. - Also in “Chronology of royal Princes in the L¡n N¡ Country” ≈”¥—∫√“™°Ÿ≈«ß»“„π‡¡◊Õß≈â“ππ“, a palmleaf ms of Wat Pong Sanuk Tai, T. Wiang Nüa, A. Müang, Lamp¡ng, SRI microfilm 81.069.09.083, p.92-94. - I have added punctuation to the Thai text. 86

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

109

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

110

That seed-rice was meant by the old scribes was already recognized in 1959 by Cham Thòngkhamwan when he published an inscription of 1500 from N¡n. The inscription records two donations of fields to a monastery, viz. π“ ... 10 ¢â“« and π“ ... 50 ¢â“«. He commented in two nearly identical footnotes that here 10 (50) measures of seed rice were meant, and that the unit of measure was the t¡ng µà“ß : “10 (50) ¢â“« = 10 (50) µà“ß §◊Õ®ÿ¢â“«ª≈Ÿ°∑’Ë „™âÀ«à“πÀ√◊Õ¥”¡’®”π«π 10 (50) µà“ß.89 Neither this nor other inscriptions name the unit for measuring the seedrice. But it is unlikely that it was the t¡ng µà“ß. The word t¡ng, in central Thailand as well as in the North, means “pack-saddle” (usually a frame with woven containers hanging down on either side of the pack animal, with a connecting bridge at the top), also the “packs” or the “load” thus carried, or “to carry by pack-animal”. The word also seems to have been used as a rather rough measure of volume or weight in overland transportation by caravan, “one animal load”. But though occasionally the word may have been used as a measure,90 it certainly was not a standard measure of capacity or weight for L¡n N¡’s rice farmers. It is therefore probable that not t¡ng µà“ß was meant but perhaps the similarsounding Yuan word t¡ng µã“ß, spelled /µ“ß/ in Yuan texts, which in L¡n N¡ was a common measure of volume for rice, beans, etc. In theory, according to certain old text books, the t¡ng µã“ß basket held 525,000 grains of rice.91 Evidently, this was not of much practical value. 1,000 grains of unhusked, glutinous rice weigh c. 34 grams, or c. 0.034 kg.92 In other words, 1 kg has about 29,412 rice grains. The t¡ng µã“ß mentioned here would therefore theoretically have contained c. 17.8 kg, or about 34.5 liters. On the more practical side, I was told by elderly upcountry farmers and merchants, that the old Yuan t¡ng µã“ß basket was equal to 1 old mün À¡◊Ëπ “10,000” in weight in the case of unhusked glutinous rice (other items have different ratios between volume and weight). Since one old weight unit (the name is never mentioned) was about 1.1 gram,93 1 mün was about 11 kg, i.e. one old t¡ng µã“ß basket

89

1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500. In: Cham 1959 J¡rük Wat Ch¡ng Kham C.S.862: n.11, 14; Cham 1965 Lak th™ 72: n. 11, 14. Also other authors on occasion state that the unit was the t¡ng µà“ß; for instance Pras¡n Bunprakhòng and Prasöt na Nakhòn when they published inscr. 1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497. See Pras¡n / Prasöt 1965 J¡rük Wat S™ Um£ng Kham: n.19; Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 Lak th™ 101: n.19. 90 Among all the dictionaries I consulted, only Phräphithay¡ 1964 Dic.: 552 (s.v. µà“ß) said that t¡ng µà“ß could also mean a measure, for instance ¢â“«À⓵à“ß “5 t¡ng of rice”; but the dictionary had no details. 91 See for instance: Khana Panja 5 Jamphuak “Die 5 Methods of Measuring”. 92 Weighed by myself. 93 I weighed several old Buddha images with inscriptions that indicated both their date and the amount of bronze used. Cf. Penth 1994 Jinak¡lam¡l™ Index: 320. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

110

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

111

contained about 11 kg of glutinous, unhusked rice. Further, one liter of unhusked, glutinous rice weighs c. 515 grams, or c. 0.515 kg.94 Therefore, 1 kg of rice equals c. 1.94 liters. Thus, one old t¡ng µã“ß basket would have held about 11 kg or 21 liters of rice. It is remembered that in the decades around 1900 new standard weights were introduced from Bangkok.95 The reason given was to standardize various old measures and to set a standard exchange rate with the metric system, in particular the liter and the kilogram. The new standard t¡ng µã“ß (µà“ßÀ≈«ß “royal t¡ng, standard commercial t¡ng”) for rice was 1.3 kg. At the same time the old mün was increased from 10,000 units of weight to 12,000, i.e. from 1.1 kg to 13.2 kg, which was rounded off to 13.5 kg. This caused much confusion between the old weights and the new weights that still had the old names. There were variations in the t¡ng from one locality to the other.96 In the 1960s, the t¡ng as a rice measure was supposed to hold exactly 20 liters (as I was told), and similar data are found in dictionaries.97 For Old L¡n N¡, these data have to be used with caution. As for the mün weight unit, it was commonly used in Old L¡n N¡ when referring to weight, also for the weight of rice. There is, for instance, the passage in the Chronicle of Chiang Mai which states for the year 1566: “Rice was very expensive. One mün cost 50 silver.”98 It is therefore possible that seed-rice was measured in mün. To sum up: We do not know what unit of measure the Old L¡n N¡ rice farmer used for his seed-rice. With present knowledge, there is a choice between several baskets, for instance the bung, y¡ng, y¡ng,99 and the t¡ng, and the weight mün. Their correspondence with modern metric measures is only approximately known. Incidentally, my informants tended to agree that 2 “modern” t¡ng of 40 liters seed-rice would be needed for 1 modern rai (1600 m2). Whatever the unit for measuring seed rice, the amount of seed-rice needed was an approximate indicator of the size of a rice field, and also of a person’s or of monastery’s wealth; but much depended on the fertility of the soil, which varied considerably.100 Most fields seem to have needed between 12 and 100 measures of seed-rice.101 94

Weighed by myself. A law that regulated weights and measures was passed in 1923 (Credner 1935 / 1966 Siam: 385) 96 Cf. Man™ 1982 Dic.: 85 who mentions local variants between 13 - 14 - 15 kg. 97 Cf. Purnell 1963 Dic.: 98; Udom 1991 Dic.: 1.494. 98 CMA.NL: 20; N: 167; HPms: 5.24R; W: 122, U: 96. 99 I have not been able to find out how many kg of rice will fill them. 100 See below in section 7, Some Rice Field Statistics: Field Fertility. 101 See below in section7, Some Rice Field Statistics: Fields and their Seed-Rice. 95

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

111

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

112

On a few occasions the seed-rice or kh¡o figures were much higher which would indicate extended field possessions, hence considerable wealth. Here are two examples. One instance, of 21,685 kh¡o, has already been quoted above as an example for an abbreviated form of the formula: “(The king of Chiang Mai, S¡m Fang Kän, r.1402-42) gave the monastery Phra Suwanna (Mah¡) Wih¡n rice fields for 21,685 measures of seed-rice; if one assesses (the fields for) this seed-rice in terms of (field) taxes, these amount to 4,686,000 (cowries)” „Àâπ“·°àæ√– ÿ«√√≥«‘À“√ ¡’ª√–¡“≥ 21,685 /‡¢“/ º‘®–(π—∫) /‡¢“/ ‡ªìπ§à“ «à“‰¥â 4,686,000 (‡∫’Ȭ).102 The other example is somewhat dubious. The text seems to say that a man at Lamp¡ng in 1504, N¡i Y™, owned fields of 10,000 measures seed rice and bought from this funds seven families for 2,810 silver: 𓬬’¡’¢â“« 10,000 „ππ’È „∂à§π‰«â 7 §√—« ‡ªìπ‡ß‘π 2,810.103 The fourth element of the formula, kh¡ §à“ “value; cost, fee”,104 here means the fee levied for using the field. This fee, a rent, sometimes was also called chao ‡™à“ or ‡™“.105 In other words, kh¡ indicates the rent value of a field, or its tax-value. This field tax was due annually, as has been mentioned in the previous section. This old meaning of kh¡, “rent-value” or “tax”, survived into modern times. It was retained in the expression kh¡ n¡ §à“π“ “rice field taxes” which was in common use until the tax reforms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries made ear-

102

1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wih¡n 1411. In Old Yuan the word pram¡n ª√–¡“≥ does not mean “approximately” as in modern Thai, but “the exact amount”, from P. parim¡¥a “measure, quantity, sum total”. If indeed the unit was 1 mün = 1.1 kg, this would mean the enormous amount of over 23 metric tons of seed-rice (23,800 kg) ! 103 1.6.1.1 WPT Lamp¡ng Luang 1504. I suppose that here kh¡o 10,000 “10,000 rice” is a reversed and abbreviated form of the beginning of the formula, (n¡) 10,000 kh¡o > kh¡o 10,000, i.e. that the amount of 10,000 refers to the seed rice needed for the fields. That would represent about 11 metric tons (11,000 kg). But it might be that “10,000” is the annual tax value of his fields, and that he somehow traded his fields or their taxes for the amount of silver with which he bought the slaves. Or else he owned a stock of rice of 10,000 weight units which he sold to buy the slave families. 104 Because of similarities in spelling and meaning, it is perhaps possible that this word kh¡ (spelled 1g¡ §à“) is related to, or is an abbreviated form of, P¡li bhoga “enjoyment, possession, wealth; revenue- or tax-owing”, for instance of a village (cf. PED s.v. bhoga), or bhog¡ “the produce taxes of certain lands” (Geiger 1953 Culav. Transl. (1) : 16. n.4, referring to an episode in which Culav. tells of a donation of taxes, made in around 380 by King Buddhad¡sa of Langk¡ to the monks of the Mah¡vih¡ra). 105 For chao ‡™à“ with mai ek, cf. “(The king) assigned land to Wat Chiang S¡, in B¡n N¡ng Jan Village, B¡n Chiang S¡ Village, (and in) B¡n Kòng Käo Village. Altogether it had a rent value (“tax”) of 81,800 cowries; (he also allowed) wax and khing (= ?) for Wat N¡ng Jan with a rent-value (“tax”) of 1,250 of weight” À◊ÈÕ‡¢µ°—∫Õ“√“¡«—¥‡™’¬ß “ „π∫â“ππ“ß®—π ∫â“π‡™’¬ß “ (·≈–„π) ∫â“π°Õß·°â«∑—Èß¡«≈¡’ (§à“) ‡™à“ (/‡™à“) 81,800 ‡∫’Ȭ (§à“) ‡™à“ (/‡™à“/) º÷Èß°—∫§‘ß µàÕ«—¥π“ß®—π ¡’ 1250 πÈ” (1.4.1.1 Wat Chiang S¡ 1554). For chao ‡™“ without the mai ek, see above the quotation of tax examples from Th¡ Ò in the Chiang Sän area. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

112

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

113

lier taxes and their technical terms obsolete.106 Since not only wet rice fields, n¡, were taxed, but also upland fields on hills and mountain slopes, rai ‰√à, whether used for hill rice107 or other crops, the farming taxes levied on both types were collectively called kh¡ rai kh¡ n¡ §à“‰√à §à“π“.108 The fifth and sixth elements of the formula indicate that these taxes were due, or were calculated, in bia ‡∫’Ȭ “cowries”, in inscriptions mostly spelled ‡∫â. The figures mentioned here are much higher than the figures for seed-rice. If, on occasion, the formula is used in such an abbreviated form as to make it doubtful whether seed-rice or taxes are meant, it can be helpful to remember that a modest figure usually means seed-rice, and a large figure, taxes in cowries. The range of taxes in terms of cowries, as far as I know, was between 2,500 and 2 million, even nearly 4.7 million bia.109 Little is known about how field taxes were actually collected. But it is on record that in 1443 a change occurred. From then on, rent or taxes (suai  à«¬, chao ‡™“) had to be paid to the administrator of the locality (jao khwän ‡®â“·§«àπ), and the Crown collected the taxes from these local administrators.110 The change suggests that previously taxes perhaps had been paid more directly to the Crown. Also, it is probable that the rice field tax, though calculated in “money”, often was paid in kind, i.e. in rice; this was done until the nineteenth century, as older people remember.111 What happened to a field and its tax when it was given to a monastery? I suppose that generally the taxes were transferred from the Crown to the monastery, probably being paid directly to the monastery, and that other issues depended on circumstances. Here are two basic scenarios. (1) Field with tenant or owner. The tenant or owner kept the field as before, that is to say, he kept his part of the produce, but from now on paid the tax to the monastery. The reasons why I suppose that this was so are, (1) otherwise the tenant would have been abruptly

106

Cf. Prakat ngoen kha na tra daeng prot hai tang khang, a proclamation allowing delayed payment of certain paddy taxes for the year 1864, as quoted in v. Mehren / Sawers 1992 Revitalizing: 54 n.37. 107 For a tax levied on a rai planted with rice, see above the quotation of tax examples from Th¡ Ò in the Chiang Sän area. 108 CMA.N: 35; HPms: 1.22V; W: 28, U: 22. 109 See below in section 7, Some Rice Field Statistics: Rice Field Taxes. 110 CMA.N: 105; HPms: 4.4R; W: 76, U: 61. 111 An example dating from 1808 in Ubon in the Northeast: “Whoever comes to work ricefields on this donated land, if he harvests 1 cart load (of rice), collect 1 thang ∂—ß bucket as field tax; if 2 cart loads, 2 thang” §πºŸâ „¥âºŸâÀπ÷ß¡“‡ŒÁ¥π“„π¥‘π‚Õ°“ ∑’Ëπ’È, º‘«à“‰¥â‡°«’¬π 1 „À⇰Á∫§à“¥‘π∂—ß 1. 2 ‡°«’¬π (‡°Á∫) 2 ∂—ß (2.3.1.1 Wat P¡ Luang 1808). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

113

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

114

dispossessed and possibly could not have survived, (2) the monastery would have to find persons to work the field, (3) this arrangement, donating the tax to the Religion, brought merit to the king. (2) Field without tenant or owner. In chronically underpopulated L¡n N¡, there must have been vacant fields. Also, occasionally part of the forest or vacant land would be made into new fields. If such a field was donated, the king or the monastery would have to find or appoint persons, slaves, to work it. The reason why I think this also happened sometimes is, that there are inscriptions which tell us that fields and persons were donated.112 I suppose that at least some of these slaves were employed to work fields. In this case, presumably, again the tax went to the monastery, and the remainder of the produce was used for the upkeep of these persons. Even if other arrangements were made between the monastery and those who worked the fields, the king still would have donated his taxes to the Religion, and gained merit. That ends our survey of the six elements which make up the basic formula to describe the size and tax rate of rice fields. To repeat: The fictive example mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, π“ 25 ‡¢â“ §à“ 5,000 ‡∫’Ȭ, is a brief wording for “paddy-fields of a size which requires 25 measures (mün?) of seed-rice and which carry an annual tax of 5,000 cowries”, or more concisely, “fields of 25 measures seed-rice with 5,000 cowries tax”. The rice in question was glutinous rice, khao nüng ‡¢â“Àπ÷Èß “rice to be steamed”, which still is the staple food of the Northerners, and not kh¡o j¡o ¢â“«®â“«, the non-glutinous variety now preferred in central Thailand, which is boiled.113 More about the occasionally debated question, what kind of rice was meant in old L¡n N¡ texts, will be discussed below in section 4, Glutinous Rice or Non-Glutinous Rice?

112

See below in section 4, Glutinous Rice or Non-Glutinous Rice? and section 5, Donation Packages. 113 Northerners call glutinous rice, khao nüng ‡¢â“Àπ÷Èß “rice that is to be steamed”. This type of rice is called in central Thailand kh¡o niao ¢â“«‡À𒬫 ”sticky rice”. The non-glutinous rice, which traditionally is boiled, has the same name, viz. khao j¡o ‡¢â“®â“« in the North and kh¡o j¡o ¢â“®â“« in central Thailand, i.e. “rice (that has been cooked until it is) dry”. The word j¡o ®â“« is often spelled ‡®â“ and pronounced jao (not to be mistaken for ‡®â“ jao “prince, lord”). It should be noted that the modern central Thai spelling π÷Ëß for “to steam” in the expression kh¡o nüng ¢â“«π÷Ëß means, not glutinous rice, but non-glutinous rice pre-cooked at the factory, so-called parboiled rice. Rice grains and husks, embedded in old clay bricks, show that centuries ago glutinous rice was also eaten in the central region; only later it was later abandoned in favour of the “lighter” non-glutinous rice, kh¡o jao or kh¡o suai. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

114

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

115

An observation concerning payments made in cowries shall conclude this chapter. Many articles or goods could be paid for either in bia “cowries”, or in ngön “silver (weight-units)”.114 For instance, prices of manuscripts donated to monasteries were quoted either in silver or in cowries.115 One would expect that higher priced items usually were calculated in silver because cowries were a very small denomination. This may have been the case though I do not have the statistical data to show it. But it seems possible that traditionally certain items were traded in cowries, and others in silver. For instance, construction material probably more often was priced in silver.116 As for land-taxes, they were almost always117 specified in cowries, even if a high tax amount might have been converted into the larger denomination “silver” for practical reasons. Assessing a field’s tax value in cowries may have been an old tradition, perhaps a left-over from rather ancient times. 3. The Rice Field Specification Formula Part 2: Name and Location of a Field The other two specifics that complete the description of a field are the field’ s name and its location. The names allude to the field’s characteristics, its quality, its location, or to some little local event. Some are appellations that indicate the individuals or the recipients (monks, the principal Buddha image, etc.) for whom the rice or the taxes were intended. Other names indicate field categories that connect them with the titles of certain officials; see also below in section 6, Rice Field Administrators.

114

The weight-unit for silver was sometimes called b¡t, modern Baht. I suppose, but am not certain, that this unit also was about 1.1 g, the same as the usual (unnamed) weight unit used, for instance, for bronze. 115 At Th¡ Sòi on the Mä Ping (now flooded by the waters of the Bhumibol Reservoir) in 1531 a commentary on the Ekanip¡ta of the A¬guttaranik¡ya cost 100 ngön (v.Hinüber 1990 On some Colophons: 73, 75), and in 1551 a manuscript copy of the Buddhava†sa and its commentary, the Madhuratthavil¡sin™, cost 62,000 bia: 8,000 bia for the palm-leaves and 54,000 bia for copying the text (v.Hinüber 1996 Chips: 54-55). 116 Cf. “The (construction) costs were 6,000 silver”  ‘Èπ‡ß‘π 6,000 æ—π (1.2.1.1 Wat Y¡ng Num 1523). 117 One of the rare exceptions was already mentioned at the beginning of this section, for the year 1375: “Fields with a (yearly) tax of 10,000 silver” π“ 10,000 ‡ß‘π (see footnote 87). Here is another example. In 1567 the queen of Chiang Mai, Wisuttha Thew™, donated the people of, and the income from, several villages including B¡n Pä (north of Hòt) to a monastery. That donation included the wet rice fields of B¡n Pä: “The field rent of B¡n Pä, 500 silver per year, ... (and all other taxes and revenues there) are a royal donation for the support of Wat R¡cha Wisutth¡r¡m” §à “ π“∫â “ π·ª– 500 ‡ß‘ π ™Ÿà ªï ... ‡ªì π √“™∑“πÕÿ ª °“√„π«— ¥ √“™«‘  ÿ ∑ ∏“√“¡ (1.2.3.1 Wat Wisutth¡r¡m 1567). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

115

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

116

Judging from the names, a number of fields were of inferior quality, whereas one would expect that fields, given to monasteries for the sake of making merit, would be of particularly good quality, as normally other items were (and still are) when donated to the Buddhist religion. One wonders whether in general the people thought that a rather high percentage of fields in the North were of poor quality. The meaning of some of the names are dubious or unknown. As with other toponyms, such names (and even perfectly comprehensible ones) might be corruptions of earlier names, dating perhaps even from pre-Thai times. As has already been mentioned, the name of the field can occupy either of two possible positions in the rice field specification formula. The location of the field is placed at the end: N¡ π“ - Name - 25 - Kh¡o ¢â“« - (N¡ π“ - Name) - Kh¡ §à“ - 5,000 - Bia ‡∫’Ȭ - Location 1. Names of Fields Here are some examples to show the context of the names within the rice field specification formula. The symbol ♣ stands for the name of the field while the symbol ◆ again indicates an element missing from the 8-element formula. The name of the field is usually preceded by the word n¡ π“ “field”:

π“ ♣ 25 ¢â“« ◆◆◆◆ Example: π“¥Õπ°≈“ß 12 ¢â“« “The Dòn Kl¡ng field of 12 measures seed-rice”.118 π“ ♣ 25 §à“ 5,000 ◆◆ π“æ√– 175 §à“ 96,800

Example: “The Phra field of 175 measures seed-rice with an annual tax of 96,800 cowries”.119

π“ ♣ 25 ◆◆◆◆◆ Example: π“πÈ”µ“¬ 30 “The Nam T¡i field of 30 measures seed-rice”.120 25 ¢â“«π“ ♣ 5,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ◆ Example: 100 ¢â“«π“∑—π®—¥ §à“ 55,000 ‡∫’Ȭ “The Than Jat field of 100 measures seed-rice with an annual tax of 55,000 cowries”.121 118

1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 120 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 121 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 119

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

116

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

117

25 ¢â“«π“ ♣ §à“ 5,000 ◆◆ Example: 100 ¢â“«π“ÀπÕ߇∑ß §à“ 45,000 “The Nòng Theng field of 100 measures seed-rice with a tax of 5,000 cowries”.122 If the word n¡ π“ is omitted, it may be difficult to recognize the name. Here is such an example, made up of 4 items all in the form of 25 ¢â“« ◆♣◆ 5,000 ◆◆ π“ ¡’ 50 ¢â“« √Õ¡«—« 50,000 50 ¢â“« µâπ°«à“« 50,000 30 ¢â“« µâπ·§ 50,000 50 ¢â“« 8 ‡º’¬° 50,000123 Written as a list the details become clearer:

π“ ¡’ 50 ¢â“« 50 ¢â“« 30 ¢â“« 50 ¢â“«

√Õ¡«—« µâπ°«à“« µâπ·§ 8 ‡º’¬°

50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

“(The monastery) has (the following) rice fields: 50 measures seed-rice, the Hòm Wua field, 50 measures seed-rice, the Ton Kw¡o field, 30 measures seed-rice, the Ton Kh¡ field, 50 measures seed-rice, the Pät Phiak field,

with 50,000 cowries tax with 50,000 cowries tax with 50,000 cowries tax with 50,000 cowries tax.”

The following collection of field names is intended to show the variety of such names. All refer to wet rice fields, n¡ π“ ; I do not remember having read the name of an upland field, rai / hai ‰√à.124 N¡ B¡n ¤ng π“∫â“πÕà“ß “The field(s) at the village B¡n ¤ng”.125 122

1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 1.2.1.1 Jula Khir™ 1554. This high tax either included the four villages under the monastery (the text is not clear on that) or else there was a steep tax increase or an inflation. 124 Since the word rai / hai can be spelt in several ways, ‰√, „√, ‰√à, „√à, each with a different meaning and one or two with more than one meaning, and since old texts often dispense with tone markers, one must be careful not to misunderstand the meaning. Here is an example: In 1514 a bronze Buddha image was cast and placed in rai hòm /‰« °—∫ ‰√ ÀÕ¡/. This does not mean that the image was placed on a good-smelling upland field, but in a monastery, Wat Rai Hòm, with the word Wat “monastery” omitted in the text, as is often the case. Again, that name does not mean “Monastery at the good-smelling upland field”, but “Monastery with the fragrant rai / hai tree”. The hai tree is of the ficus kind, looks similar to the banyan, and some varieties do have strong smelling flowers and even a smell of their own (1.2.3.2 Wat Rai Hòm 1514). 125 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 123

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

117

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

118

N¡ Dong π“¥ß “Fields at (in) the hillyforest”.126 Since this expression forms part of the title and rank of an official, Phan N¡ Dong æ—ππ“¥ß, “the official with the rank of 1,000 whose duties are concerned with n¡ dong rice fields”, it seems that n¡ dong was not the name of a certain field but rather the name of a type or a category of fields. See also below, N¡ Lang. N¡ Dòn Kl¡ng π“¥Õπ°≈“ß “Field on the middle mound” and N¡ Dòn Tai π“¥Õπ„µâ “Field on the southern mound”.127 Dòn means a high ground or elevation among otherwise flat land and usually is a dry site, distant from water; a field here is difficult or impossible to irrigate and depends on rain. N¡ Dòn Hai π“¥Õπ‰√ “Field on the mound with banyan trees”.128 Hai (spelled ‰√) is a shady fig tree, called ton sai µâπ‰∑√ in central Thailand. But since inscriptions mostly do not have tone markers, alternatively here could be meant hai ‰√à “dry rice field, plantation”, and the meaning of the name could be “Field at the mound with the plantation”. N¡ F¡ng π“Ω“ß “F¡ng tree field”.129 N¡ Hòng Ph¡k π“ÀâÕߺ“° /π“ÀÕߺ“°/ “Shovel field”.130 Perhaps a field shaped like, or situated in, an area similar to the inner part (hòng) or “loading cavity” of a shovel (ph¡k). N¡ Huai Dòn Thap π“À⫬¥Õπ∑—∫ “Field by the brook Huai Dòn Tap”.131 N¡ Janghan π“®—ßÀ—π “Monk food field”.132 Probably a field the rice of which was meant as food for monks of a certain monastery. N¡ Khen π“‡¢Á≠ /π“‡¢—π/ “Difficult field”.133 The word khen can also mean “misfortune, calamity”. Obviously the field name points to something unfortunate, either obstacles arising from the field itself, or an incident that took place on or near it. N¡ Kh™ K¡ π“¢’È°“ “Kh™ k¡ field”.134 Kh™ k¡ “crow excrement” (alluding to the shape of the seeds?) is the name of a vine with bitter taste and medicinal properties; it is also the general name for a number of other vines, climbers and herbs, such as kh™ k¡ l¡i, kh™ k¡ däng, kh™ k¡ nòi, etc., some of which were also used for medical purposes. 126

1.1.1.1 ¤r¡m S(tm) Köt 1490. 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 128 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 129 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 130 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 131 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 132 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498; 1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500. 133 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 134 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 127

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

118

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

119

N¡ Khr¡ng π“§√“ß “Field ... ” (?).135 N¡ Khüa B¡ π“‡¢◊Õ∫â“/π“‡¢‘Õ∫“/ “Crazy eggplant field”.136 The shrub/climber (lamph£ng ≈”‚æß in central Thailand), an annual, has poisonous seeds which induce a state of stupor or drunkenness (even now used for criminal purposes), but the roots were used against rabies and “general idiocy”. N¡ Kluai /π“°≈«¬/ “Kluai Field”.137 A monastery received “(a) n¡ kluai field(s)” of 30 measures seed-rice. Kh¡o kluai ¢“«°≈⫬ is a certain variety of glutinous rice, which could mean that the monastery had that many fields for planting that particular rice. However, there is little or no reason to specify the rice planted (see the section Glutinous or Non-glutinous Rice?). Since kluai °≈«¬ also is the name of a small tree, and kluai °≈⫬ means both, “banana” and “orchid”, the name of the field probably alludes to one of these. N¡ Kon π“°âπ “Bottom field” (?).138 N¡ Kong π“°àß /π“°ß/ “Curved field”.139 Kong also has other meanings, depending on the word-tone (not indicated in the inscription), for instance “crossbow” °ß. If the above translation is correct, its shape was curved like the rib of a boat. But here the name is obviously connected with a village of the same name, B¡n Kong /∫“π°ß/, mentioned in the same inscription immediately after the field, which name could mean“Crossbow Village” ∫â“π°ß. Hence the name of the field might be “Field at Crossbow Village”, or perhaps “Field at the curved village”. Interestingly, the taxes for the field were only 500 cowries, and for the village even less, just 400. The village with its field probably was not affluent. N¡ Kw¡m π“ °«à“¡ “Soggy Field”140 A rather undesirable wet rice field with too much water and continuously muddy soil. It produces a poor harvest unless properly drained, which sometimes is quite impossible if it is located in a depression of the land, resembling a shallow seasonal pond. N¡ Kw¡ng π“°«“ß or π“°«â“ß /°«“ß/ “Dear field” or “Broad field”.141 Since the inscription does not use tone markers, it is not possible to decide which meaning is correct.

135

1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 137 1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng 1491. 138 1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng M¢n 1493. 139 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 140 1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512. 141 1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500. 136

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

119

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

120

N¡ Kw¡o Bong π“°«à“«∫ß “Kw¡o tree field”.142 A field with/near (trans) planted (bong) kw¡o trees. The ton kw¡o tree, among Westerners usually known as “flame of the forest”, butea frondosa (also butea monosperma), is one of the most striking trees in L¡n N¡, not only because of its shining orange or scarlet flowers but also of its sometimes peculiar angular growth. Besides, it had many uses. For instance, it was a source of medicine, of dye, and on its branches the lac insect secreted its valued resinous substance. N¡ Lak Ch¡ng π“À≈—°™â“ß “Elephant pole field”.143 Presumably nearby there were poles to attach elephants. N¡ Lang π“À≈—ß “Fields at / on the back”.144 Since this expression forms part of the title and rank of an official, Phan N¡ Lang æ—ππ“À≈—ß, “the official with the rank of 1,000 whose duties are concerned with n¡ lang rice fields”, it seems that n¡ lang was not the name of a certain field but rather the name of a type or a category of fields. It is uncertain how to understand lang here: back, backside, topside, etc. See also above, N¡ Dong. N¡ Lom Läng π“≈¡·≈âß “Lom läng tree field”.145 N¡ M¡ L¡i π“À¡“≈“¬ “Striped dog field”.146 N¡ N¡m T¡i π“πÈ”µ“¬ “Dead water field”.147 Obviously a field with insufficient water, to which the water supply was interrupted, or often failed, etc. N¡ N¡n Lò π“Àπ“πÀ≈àÕ “Field of the ex-monk Lò” and N¡ N¡n Lò Nòi π“Àπ“πÀ≈ÕπâÕ¬ “Field of the ex-monk Little Lò”148 N¡ Ngua π“ß—« “Cow Field”.149 N¡ Nòng Teng π“ÀπÕ߇µÁß /π“ÀπÕ߇∑ß/ “Field at the teng bush pond”.150 Teng is the name of a big tree in central Thailand but seems to mean some bush or large shrub in the North. (N¡) Pät Phiak 8 ‡º’¬° “eight-plot field”.151 Presumably a group of eight individual plots of rice fields, each with its own surrounding water-retaining mud wall. N¡ Ph™ T¡i π“º’µ“¬ “Dead man’s (woman’s) field”.152 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152

1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 1.1.1.1 ¤r¡m S™ Köt 1490. 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512. 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 1.2.1.1 Jula Khir™ 1554. 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

120

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

121

The former owner probably bequeathed the field to the monastery on his deathbed. N¡ Phra π“æ√– “The monk’s or the Buddha image’ field”.153 N¡ phra at present means “the monk’s field”, i.e. a field which stays reserved for a man while he is in the monkhood. As a monk he cannot own property but it is common practice that the family keeps some land for him in case that one day he will leave the monkhood and will then need it to support himself. But in the inscription of Wat L™ from 1495, which lists the field holdings of the monastery, n¡ phra obviously refers to a field the rice of which is either meant for the monks or the Buddha image. In the inscription of Wat Phra Köt (“monastery with the Buddha image called Phra Köt”) from 1500, it is evident that n¡ phra means the Buddha image. One field, called N¡ Kw¡ng “broad field” or “deer field” was expressly described as to produce rice for phra, the Buddha image: ‡ªìππ“¢â“«æ√–. Further down, the inscription mentions a field called N¡ R™ “long field” half of whose rice was meant for the image (phra) and the other half as food (for the monks (janghan): π“√’ 50 ¢â“« ‡ªìππ“æ√– 25 ‡ªìππ“®—ßÀ—π 25. N¡ Pön Taw¡i π“‡æ‘Ë𵫓¬ /π“‡æ‘𵫓¬/ “Prediction Field”.154 A field about which someone, a friend or acquaintance, had made a prediction (“will bring a good harvest once in three years”, etc.) N¡ Pong π“ªß “Muddy field”.155 N¡ Pòng (Phòng) π“ªÕß, π“æÕß /π“æ√Õß/ “Uneven field”.156 The word pòng means “puffed up, convex, swelling up and down”, a flat surface with one or several patches rising up as blisters on the skin. Judging from the name, it was not a level field but had an uneven surface, meaning that part of it received too much water while other parts were (nearly) dry; hence the name indicates a not very desirable field. N¡ Prang π“ª√—ß “Off-season field”.157 N¡ Prang, also called n¡ dò π“¥Õ, is an off-season paddy field for a second harvest, mostly worked in the dry, hot season, needing artificial irrigation. It is usually unsuitable for rice growing during the normal rice season, for instance because during the rains it is subject to uncontrolled inundation.

153

1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495; 1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500. 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 155 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 156 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 157 There is a monastery called Wat N¡ Prang «—¥π“ª√—ß in A. Pong, Phayao province. 154

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

121

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

122

N¡ Rang π“√—ß “New Field” (?).158 See also below in the chapter Donation Packages: Persons and Fields for Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi, 1500. N¡ R¡ng M¢ π“√“ßÀ¡Ÿ “Pig-trough field”.159 N¡ R™ π“√’ (or perhaps π“√‘) “Long field”.160 R™ can have several meanings indicating length: long, oval, lengthwise (as opposed to ‘across’). (N¡) Rim Nòng (π“)√‘¡ÀπÕß “Field by the pond”.161 Nòng means a pool or small lake. If it is shallow, it will be “seasonal”, i.e. often dry in the hot season and overflowing in the rainy season. A field immediately by such a pond with ill-defined banks usually is difficult to work, with crops of irregular and below average quantity. For a high-yield field by a pool, cf. below The Ratio Seed-Rice - Cowries. (N¡) Ròm Wua √Õ¡«—« “The field where the cows are gathered”162 B¡n N¡ Ròt ∫â“ππ“√Õ¥ “The village of (the) N¡ Ròt”.163 The meaning of the name is uncertain because it can be understood in several ways. Ròt (often lòt ≈Õ¥) “little, small” can be a personal (nick)name: “The village at Shorty’s field”. Ròt could also refer to the small size of the field: “The village at the little field”. The expression N¡ Ròt is also attested as a personal name or as a title of a person who perhaps administrated small fields (see below in the section Rice Field Administrators)164: “The village (of the man called) Little Field”; “The village of the N¡ Ròt official”. N¡ Rüak π“‡√◊Õ° /π“‡√‘°/ “Bamboo matting field”.165 Rüak is a kind of coarse matting made from split bamboo. It can be rolled and transported to make an enclosure for animals, also for fish etc. in a piece of water. The word can also mean a kind of hunting net, or fence, made from long strips of leather, which was also used to keep animals out of a temporary camp. N¡ S¡i M¢n π“∑√“¬¡Ÿ≈ /π“™“¬¡ÿπ/ “Sandy field”.166 N¡ S¡ng Kham π“/ “ß/§” “Field ... ”.167 158

1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi 1500. 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 160 1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500. 161 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 162 1.2.1.1 Jula Khir™ 1554. 163 1.2.1.1 Wat K¡n Th£m 1499. 164 1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi 1500. 165 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 166 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 167 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 159

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

122

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

123

The word kham means “gold”. Since s¡ng / “ß/ “to comb” does not seem applicable here, perhaps a word of similar sound was meant, for instance: < ©“ß “rice granary”: Field at the golden (i.e. royal / state?) rice barn. <  à“ß “ex-monk”: Field of the former monk Kham. <  â“ß “pit, well, mine”: Field at the gold(en) pit. < ´“ß name of a tall grass: Field at the s¡ng kham grass. < ´à“ß name of a large tree: Field at the s¡ng kham tree(s). N¡ Tä Ng¡ π“·µß“ “Watergate field” N¡ Tä Ng¡ Lum π“·µß“≈ÿà¡ “Lower watergate field”.168 N¡ Thai π“‰∂à “The ransomed field”.169 Presumably a field which once was redeemed, purchased back or otherwise recovered by paying a fine, price, etc. N¡ Than Jat π“∑—π®—¥ “The field that was arranged in time”(?).170 N¡ Thò π“∑àÕ “Field with water-pipe”.171 Such tubes for irrigation usually were made from bamboo. N¡ Thòn π“∂Õπ “The revoked field”.172 N¡ Thòng π“∑Õß “Thòng tree field”.173 The mai thòng ‰¡â∑Õß or ton thòng µâπ∑Õß tree is called thòng l¡ng ∑ÕßÀ≈“ß in central Thailand. (N¡) Ton Khä µâπ·§ “The Ton Khä Tree Field”.174 (N¡) Ton Kw¡o µâπ°«à“« “The Ton Kw¡o Tree Field”.175 For the ton kw¡o tree, see above N¡ Kw¡o Bong. N¡ ‡ N¡m π“ÕŸàπÈ” “Field at the cradle of water”.176 Obviously a field with good water supply. N¡ Wang Ng¢ π“«—ßߟ “Snake Pit Field”.177

168

1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 170 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 171 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 172 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 173 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. 174 1.2.1.1 Wat Jula Khir™ 1554. 175 1.2.1.1 Wat Jula Khir™ 1554. 176 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 177 1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512. 169

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

123

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

124

2. Location of Fields In the above examples, the location of a field sometimes was indicated by its name (N¡ B¡n ¤ng “Field at B¡n ¤ng”, etc.) and one can assume that these fields were in the environs of the monastery. But fields were not always situated nearby. Sometimes they were in distant districts. In such a case the location could be mentioned at the end of the 8-element-formula. Here are some examples, this time quoted in their context for easier understanding because such text passages tend to be difficult, not least because of their brevity. The symbol ⊕ stands for the location while the symbol ◆ again indicates an element missing from the formula. An inscription from Phayao in 1412 says: “Jao S™ Mün (,the governor of) Phayao, ... wished to donate food to the Buddha image (of Wat Kao Yòt), (rice fields of) 500 (measures seed-) rice, (located) in the Phan N¡ Chiang D™” ‡®â“ ’Ë À¡◊Ëπ欓« ... „§√à¡—°‡ªìπ®—ßÀ—π·°àæ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ 500 ¢â“«¬—ßæ—π𓇙’¬ß¥’.178 The rice field specifics formula helps to understand this otherwise rather short text passage: N¡ π“ - Name - 25 - Kh¡o ¢â“« - (N¡ π“ - Name) - Kh¡ §à“ - 5,000 - Bia ‡∫’Ȭ - Location π“ ◆ 25 ◆ §à“ 5,000 ◆⊕ Text: ◆ 500 ¢â“« ◆◆◆ æ—π𓇙’¬ß¥’ Wat Kao Yòt was immediately outside Phayao town. The location of Phan N¡ (“district”) Chiang D™ is uncertain but it seems to have been further east, beyond the long hill Dòi Duan. Sometimes details were left vague, perhaps it did not matter from exactly what fields the taxes came, the particulars being left to local administrators: “(In about 1290 Phay¡ Mang R¡i) ordered to designate the districts in which to collect the rice field taxes in cowries (for Wat K¡n Th£m): each year 620,000 cowries for the monks’ food in the district of Jäm and 500,000 cowries for the administrators (?)179 in the district of Chä Ch¡ng” À◊ÈÕªí°·¢«π‡°Á∫‡∫’Ȭ§à“π“ ªï‰Àπ 620,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ‡ªìπ§à“®—ßÀ—π ·¢«π·®¡ 500,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ‡ªìπ§à“°‘π ·¢«π·™à™â“ß.180

178

1.5.1.1 Wat Kao Yòt 1412. ‡ªìπ§à“°‘π. Whereas kin here could mean “to eat” and therefore “food in general, food for all others; general expenses”, there is an inscription of a monastery near Chiang Mai where kin expressly means the remuneration for that important monastery’s administrators: “Salary for administrators: 200,000 cowries” ‰«âÀ◊ÈÕºŸâ𓬰‘π 200,000 ‡∫’Ȭ (1.2.1.1 Wat Tap£th¡r¡m). 180 CMA. N: 53; HPms: 2.8R; W: 39; U: 31. 179

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

124

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

125

Wat K¡n Th£m is located in Wiang Kum K¡m, about 5 km southeast of Chiang Mai. The first group of fields presumably were in present A. Mä Jäm, a valley district in the hills c. 90 km southwest of Chiang Mai, at the time not easily reached. The location of the second group of fields is not certain; perhaps Chä Ch¡ng was in Lamp¡ng province on the river Mä Ch¡ng.181 The administrators who were charged with the execution of a royal donation had a certain leeway. In 1488 there was a royal order for a donation to the monastery Wat Phan Tòng Täm in Chiang Sän. That order was given only in general terms, viz. “to donate rice fields with 600,000 cowries (tax) (and) 15 families” À◊ÈÕ‰«âπ“ 600,000 ‡∫’Ȭ (·≈–) §π 15 §√—«. Local officials then made these specific arrangements: “The fields with 600,000 cowries (tax) were to be taken from the Phan N¡ (district) Muan. (As for) the 15 families, if there were not enough among the relatives of Phan Tòng Täm (who had built the monastery), additional families were to be found ... (However) the donation of (fields with) 600,000 cowries (tax was split): 593,000 (cowries) field tax (plus) 7,000 cowries tax on a village” ‡Õ“π“¬—ß æ—ππ“¡«π À◊ÈÕ 600,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ( à«π) §π 15 §√—« (π—Èπ) (∂â“) „π≠“µ‘æ—πµâÕß (·µâ¡) ∫àæÕ À◊ÕÀ“ (‡æ‘Ë¡) ·∂¡ ... ‰«â‡∫’Ȭ 600,000 (·∫ßÕÕ°‡ªìπ) §à“π“ 593,000 (·≈–) ∫â“π 1 §à“ 7,000 ‡∫’Ȭ.182 Phan N¡ Muan presumably is present A. Chiang Muan in Phayao province (c. 50 km southeast of Phayao), or about 150 km south of Chiang Sän. Incidentally, also another monastery in Chiang Sän, Wat Pr¡s¡t, received fields in that district: “... (ordered) to give fields with 100,000 cowries tax in Müang Muan” ‰«âπ“°—∫ 100,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ¬—߇¡◊Õß¡à«π.183 One final observation: In L¡n N¡, the name of a field seldom is a part of a village name; a rare example was mentioned above, viz. B¡n N¡ Ròt “village at the N¡ Ròt field”. This somewhat distinguishes L¡n N¡ from other Tai regions, for instance in Laos, where villages often carry field names, such as B¡n N¡ Luang “Village at the large Field”. 4. Glutinous Rice or Non-Glutinous Rice? One hears or reads sometimes that stone inscriptions expressly mention kh¡o nüng “glutinous rice” and even differentiate between donations of fields for kh¡o nüng and kh¡o jao “non-glutinous rice”,184 meaning that both varieties were commonly eaten in Old L¡n N¡. If true, that would mean a surprising change in

181

Cf. J¡¬gapura in the chronicle Jinak¡lam¡l™; Penth 1994 Jinak¡lam¡l™ Index: 70-71. 1.4.1.1 Wat Phan Tòng Täm 1488. The place name Muan ¡«π in this inscription has no mai ek. 183 1.4.1.1 Wat Pr¡s¡t 1496. The place name Muan ¡«àπ in this inscription carries the mai ek. 184 For these expressions, see above in section 2, Size and Taxes of a Field, footnote 40. 182

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

125

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

126

eating habits because it is generally thought, also attested by archaeological finds,185 that the Northerners, including Lawa and Karen, have been growing and eating steamed glutinous rice since of old. However, it seems that the alleged mention of glutinous or non-glutinous rice in old texts derives from a misunderstanding. Firstly, a farmer would not differentiate between fields for glutinous and non-glutinous rice because these types of rice do not need different kinds of fields. Both are chiefly grown as wet-rice varieties on flooded fields (n¡ π“), and what kind of wet-rice is grown on a paddy field depends only on the farmer. There is therefore no reason to mention separate fields. Secondly, when asking for an example from a text that allegedly mentions one or the other type of rice, it has been my experience that (with one exception, see below) a passage was never quoted which clearly showed that non-glutinous rice was meant. Invariably a passage was quoted that allegedly referred to glutinous rice. These quotations usually involved the number ròi √âÕ¬ “100” and always the number nüng Àπ÷Ëß “1” and were of this type: /‰«π“√Õ^¬‡¢“π‘ß/ = ‰«âπ“√âÕ¬¢â“«Àπ÷Ëß “he gave fields of 100 (measures seed-) rice”.186 However, the proponents of “glutinous rice” would interpret ròi khao ning as “100 ¢â“«Àπ÷Èß”, meaning “100 (measures of) glutinous rice”, and it would be assumed that, since glutinous rice was mentioned, there must also have been non-glutinous rice. This interpretation is not likely to be correct because of the following reasons. (1) One could collect many such text examples from all over L¡n N¡. This would lead to the surprising conclusions that non-glutinous rice must have been much favoured in L¡n N¡ because it was necessary to mention glutinous rice, and that glutinous rice mostly was handled in amounts of 100. (2) Nearly all stone inscriptions are written in Fak Kh¡m letters. In these inscriptions, /π‘ß/ or /π÷ß/ is the usual spelling of “1”. That parallels the frequent Tham spelling /π÷ß/ though /π÷Ëß/ is considered correct. I cannot remember having seen the word “to steam” in an inscription, but judging from the way it is spelt in other L¡n N¡ texts written in Tham letters, where the word is spelled /À⁄π÷Èß/, inscriptions would probably spell it /Àπ‘ß or /Àπ÷ß/, with a leading À. (3) The number 100 can be expressed in two ways: nüng ròi Àπ÷Ëß√âÕ¬ and, perhaps more usual, ròi nüng √âÕ¬Àπ÷Ëß. In the latter case, when objects are counted, the speaker can choose between two variants: the object can precede ròi nüng, for

185

Rice grains and husks imbedded in old clay bricks. An example from inscr. 1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497: À¡◊Ëπ¬Õ¥ °‘π‡¡◊Õß≈Õ ‰«âπ“√âÕ¬¢â“«Àπ÷Ëß (/√Õ^¬ ‡¢“π‘ß/) ‡ªìπ®—ßÀ—πæ√–‡®â“ “When Mün Yòt was governor of Müang Lò, he gave fields of 100 measures seed-rice as food for the (principal) Buddha image”. See below in section 7, Donation Packages: Wat P¡ Mai, 1497. 186

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

126

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

127

instance kham ròi nüng §”√âÕ¬Àπ÷Ëß “100 (weight in) gold”,187 or the object can be inserted in between the words ròi nüng, for example ròi kh¡o nüng √âÕ¬¢â“«Àπ÷Ëß “100 (measures of) rice”.188 Therefore, the text passages which allegedly refer to glutinous rice in fact are abbreviated versions of the specifics formula, of the type π“ 25 ¢â“« ◆◆◆, and mean “rice fields (of a size that require) 100 (measures of seed-)rice”. One infers that glutinous rice was meant, not because the text says so, but because we know the traditional preference of the Northerners. A well-known instance of the assertion that an old Northern text specifies the type of rice, is the translation of an inscription from Lamp¡ng, dated 1476,189 which allegedly mentions both, non-glutinous and glutinous rice, kh¡o jao and kh¡o nüng. The inscription deals with building and merit-making activities at Wat Phra Th¡t Lamp¡ng Luang. This famous monastery and shrine is located c. 16 km south of Lamp¡ng town. Together with its attached school it covers a knoll which arises from the fields and which is surrounded by a triple moat. The passage concerning the rice is in the last three lines of the inscription, viz. lines 15 - 17. When Cham Thòngkhamwan first published the inscription in 1952,190 he accompanied his transliteration with a literal modern Thai reading (I have separated the words in the transliteration):

187

Context: ¥â«¬§” √âÕ¬Àπ÷Ëß ‡ªìπ§à“∂à“π—Èπ “for a price of 100 in gold” (1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wih¡n 1411). - Cf. /À^π—°√Õ^¬π‘ß/Àπ—°√âÕ¬Àπ÷Ëß “(one pair of red-gold water pots, decorated with pure gold,) weighing 100” (1.3.1.1 Wat Phra Th¡t Hariphunchai 1509). A corresponding example for 100,000, sän nüng: ‰«âπ“· πÀπ÷Ëß “He gave (the monastery) rice fields (with a tax) of 100,000 (cowries)” (1.2.1.1 Wat S™ Suphan 1509). Finally an example for 1,000 and 500 in a list of donors and their donations, where /π‘ß/ has two meanings, viz. “1” and “item; comma, semicolon”: “1,000 silver from Phan Ch¡ng ¤r™; 500 silver from Òk Khach¡o “/‡ß‘𠇮“ æπ— ©“ß Õ“√’ æπ— π‘ß ‡ß‘π ÕÕ° §à™“« À“ √Õ^¬π‘ß/ = ‡ß‘π‡®â“æ—π©“ßÕ“√’ 1,000 (√“¬Àπ÷Ëß) ‡ß‘πÕÕ°§–™“« 500 (√“¬) Àπ÷Ëß (1.5.1.1 Wat Kl¡ng 1490). 188 Here are some more examples. N¡ ròi kh¡o nüng: /π“ √Õ^¬ ‡¢“ π÷ß/ = π“ 100 ¢â“« “rice fields for 100 measures of seed-rice”, corrected by means of an insert to / Õß √Õ^¬/ = π“ 200 ¢â“« “rice fields for 200 measures of seed-rice” (1.5.1.1 Wat Phra Ruang 1498). Obviously, no glutinous rice was meant. Ròi ngön nüng: /pen phra∑ceyya∑ 100 ¬ein nü¬ / “(This commentary on the Ekanip¡ta of the A¬ guttaranik¡ya was made) at a cost (paccaya) of 100 silver”. (Colophon of a Wat Lai Hin manuscript, Lamp¡ng, 1531, transliterated in: v. Hinüber 1990 On some Colophons: 73; my translation.) A corresponding example for 10,000, n¡ mün ngön nüng: µ—Èßπ“‰«â „À⇪ìπ®—ßÀ—π ·°àæ√–∏“µÿ‡®â“π—Èπ À¡◊Ëπ‡ß‘πÀπ÷Ëß “(Phay¡ Kü N¡ donated) rice fields of 10,000 silver as food for the relic (in Wat Suan Dòk, Chiang Mai)” (MS.P: 211). 189 1.6.1.1 Wat Phra Th¡t Lamp¡ng Luang 1476. 190 Cham 1952 J¡rük Jangwat Lamp¡ng C.S. 838. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

127

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

128

Transliteration (15) ‰« π“ °∫— æ√ 200 ‡™“ (16) ‡®“ ‰« ¢“ §⁄√«— π÷ß °∫— æ√– (17) ‰« π“ √Õ¬ ‡™“ π÷ß °∫— ¥«¬ ·≈ Modern Thai reading (15) ‰«âπ“°—∫æ√– 200 ´“« (16) ‡®â“‰«¢â“§√—«Àπ÷Ëß°—∫æ√– (17) ‰«âπ“√âÕ¬´“«Àπ÷Ëß°—∫¥â«¬·≈ Cham presumably understood: “(Someone) gave 220 fields to the image. The Prince (jao) gave 1 slave family to the image and also 120 fields”. In this, his first, publication of the inscription, there was not yet question of glutinous and non-glutinous rice. In passing, because it does not bear directly on the rice problem under scrutiny, it might be mentioned that in lines 15 and 17 Cham misread khao /‡¢“/, as written on the stone, for chao /‡™“/. The easily made error led him to another error, viz. that this chao /‡™“/ stood for s¡o /´“«/ “20”.191 Cham also did not explain his reading, in l. 17, of ròi s¡o nüng √âÕ¬´“«Àπ÷Ëß = “120” which would have needed a comment because it seems quite unusual.192 In the second edition of the inscription, published in 1965,193 Cham amended his reading: Transliteration (15) + ‰« π“ °∫— æ√– 200 ‡¢“ (16) ‡®“ ‰« ¢“ §⁄√«— π÷ß °∫— æ√– (17) ‰« π“ √Õ¬ ‡¢“ π÷ß °∫— ¥«¬ ·≈ Modern Thai reading (15) + ‰«âπ“°—∫æ√– 200 ¢â“«(16) ‡®â“, ‰«â¢â“§√—«Àπ÷Ëß°—∫æ√– (17) ‰«âπ“√âÕ¬ ¢â“«Àπ÷Èß, °—∫¥â«¬·≈ 191

A footnote in Cham’s article, line 15 says: “´“« = ¬’Ë ‘∫”, i.e. “s¡o means 20”. The figure 1 or the word nüng Àπ÷Ëß “one” are often used in inscriptions as a kind of “comma” in order to separate, in an enumeration of single items, one item from the next (“Mr. X 1 Mr. Y 1 Mr. Z 1” = Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z). Cham may have thought that here, similarly, nüng was used to indicate the end of the item “120 fields”. For example: ·µà°Õπ§π§√—« 1 ™◊ËÕÕ⓬‡À“§”À≈‘ß §√—« 1 °‘π‡ß‘π æ√–‡®â“ “Once there was a family, named ¤i Hao Kam Ling, who had borrowed silver (i.e., money) from the Buddha image”; see below, Donation Packages: Wat P¡ Mai, 1497. 193 Cham 1965 Lak th™ 65. 192

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

128

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

129

He now presumably understood: “(Someone) gave 200 non-glutinous rice fields (kh¡o jao) to the image. (He/They) gave 1 slave family to the image and also 100 fields of glutinous rice (kh¡o nüng).” Cham here placed a cross + in front of line 15. Such a marker, in inscriptions, shows that something is missing here and that the missing piece is written elsewhere. This missing text, or insert, has at its beginning also a cross. So, the cross marker of Cham’s transliteration shows that either something is missing at the beginning of l.15, or else that l.15-17 is the insert, added at the end of the inscription. But since neither his transliteration nor his modern Thai reading show a corresponding marker elsewhere, the reader does not know whether these three lines are main text or insert. In a footnote Cham explained that glutinous rice was meant by kh¡o nüng: “¢â“«Àπ÷Èß = ¢â“«‡À𒬫”, i.e. “kh¡o nüng (steamed rice) = kh¡o niao (glutinous rice)”. An immediately dubious item is Cham’s handling of the word nüng /π÷ß/. Firstly, the modern spelling of nüng “steamed” is not Àπ÷Èß but π÷Ëß, though in L¡n N¡’s Tham letters it would be written Àπ÷Èß. Secondly, in line 16 Cham gives it the meaning “1” but in line 17, “steamed”. Thirdly, this inscription, like many others, spells “1” simply /π‘ß/ or /π÷ß/. Also, “to steam” would almost certainly have been spelled Àπ÷ß or Àπ‘ß in the inscription, not /π÷ß/ , as has already been explained at the beginning of this section. Therefore, the expression ròi kh¡o nüng /√Õ^¬‡¢“π÷ß/ in line 17 could very well mean nüng ròi kh¡o “100 rice” and it is likely that this passage refers to the usual rice field specifics and means: (17) ‰«âπ“√âÕ¬¢â“«Àπ÷Ëß °—∫¥â«¬ ·≈ “(he) also gave fields of 100 (measures) seed-rice.” If this kh¡o nüng possibly does not mean “steamed rice, glutinous rice”, kh¡o jao at the end of line 15 and the beginning of line 16 also possibly does not mean “non-glutinous rice”. The first element, kh¡o, could be seed-rice: (15) ... ‰«âπ“°—∫æ√– 200 ¢â“« “(Someone) gave fields of 200 (measures) seed-rice to the Buddha image”. The second element, jao, then would be the beginning of the next phrase: (16) ‡®â“‰«â¢â“§√—« 1 °—∫æ√– “the governor (jao)194 donated one family of slaves to the Buddha image”. 194

Jao here should mean the governor of “Müang Nakhòn”, i.e. Lamp¡ng. He is the hero of the inscription and at the beginning is introduced by his official rank and name, Jao Mün Kham Phet ‡®â“À¡◊πË §”‡æ™√å. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

129

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

130

Therefore the entire passage would have meant: (15) ... ‰«âπ“°—∫æ√– 200 ¢â“« (16) ‡®â“‰«â¢â“§√—« 1 °—∫æ√– (17) ‰«âπ“ 100 ¢â“« °—∫¥â«¬ ·≈ “(Someone) gave fields of 200 (measures) seed-rice to the Buddha image. The governor donated one family of slaves to the Buddha image and also gave fields of 100 (measures) seed-rice.” This is about as far as one can go when using only Cham’s transliteration and modern Thai reading. Reading the inscription in its original form (for instance from the photograph in Cham’s second edition), one will find that lines 15-17 are a postscript meant to be inserted at the end of line 8 where there is the corresponding marker + which is omitted in both of Cham’s text editions. With the insert put in its proper place, here is a detailed summary, or a shortened translation, of the inscription: “In 1476 Jao Mün Kham Phet, having become governor of Müang Nakhòn,195 supported the Buddhist religion at Lamp¡ng.196 He built a (surrounding) wall, a wih¡n, and cast a bronze Buddha image of 120,000 weight (c. 132 kg). He celebrated its casting and installed the image in the wih¡n. He donated 4 families to serve the image. [He gave fields of 200 (measures) seed-rice to the image. The Jao (also) gave a slave-family to the image, together with fields of 100 (measures) seed-rice.] He built a s¡l¡, dug a well, and made a way leading to the st¢pa. His Excellency197 wishes that the merit thus acquired will make him a Buddha in the future. May all worthy men applaud!” The passage in brackets is the postscript in lines 15-17, inserted where it belongs. If now one considers it in its context with line 8, which is the description of donations made to the Buddha image, it becomes unlikely that two different kinds of rice were meant:

195

Lamp¡ng. The site of Wat Phra Th¡t Lamp¡ng Luang. 197 /‡∑“∑Ì/, unknown to me and glossed by Cham as ∑â“«∑à“π, surely is a honorific. 196

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

130

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

131

Transliteration: (8) ... ‰« •π  ’ §√«« À◊ √°…“ + ... (15) + ‰« π“ °∫— æ√– 200 ‡¢“ (16) ‡®“ ‰« ¢“ §√«— π÷ß °∫— æ√– (17) ‰« π“ √Õ^¬ ‡¢“ π÷ß °∫— ¥«¬ ·≈ Modern Thai reading: (8) ... ‰«â§π ’˧√—«À◊ÈÕ√—°…“ + ... (15) + ‰«âπ“°—∫æ√– 200 ¢â“« (16) ‡®â“‰«â¢â“§√—«Àπ÷Ëß°—∫æ√– (17) ‰«âπ“√Õ⬢⓫Àπ÷Ëß°—∫¥â«¬ ·≈ “(Jao Mün Kham Phet, governor of Lamp¡ng, cast a bronze Buddha image of 120,000 weight and installed it in a wih¡n of Wat Phra Th¡t Lamp¡ng Luang). He placed 4 families at its service and gave the image fields of 200 (measures) seed-rice. The governor (jao) also gave the image 1 slave family together with fields of 100 (measures) seed-rice”. It is evident that this text passage has nothing to do with glutinous rice or non-glutinous rice but deals with two donations to the Buddha image, each consisting of people and fields. There was a certain difference between the first and the second donation. The first consisted of four ordinary families (khon), whose duty was to care for the image, and of fields. The second donation was one slave family (kh¡) (with unspecified duties) and more fields. This second lot of fields went together with the slave-family and presumably was meant for their upkeep. Incidentally, already in 1952 Kasem Kòpina had understood that here seed-rice was meant and not glutinous rice. But possibly he had not noticed that the last three lines of the inscription were an appendix meant as an insert because he merely summarized them: “He gave the Buddha image 20 of rice (twenty of seedrice)” ‰«âπ“°—∫æ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ 20 ‡¢â“ (¬’Ë ‘∫æ—π∏å¢â“«ª≈Ÿ°)”.198 5. Donation Packages Often the donation to a monastery did not consist of just a single item such as a set of scriptures, fields and their taxes, or persons, but of several different items given at the same time and which together formed a donation package. Some of these donation packages were comparatively simple, consisting of only two or

198

Kasem 1964 Tamn¡n Wat Phra Th¡t Lamp¡ng Luang: 22. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

131

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

132

perhaps three items; others were more complex. Here are some examples that include rice fields; for the donation package of a salt field and a forest see above in the chapter Introduction, footnote 17. In the original texts quoted below, the various items are written one after the other; for easier understanding, I have often listed them one beneath the other. a. Simple Donation Packages Persons and Fields One of the more common donation packages was a field and people to work for the monastery. If the donated fields had tenants (“owners”) these probably continued to work them but from now on paid their taxes to the monastery. If the fields had no tenants, the monastery had to find the necessary manpower, and presumably rented the field out or used its own slaves, perhaps the persons who had been newly donated on the same occasion as the fields. Fields and Persons for Wat Y¡ng Num, 1523 The following two examples are from the province of Chiang Mai. They show that the tax was not necessarily paid in “money” but in kind, i.e. as rice, at the indicated cowry rate. “King Mä Nai (Phay¡ Käo) was pleased to place, as rice for the Buddha image, rice fields with 60,000 cowries (tax), and 3 families of slaves.”

æ√–‡ªìπ‡®â“ ‡®â“·¡à„𠬑𥒠‰«âπ“ ‡ªìπ¢â“«æ√–‡®â“ 60,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ¢â“ 3 §√—«199 Fields and Persons for Wat S™ Bun Rüang, 1496 “The king ... ● gave a Buddha image (with a weight of) 100,000 bronze (c.110 kg) for Wat S™ Bun Rüang here; ● bestowed fields with 500,000 cowries (tax); the rice was meant as an offering to the (main) Buddha image and the monks; ● bestowed 12 families to take care of the Buddha image and the monks ... These monastery inhabitants were all donated in order to take care of the Buddha image and of the monks, and also to do other work for the monastery.”

199

1.2.1.1 Wat Y¡ng Num 1523. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

132

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

133

æ√–‡ªìπ‡®â“ ... ● À◊ÈÕ√Ÿªæ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ÕߧåÀπ÷Ëß 100,000 ∑Õß ¡“‰«â«—¥»√’∫ÿ≠‡√◊Õßπ’È ● ‰«âπ“ 500,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ‡ªìπ¢â“«∫Ÿ™“æ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ ∑—Èß™“«‡®â“ —߶– ● ‰«â§π 12 §√—« À◊ÈÕ√—°…“æ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ ·≈–™“«‡®â“ —߶– ... Õ“√“¡‘°∑—ÈßÀ≈“¬øŸßπ’È ‰«â‡¢“Õ¬Ÿà√—°…“æ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ ∑—Èß™“«‡®â“ —߶– 1 ∑”ß“π«—¥ ®ÿä§π200 Persons and their Fields for Wat P¡ Bong, 1496 The above two instances involved persons and fields that apparently were unrelated, i.e. the persons donated were not also the tenants of the donated fields. Some of the following examples will show that here tenants as well as their fields were donated, thus forming a donation package of a slightly different type, viz. “people and their fields”. One can suppose that these persons somehow were under the direct influence of a local lord who himself had the power, or had royal approval, to transfer them, their land, and the tax to a monastery. The first example comes from a locality about 100 km north of the town of Lamp¡ng. A local official is described being in audience with the King of Chiang Mai, Phay¡ Käo, in the king’s hò kham ÀÕ§” “Gold Hall”, which was a building that comprised the audience hall, offices, and sometimes also the ruler’s sleeping quarters. “Jao Sän Kaly¡na addressed respectfully the king in the Gold Hall and said: ‘I respectfully greet Your Majesty. I have finished building the monastery Wat P¡ Bong. (Now) I ask for 3 villages of Y¡ng Nam Man people in Jä Hom: ● B¡n Kòk, B¡n Tüng, and B¡n L¢n; ● (together) they are 28 families ● with fields of 90,000 cowries (tax), ● also (their rights in?) the forest P¡ Wang Nam.’ The king said: ‘Very well.’ ... ” (Appendix in a different handwriting:) “As for them, the king poured water (on the earth) and placed them with Wat P¡ Bong.”

‡®â“· π°—≈¬“≥ ‰À«âæ√–‡ªìπ‡®â“ ¬—ßÀÕ§” ç¢â“‰Àâ«æ√–‡ªìπ‡®â“ ¢â“ √â“ß«—¥ªÉ“∫ß°Á·≈â« ·≈ ¢â“¢Õ™“«¬“ßπÈ”¡—π ¬—ß·®âÀ¡ 3 ∫â“π ● ∫â“π°Õ° 1 ∫â“π∑÷ß 1 ∫â“πÀ≈Ÿπ 1 ● §π¡’ 28 §√—« ● π“¡’ 90,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ● °—∫∑—Èß∑’˪ɓ«—ßπÈ”é 200

1.2.1.1 Wat S™ Bun Rüang 1496. As older people remember, “to eat the rice of the Buddha image”, i.e. to receive this rice, was an honour reserved for monks and worthy laymen. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

133

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

134

æ√–‡ªÑπ‡®â“«à“ ç°Á¥’ ·≈é ... ‡¢“π’È æ√–‡ªìπ‡®â“À¬“¥πÈ” ‰«â°—∫«—¥ªÉ“∫ß ·≈201 Fields and Persons for Wat Phra Köt, 1500 This inscription from N¡n province shows that on occasion several different donors concurrently gave fields and / or persons. “The queen (mother)202 ... told Jao Phuak Khongkh¡ to set up a stone (inscription) in Wat Phra Köt ... (in order to record the following donations): ● The N¡ Kw¡ng field of 10 measures seed-rice; Mün S¡i Thao donated it as a field to grow rice for the monks. ● The family of the white-clad ascetic Phöng and ¤i Kham; Mün S¡i Yòt donated these slaves. ● The family Mä Ming; Mün S¡i Phek donated them. ● The N¡ R™ fields of 50 measures seed-rice, divided into fields of 25 measures seed rice for the Buddha image and of 25 measures seed rice for the monks’ food; (further) the families Mä S™ Taw¡ng, Kaly¡, Phò Pheng, Phò Khai, N¡ng Phim and Mongkon, who (all) own taxable fields (n¡ bia); the Mah¡ S¡m™ Y¡nas¢thara donated them. ● ... ”

æ√–¡À“√“™‡∑«’‡®â“ ... ‡∑»π“ ·°à‡®â“æ«°§ß§“ «à“ À◊ÈÕΩíß ’¡“ «—¥æ√–‡°‘¥ ... ● π“°«“ß 10 ¢â“« À¡◊Ëπ´â“¬‡∂Ⓣ«â‡ªìππ“¢â“«æ√– ● ºâ“¢“«‡æ‘ß §√—« 1 Õ⓬§” §√—« 1 ¢â“π’ÈÀ¡◊Ëπ´â“¬¬Õ¥∑“π ● ·¡à¡‘Ëß §√—« 1 À¡◊Ëπ´â“¬‡æÁ°∑“π°—∫ ● π“√’ 50 ¢â“« ‡ªìππ“æ√– 25 ‡ªìππ“®—ßÀ—π 25 ·¡à»√’µ«“ß §√—« 1 °—≈¬“ §√—« 1 æàÕ‡æÁß §√—« 1 æàÕ‰¢ §√—« 1 π“ßæ‘¡ §√—« 1 ¡ß§≈ §√—« 1 ‡¢“π’È π“‡∫’Ȭ ¡À“ “¡’≠“≥ Ÿ∏√–‡®â“∑“π ●

... 203

201

1.6.1.1 Wat P¡ Bong 1496. The ch¡o Y¡ng nam man people may either have been Thai people living in the forest (y¡ng can mean a not too dense forest) whose main occupation was to tap trees for oil, resin (nam man); or else they were Karen (Y¡ng is the Yuan appellation for them) with the same occupation. Unfortunately it is not possible to decide whether these Y¡ng were Thai or Karen because the inscription does not mention the names of the heads of the 28 families. This inscription is from a now deserted monastery in present Amphö Jä Hom, north of Lamp¡ng. That Karen, whose habitats generally are in West L¡n N¡ and East Burma, indeed lived in the Lamp¡ng region, is corroborated by Carl Bock who in 1881 reported Karen in the area east of Lamp¡ng (Temples and Elephants: 175; Im Lande: 139-40). Another group of ch¡o Y¡ng people obviously were Thais; see below the note concerning inscr. 1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi 1500. 202 The expression mah¡ thew™ means “mother of the king” while r¡cha thew™ is “queen”. The unusual expression used here, phra mah¡ r¡cha thew™, could mean either. 203 1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

134

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

135

Persons and Fields for Wat Bupph¡r¡m, 1529 ● “(The king of Chiang Mai ordered prince Un of Phrä) to place 5 families and fields of 1,000 measures seed-rice with the (main) Buddha image of Wat Bupph¡r¡m ... ● The family of the ex-monk Thit Phian ... in debt for (“whose value was”) 500 silver, the prince bought them out and donated them to the Buddha image Phra Sän Thòng.” ● ●

„Àâ ‰«â§π 5 §√—« π“ 1,000 ¢â“« °—∫æ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ «—¥∫ÿææ“√“¡ ... ∑‘¥‡æ’¬π ... §√—« 1 §à“ 500 ‡ß‘π ‡®â“‡¡◊Õ߉∂à ‰«â°—∫æ√–· π∑Õß204

Persons and their Fields for Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi, 1500 This donation of probably quite common items to a monastery in Chiang R¡i looks simple enough, yet much remains doubtful: “(The queen mother ordered to set up a stone inscription in Wat Mah¡ Ph£ thi to record the donation of) ● 72 families of Y¡ng people (follow their names). ● They have n¡ rang fields (new fields?) with 1,200,000 (cowries tax). ● (They must supply?) bees wax of 25,760 weight (c. 28.5 kg). ● (The also must send?) oleo resin of 102,500 weight (c. 113 kg), ● (and) wax ... of 7,950 weight (c. 9 kg).” ● ● ● ● ●

™“«¬“ß 72 §√—« ... π“√—ß¡’ 1,200,000 ‡ªìπº÷Èß 25,760 πÈ” ‰¥âπÈ”¡—π 102,500 πÈ” º÷Èß°—∫§÷ß 7,950 πÈ”205

204

1.8.1.1 Wat Bupph¡r¡m 1529. 1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi 1500. This inscription is from a monastery which is now called Wat Jet Yòt, immediately outside the old walled city of Chiang R¡i to the south. Ch¡o Y¡ng, or Y¡ng for short, is the usual northern term for the Karen, who are hill people. No Karen have been reported from here. If these ch¡o Y¡ng people were Karen, perhaps they lived, and their fields were, at a distance of 20 kilometers or so, in the lower hills surrounding the Chiang R¡i plain. However, about 40 out of the 72 families’ names are still readable on the inscribed stone, and all appear to have Thai names. Among them were 2 thit ∑‘¥ “ex-monk”, one chiang ‡™’¬ß “ex-novice” and one n¡ng π“ß “lady”. Besides, the word y¡ng in the North can also mean a not too dense or wild forest. Therefore, these ch¡o y¡ng people probably were ordinary farming and forest-gathering Thai people who lived in a rich forest. Similarly, there is also mention of three villages of ch¡o y¡ng nam man people ™“«¬“ßπÈ”¡—π, in the valley of the Wang river halfway between Chiang R¡i and Lamp¡ng, who were donated to a monastery in 1496 (1.6.1.1 Wat P¡ Bong 1496; see above). 205

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

135

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

136

b. Complex Donation Packages Donation Package for a Buddha Image, 1484 About 5 km upstream from Chiang R¡i, on the north bank of the Mä Kok river, stands a solitary lime stone hill. Rainwater has washed part of the lime away, making holes in the hill and otherwise deforming it. At a height of about 5 meters above ground level, facing the river, is a lofty and softly illuminated cave in the form of a U, with two entrances. In it is a large, old, seated Buddha image. The hill is locally known as Dòi Tham Phra “Hill with a cave with a Buddha image”. The cave was used by man of Proto-Melanesian stock already during c. 10,000 - 4,000 B.C., in late palaeolithic and early neolithic times (Hoabinhian, Bacsonian).206 In 1484 the ruling prince of Chiang R¡i erected a Buddha image in the cave, probably made of brick and stucco, perhaps the predecessor of the present one. He then donated eight families to the service of the image. The hard local limestone evidently was the basis for a limestone tile or cement production, worked from a little village nearby. As usual, taxes were levied on village and product, and now the prince also donated these taxes to the Buddha image. He had the event inscribed on a stone slab erected in the cave. The stone was still there in 1887 when Auguste Pavie made a paper rubbing of it.207 Between c. 1927-1930 it was moved to the Lamph¢n museum, and in 1998 to the Chiang Sän museum.208 Here are the details of the donation. “The prince of Chiang R¡i, Th¡o M¢i, built a Buddha image in this cave ... He donated (8 households of) slaves to it: ● The family Y™ Thòng, one wife; this family had borrowed 300 (b¡t) silver. ● The family N¡ng ¤m; (borrowed and did not return) 105 b¡t. ● The family Y™ B¡ ● ... (etc.; the remaining families are named but their debts are not mentioned) ● The family Th¡n Kon. ● The family Ch¡o Peng. These (last) two households were conscripted (?). (The prince also presented the Buddha image with the following income:) ● Rice fields with 82,000 cowries (tax). 209 ● Old rice fields with 50,000 cowries (tax).

206

Sarasin 1959 Prehistorical Researches: 105-06, 110-13, 121-29. Sarasin called this local variant of late Palaeolithic - early Neolithic, Siamian. 207 Schmitt 1898 Inscription de la caverne: 331. 208 See Penth et al. 1999 Corpus 3: Appendices 6 and 8. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

136

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

137

Tax on lime stone (quarrying) amounting to 20,000 cowries. The village B¡n Tham (“village at the cave”) with 7,000 cowries (tax). Altogether 159,000 cowries (tax).” ● ●

æàÕÀ≠—« ‡®â“‡¡◊Õß ∑â“«¡Ÿ¬ ‡™’¬ß√“¬ ¡“ √â“ß√Ÿªæ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ „π∂È”∑’Ëπ’È ... æàÕÀ≠—«‡®â“ ‰«â¢â“ æ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ ● ¬’∑Õß ‡√◊Õπ 1 ‡¡’¬¡—π ºŸâ 1 §√—«π’‡Õ“‡ß‘π 300 (∫“∑) ● π“ßÕ“¡ ‡√◊Õπ 1 (‡Õ“‡ß‘π) 105 ∫“∑ ● ¬’Ë∫à“ ‡√◊Õπ 1 ... (etc.)

∑à“[π]°π ‡√◊Õπ 1 ● ™“«‡ªìß ‡√÷Õπ (1)  Õ߇√◊Õππ’È ‡°≥±å ● ‰«âπ“ 82,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ● π“‡°à“ 50,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ● ‡°‘πÀ‘πªŸπ 20,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ● ∫â“π∂È” 7,000 ‡∫’Ȭ √«¡ 159,000 ‡∫’Ȭ210 ●

Donation Package for K¢ Wat Sao Hin, c. 1460 - 80 Close to Wat Sao Hin, located a short distance south of Chiang Mai, formerly were the ruins of a st¢pa (k¢) which no longer exist. The st¢pa was part of a monastery, presumably the predecessor of present Wat Sao Hin. Some inscribed pieces of a stone slab were found at the st¢pa. The date has disappeared but the use of a certain title makes it plausible that it fell in the years around 1460-1480. The inscription records that the monastery, or rather its b£t (uposatha precinct with its building), received a donation. The entire text is written continuously as if in prose. But it is obvious that the first half or more was composed as a poem in a certain rhyme and meter that is locally known as lam nam ≈”π” or k¡p y¡n™ °“æ¬å¬“π’. The details of the donation package are in this versified part of the inscription but seem, because of the poetic nature of the text, a little vague. “(I donate to the b£t:) ● 20 families ● Fields for 250 measures of seed-rice ● Together with (a) cow(s), ● Harrow and plough, 209

If the prince restored a former Buddha image, he probably donated new fields of 82,000 cowries and reconfirmed earlier field donations of 50,000 cowries (“old fields”). But if he founded the image, he probably donated new(ly opened) fields and added existing “old fields”. 210 1.4.1.1 Dòi Tham Phra 1484. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

137

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

138

Timber for small foot bridges over water channels, Also fire-wood, ● With rice, to make warm and hot water.” The donation written as lam nam: (the parts in brackets do not refer to the donation): [æ√– ‘¡‡ ¡“] À◊ÕÈ ‰¥â´“«§√—« ● ●

π“ Õß√âÕ¬ 50 ¢â“« ‡º◊Õ‰∂ ¢à¡¢—« „À⇪ìππÈ”Õÿàπ πÈ”√âÕπ

·≈–∑—Èßµ—««—« ∑—ÈßÀ≈—« ·≈–¢â“« [·≈–°Ÿà∫√√‡∑“]

The donation written in the form of a list: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

20 §√—« π“ 250 ¢â“« ·≈–∑—Èßµ—««—« ‡º◊Õ‰∂ ¢à¡¢—« ∑—ßÈ À≈—« ·≈–¢â“« „À⇪ìππÈ”Õÿàπ πÈ”√âÕπ211

Donation Package for Wat Phan Tòng Täm, 1488 Wat Phan Tòng Täm «—¥æ—πµâÕß·µâ¡ probably is identical with the monastery ruins now called Wat Phuak Phan Tòng «—¥æ«°æ—πµÕß in the northeastern part of Chiang Sän city. It had an inscribed stone slab which recorded a donation package. The stone was for a long time in the Lamph¢n museum but in 1998 was moved to the Chiang Sän museum.212 The inscription says that at one time, the government official Phan Tòng Täm had built a monastery in “Müang Chiang Sän”. In 1487 his son and his daughter, Phan Y¡ Kitti and Mä Jao S¡o Kham Ròi, presented the monastery to the king and his mother ∂«“¬À◊ÈÕ‡ªìπ«—¥æ√–‡®â“·¡à≈Ÿ°. Their Majesties ordered that fields be donated with 600,000 cowries annual tax and 15 families to the monastery, together with enough teak timber to build a wih¡n and a library, and had Mün Y¡ D¡p Rüan carry out the order. There were seven witnesses to the order. Mün Y¡ D¡p Rüan forwarded the royal order to the proper authorities and in 1488 had his men set up the stone inscribed with the donation regulations. The inscription ends with a list of the slaves and a list of probably local witnesses. The short, elliptic, succinct style of the inscription is typical for old L¡n N¡ inscriptions. Possibly it represents the official, bureaucratic style of the time.

211 212

1.2.1.1 K¢ Wat Sao Hin c. 1480. See Penth et al. 1999 Corpus 3: Appendices 6 and 8. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

138

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

139

The details of the donation package were as follows. “The two Majesties, mother and son ... ordered to donate rice fields with 600,000 cowries (tax) (and) 15 families (to the monastery), (further) to supply teak timber for the construction of the wih¡n and the library; and they ordered Phò Jao Mün Y¡ D¡p Rüan to receive (and to execute) their order ... (Mün Y¡ D¡p Rüan forwarded the order to the competent officials who then decided on these specific arrangements:) The fields with 600,000 cowries (tax) were to be taken from the district Phan N¡ Muan.213 (As for) the 15 families, if there were not enough among the relatives of Phan Tòng Täm (who had built the monastery), additional families were to be found. Mün Y¡ D¡p Rüan sent d¡p rüan officers here to set up the stone inscription, in the year Pök San, C.S. 850 (A.D. 1488) ... (As for) the donation of 600,000 cowries (tax, it was split): 593,000 (cowries) field tax (plus) 7,000 cowries tax on a village.”

æ√–‡ªìπ‡®â“·¡à≈Ÿ° ... À◊ÈÕ‰«âπ“ 600,000 ‡∫’Ȭ §π 15 §√—« À◊ÈÕ‰¡â —°·ªÜß«‘À“√∑—ÈßÀÕªîØ° À◊ÈÕæàÕ ‡®â“À¡◊Ëπ≠“¥“∫‡√◊Õπ √—∫Õ“™≠“æ√–‡ªìπ‡®â“∑—Èß Õß ... ‡Õ“𓬗ßæ—ππ“¡«π À◊ÈÕ 600,000 ‡∫’Ȭ §π 15 §√—« „π≠“µ‘æ—πµâÕß∫àæÕ À◊ÕÀ“·∂¡ ‡®â“À¡◊Ëπ≠“¥“∫‡√◊ÕπÀ◊ÈÕ™“«∑â“«¥“∫‡√◊Õπ¡“/Ωß—®“√‘¥/„πªï‡ªî° —π »—°√“™‰¥â 850 ... ‰«â‡∫’Ȭ 600,000 §à“π“ 593,000 ∫â“π 1 §à“ 7,000 ‡∫’Ȭ214 The inscription shows that court and local authorities had a certain latitude in executing royal orders. In this case, they had to come up with 600,000 cowries field tax; but obviously they could only find 593,000 cowries from rice fields and therefore added 7,000 cowries tax levied on a village. As for the teak timber, that obviously was no problem and therefore found no extra mention. One observes that the 15 families of monastery slaves, who are listed towards the end of the inscription, in fact must have been well-to-do and socially respected persons; they obviously were “honorary slaves” or rather “honorary monastery servants”. The son of the founder of the wat, a phan “1000” in rank who had presented the monastery to Their Majesties, was the first on the list. Donation Package for the Tap£th¡r¡m, 1492 Wat Tap£th¡r¡m, popularly known as Wat Rampöng, is a few kilometers southwest of Chiang Mai. Its stone inscription tells of its founding by the king of

213

Phan N¡ (“district”) Muan presumably is present A. Chiang Muan in Phayao province (c. 50 km southeast of Phayao), c. 150 km south of Chiang Sän. 214 1.4.1.1 Wat Phan Tòng Täm 1488. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

139

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

140

Chiang Mai, Phay¡ Yòt Chiang R¡i, and queen Atap¡ in 1492, and of the lavish donations it received from the Majesties. Here is a very detailed donation package which indicates the recipients and the location of fields and also the manpower (“people, slaves”) donated. “Donation of fields with a (total) tax value of (Details:) For the st¢pa(s) with/at the 4 sides215 For the Buddha image in the wih¡n For the uposatha building For food Salary for administrators

3,051,000 (cowries)

400,000

cowries

500,000

cowries

400,000 1,551,000

cowries cowries

200,000

cowries

All these fields are in the region called Mün Kh¡o Sän Kh¡o, in the Phan N¡ (“district”) K¢ Kham of Dòi Kham.216 10 families of debt slaves 3 families of relatives 20 families of slaves of the king of Chiang Mai

9,700 -----

silver

2,720 small ornamental gold plates217 Making (a) Buddha image(s), copying scriptures Total of all gifts to Wat Tap£th¡r¡m

19,040 153,430 182,170

silver silver silver

Total of all royal merit-making activities Grand total of wealth spent

513,810 695,980

silver silver”

215

The meaning is not clear. The expression æ√–‡®¥’¬å 4 ¥â“π means either “st¢pa with four sides”, i.e. a square st¢pa, or “the (four) st¢pas at the four sides”. Since the monastery has one impressive oldlooking round st¢pa at the usual place behind the wih¡n (i.e. close to the western wall of the wih¡n) the text may not refer to it. Perhaps the present shape of the st¢pa does not date from the foundation of the monastery in 1492 but is the result of some re-building at a later time. If there were four st¢pas, nothing of them seems left. 216 The hill Dòi Kham is in T. Mä Hia, A. Müang, Chiang Mai, approx. 5 km southwest of the Tap£th¡r¡m. 217 T¡ kham (lit. “gold eye”) can mean small, round or square, pieces of gold foil or gold plate, for instance to adorn a cetiya, but also a very loosely woven piece of gold cloth with wide meshes (“eyes”), a kind of net, as is sometimes suspended above a Buddha image. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

140

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

141

‰«â°—∫Õ“√“¡Õ—ππ’È π“ 3,051,000 (‡∫’Ȭ) (√“¬≈–‡Õ’¬¥ ¡’¥—ßµàÕ‰ªπ’)È ‰«â°—∫æ√–‡®¥’¬å 4 ¥â“π 400,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ‰«â°—∫æ√–‡®â“„π«‘À“√ 500,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ‰«â°—∫Õÿ‚∫ ∂ 400,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ‰«â‡ªìπ®—ßÀ—π 1,551,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ‰«âÀ◊ÈÕºŸâ𓬰‘π 200,000 ‡∫’Ȭ π“∑—Èß¡«≈π’È Õ¬Ÿà„πÀ¡◊Ëπ¢â“«· π¢â“« „πæ—ππ“°Ÿà°“¡ ¥Õ¬§” ‰«â§π‡ß‘π 10 §√—« ‰«â§π Õ—π‡ªìπ≠“µ‘ 3 §√—« ‰«â¢â“‡®â“‡¡◊Õ߇™’¬ß„À¡à 20 §√—« µ“§” 2,720 §” ·ªÜß√Ÿªæ√– ∑—Èß √â“ßÀπ—ß ◊Õ √Õ¡·µà √â“ß„π«—¥µ‚ª∑“√“¡π’È ·µàæ√–°√ÿ≥“°Á∑”∫ÿ≠®ÿä·Ààß √Õ¡‡ªìπ ‘π‡ß‘π∑—Èß¡«≈

§à“

§à“

9,700 ‡ß‘π (- -‡ß‘π) (- -‡ß‘π) 19,040 ‡ß‘π 153,430 ‡ß‘π 182,170 ‡ß‘π 513,810 ‡ß‘π 695,980 ‡ß‘π218

Donation Package for Wat P¡ Mai, 1497 The ruins of Wat P¡ Mai are located at Wiang Lò219 on the Mä Ing in Amphö J¢n, about 36 km northeast of Phayao in a straight line. This account of a donation package, contained in a stone inscription, is instructive because it not only records a certain donation made at one time but adds a review of earlier donations and thus presents a short “donation history” of the monastery. In short, the inscription says that in 1497 the governor of Müang Lò asked a monk to rebuild Wat P¡ Mai. He then transferred the merit to both their Majesties (i.e. the king, Phay¡ Käo, and his mother). The Princess Mother220 donated 500 silver. The king donated rice fields with 400,000 cowries tax, 30 families, and a plot of land for the monastery, located on the river Mä Ing between the inner and outer city moat of Wiang Lò. The purpose of that land is not apparent. Then follows an account of three earlier donations made to Wat P¡ Mai. Around 1480 (?), when Mün Yòt was governor of Müang Lò, he gave fields of 100 measures seed rice to the principal Buddha image. At an unstated time a family

218

1.2.1.1 Wat Tap£th¡r¡m 1492. In Yuan, wiang means a fortified settlement, a city; müang means the country, or the city state as a whole. 220 Not: queen mother; her husband had not been the king. 219

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

141

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

142

borrowed 500 silver from the Buddha image and later defaulted on repayment; thereupon, perhaps in around 1485 (?), an official made them slaves of the image. In 1489, when Mün Sai was governor of Müang Lò, he gave fields of 200 measures seed rice as food for the Buddha image. The text concerning the donations says in translation: “The Princess Mother gave 500 silver for construction purposes.221 The king ... ordered to arrange for fields and persons to be given to this monastery: ● fields with 400,000 cowries (tax) ● food for the Buddha image: 200,000 cowries ● food for the monks in this monastery: 200,000 cowries ● persons of 30 families ● for the service of the Buddha image in the wih¡n: 20 families ● for the uposatha building: 5 families ● for the library: 5 families. He also gave a plot of land with these borders: in the east to the bank of the river, in the south to the outer city moat, in the west 100 w¡, and in the north to the city moat ... When (in c. 1480?)222 Mün Yòt was governor of Müang Lò, he gave fields of 100 measures seed-rice as food for the Buddha image. Formerly a family, the family of ¤i Hao Kham Ling, had borrowed 500 silver from the Buddha image (and had defaulted on repayment). Phò Nòi, who was the phan n¡ rüan, (in c. 1485?)223 poured water and donated them as slaves to the Buddha image. When Mün Sai was governor of M. Lò, he gave fields for 200 measures seed-rice to the Buddha image; that was in the year Kat Rao, month 7, day 2 of the waxing moon, day Kat Met ( = 1 April 1489).”

221

The expression s¡ng  √â“ß does not only denote building activities but also additions or improvements donated to a monastery. Cf. above the donation package for the Tap£th¡r¡m, where s¡ng not only includes the copying of (scripture) books, nang sü, but also the purchase of 10 slave families and the acquisition of ornamental little gold plates, t¡ kham. Consequently, the phrase in question here probably should be understood in a broad sense: “500 silver to cover the costs for any desired acquisitions for the monastery”. 222 The year c. 1480 (?) for this governor is a guess; from the context it appears merely that he was in office before 1489 when Mün Sai was governor. 223 The year c. 1485 (?) for this donation is a guess; from the context it appears merely that the family was donated after Mün Yòt had been governor and before 1489 when Mün Sai was governor. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

142

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

143

æ√–¡À“‡∑«’‡®â“ À◊ÈÕ‡ß‘π¡“ √â“ß 500 ‡ß‘π æ√–‡ªìπ‡®â“ ... À◊ÈÕ·µàßπ“ °—∫§π ‰«â°—∫«—¥π’È ● π“ 400,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ● ‰«â‡ªìπ¢â“«æ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“ 200,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ● ‰«â‡ªìπ®—ßÀ—π™“«‡®â“ ¬—ßÕ“√“¡π’È 200,000 ‡∫’Ȭ ● §π 30 §√—« ● ‰«â°—∫ Õÿª∞“°æ√–æÿ∑∏‡®â“„π«‘À“√ 20 §√—« ● ‰«â°—∫ Õÿ‚∫ ∂ 5 §√—« ● ‰«â°—∫ ÀÕªîØ° 5 §√—« ‰«â∑’Ë Àπ«—πÕÕ°ΩíòßπÈ”‡ªìπ·¥π ÀπΩÉ“¬„µâ§◊Õ‡«’¬ß™—ÈππÕ°‡ªìπ·¥π Àπ«—πµ° 100 «“ ‡ªìπ·¥π Àπ‡Àπ◊Õ§◊Õ‡«’¬ß‡ªìπ·¥π ... À¡◊Ëπ¬Õ¥°‘π‡¡◊Õß≈Õ ‰«âπ“ 100 ¢â“« ‡ªìπ®—ßÀ—πæ√–‡®â“ ·µà°àÕπ §π§√—« 1 ™◊ËÕ Õ⓬‡À“§”À≈‘ß §√—« 1 °‘π‡ß‘πæ√–‡®â“ 500 æ—ππ“‡√◊Õπ æàÕπâÕ¬Õ¬“¥πÈ” ‰«â‡ªìπ¢â“æ√– À¡◊Ë π „ °‘ π‡¡◊Õß≈Õ ‰«âπ“ 200 ¢â“« ‡ªìπ®—ßÀ—πæ√–‡®â“ „πªï°—¥‡√â“ ‡¥◊Õπ 7 ÕÕ° 2 §Ë” «—π°—¥‡¡Á¥224 6. Rice Field Administrators On behalf of the government, rice fields and their produce, i.e. rice, were administrated by persons whose titles or popular appellations included the words n¡ “wet rice field”, khao (kh¡o) “rice”, and ch¡ng, s¡ng “(state) granary, rice bin”. Little is known about their functions and duties, and even less about how they did their work in everyday life. All of them seem to have been men; apparently no women were employed in this work. Some may not have been state government officials but only had to do with “rice” on a local or even private level. Hopefully at a later time we will be able to better understand and translate the titles. Towards this aim, the following selection of titles and names includes a brief “profile”, i.e. a description of their activities according to the context, and occasionally a translation of the text itself which is placed in between quotation marks “...”. The date is the date of the event which is not necessarily the date of the inscription. The name of the town / province indicates where this official presumably was stationed, which is not always identical with the place where the event took place; for instance, Mün L¡m N¡ H£r¡thibod™ almost certainly was based at the Chiang Mai Court but had to travel upcountry in order to arrange matters for a far-away monastery in Müang Lò, today in the province of Phayao.

224

1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

143

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

144

Some of these officials clearly had other qualities and interests besides field administration; cf. the mün n¡ lang Yòt who assisted in the casting of a Buddha image. Names and Titles with “N¡” N¡ Jao Th¡o Sòng Sän N¡ ‡®â“∑â“« Õß· ππ“ 1370, Chiang Mai.225 This title / name “Royal Prince 200,000 Rice Fields” was used for King Kü N¡ (r. 1355-85) by his contemporaries, as is attested in a stone inscription at Lamph¢n. His rulership or power over a great number of fields is also indicated by his usual name, Kü N¡ °◊Õπ“ “One million fields”. This name / title remains unexplained. Although it reminds one of the old central Thai system of allotting honorary rice fields, sakdi n¡ »—°¥‘π“, to all citizens in order to fix their social standing, that system was not in use in L¡n N¡ where power or rank were expressed with numbers, for instance phan æ—π “1000”, an imaginary command over that many persons. N¡ Dong It seems that n¡ dong “fields at (in) the hilly forest” were a special category of fields which were under a particular government official; cf. also n¡ lang. Phan N¡ Dong æ—ππ“¥ß 1490, P¡i, Mä Hòng Sòn province. 226 He probably was one of the witnesses to a donation of slaves made by the king and his mother (mah¡ thew™) to a monastery. N¡ Lang Officials with the title n¡ lang seem to be mentioned more frequently than other officials whose title include the word n¡. They were represented throughout the ranks of government officials. There was the plain n¡ lang, the “100” ròi n¡ lang, the “1,000” phan n¡ lang, and the “10,000” mün n¡ lang. It seems that n¡ lang “fields at / on the back (?)” were a special category of fields which were under a particular government official; cf. also n¡ dong.

225 226

1.3.1.1 Wat Phra Yün 1370. 1.1.1.1 ¤r¡m S™ Köt 1490. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

144

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

145

N¡ Lang „Õ‡¡’¬π“À≈—ß .... 1500, Chiang R¡i.227 The wife or, more probably, the widow Ai of N¡ Lang .... (his name is unreadable) is the 34th in a list of 72 heads of slave families of ch¡o y¡ng farming and forest people who were donated to Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi, immediately south of the old walled town of Chiang R¡i. N¡ Lang Suthon Kh¡win π“À≈—ß  ÿ∑𧓫‘π 1563, Chiang Mai.228 As part of his last will and testament he donated his house of 3 ‘rooms’ ∫â“π 3 ÀâÕß to a standing (bronze) Buddha image that had been cast recently. Ròi N¡ Lang L¡m Mün √âÕ¬π“À≈—ß ≈à“¡À¡◊Ëπ 1489, Müang Kuak.229 This n¡ lang held the rank of 100 (ròi), and was the secretary / announcer / public relations man (l¡m) of a high-ranking official who had the rank of 10,000 (mün). He is the sixth in a list of seven persons who witnessed donations made to a monastery near Lamph¢n, and the setting up of a stone inscription recording the donations. Phan N¡ Lang æ—ππ“À≈—ß 1488, Phayao.230 The queen (queen-mother?) in Chiang Mai sent an order on gold foil to the wife of the governor of Phayao. In the document, the queen asked to assign 20 families to the service of the Buddha image and the mah¡thera of Wat Dòk Kham. The Phayao governor’s wife, in turn, asked eight local officials to take the document to Wat Dòk Kham. This unnamed phan n¡ lang is the first in the list of these eight officials, taking precedence over other phan and also thao müang. Phan N¡ Lang Chiang Nòi æ—ππ“À≈—ß ‡™’¬ßπâÕ¬ 1489, Müang Kuak.231 This n¡ lang held the rank of 1,000 (phan), was an ex-novice (chiang) and his personal name was Nòi. He is the fourth in a list of seven witnesses to several donations made to a monastery near Lamph¢n, and to the setting up of a stone inscription which recorded the donation. 227

1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi 1500. For a note on these ch¡o y¡ng people, see above in the chapter Donation Packages: Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi 1500. 228 1.2.3.2 Wat Mün Tum 1563. A ‘room’ ÀâÕß in Yuan means the space in between four pillars of a house, no matter whether there are partitions, curtains, etc. “Three rooms” means a house on a rectangular plan with four pillars on either side, not including the raised verandah in front. 229 1.3.1.1 Wat Khuang Chum Käo 1489. 230 1.5.1.1 Wat Dòn Khr¡m 1488. 231 1.3.1.1 Wat Khuang Chum Käo 1489. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

145

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

146

Phan N¡ Lang æ—ππ“À≈—ß 1490, P¡i, Mä Hòng Sòn province.232 He probably was one of the witnesses to a donation of slaves made by the king and his mother (mah¡ thew™) to a monastery in M. P¡i, A. P¡i. Phan N¡ Lang Y¡na Wis¡ Ròt æ—ππ“À≈—ß ≠“≥«‘ “√Õ¥ 1502, Wiang P¡ Pao, c. 90 km north of Chiang Mai on the way to Chiang 233 R¡i. By order of the queen mother in Chiang Mai, he was to arrange her personal donation with an accompanying inscription: 10 families to serve the Buddha image in a monastery near Wiang P¡ Pao and to supply annually 11 kg lamp oil as a gift of worship for the image. Phan N¡ Lang Thep æ—ππ“À≈—ß ‡∑æ 1513, near Ph¡n south of Chiang R¡i.234 He is the fifth in a list of 11 witnesses to a land donation made by the governor of Müang Òi to a Buddha image. In that list, four monks precede seven laymen. In the laymen’s group, the Phan N¡ Lang Thep comes first, preceding a phan nangsü æ—πÀπ—ß ◊Õ, a thao müang ‡∂â“ ‡¡◊Õß, a p¡k nangsü ª“°Àπ—ß ◊Õ, an ordinary phan æ—π, another thao müang ‡∂Ⓡ¡◊Õß, and a sän kh¡o · π¢â“«. Phan N¡ Lang Khwan æ—ππ“À≈—ß ¢«—≠ 1520, Chiang Mai.235 He is the first in a list of five persons who sponsored the consecration of an uposatha precinct (khandhas™m¡). He precedes three sän kh¡o and an untitled but obviously otherwise important person, N¡i Suwan. Besides, he is the first in a group of witnesses to donations made to the uposatha hall. In that list he precedes a Sän Kh¡o and ordinary villagers. Mün N¡ Lang À¡◊Ëππ“À≈—ß 1493, Phayao.236 Presumably the same as Mün N¡ Lang S™ Phat. He was represented by one of his men, a certain Y¡ Sitthi ≠“ ‘∑∏‘, to witness a donation of slaves made to a monastery.

232

1.1.1.1 ¤r¡m S™ Köt 1490. 1.4.1.1 Wat Uthumphara ¤r¡m 1502. 234 1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513. 235 1.2.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1520. 236 1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng Mün 1493. 233

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

146

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

147

Mün N¡ Lang S™ Phat À¡◊Ëππ“À≈—ß »√’æ—¥ 1492, Phayao province.237 He is the first in a list of four lay witnesses to a multiple donation consisting of slaves for the service of a Buddha image, an annual delivery of sesame oil, etc. (details lost) made by the governor of Chiang R¡i to a monastery about 12 km northwest of Phayao. Somewhat unusually, this list of lay witnesses is followed, and not preceded, by a list of three monk witnesses. Mün N¡ Lang S™ Phat À¡◊Ëππ“À≈—ß »√’æ—¥ 1493, Phayao province.238 He is named as the first of two witnesses who “know” that a certain monastery has certain fields and a village. Mün N¡ Lang S™ Phat πÀ¡◊Ëππ“À≈—ß »√’æ—¥ 1495, Phayao.239 He is the first in a list of nine witnesses to various donations of persons, rice fields and villages made over time to a monastery next to Phayao city. Mün N¡ Lang Thep πÀ¡◊Ëππ“À≈—ß ‡∑æ 1495, Phayao.240 He is the second in a list of eight lay witnesses to a donation of persons and of a village with two areca trees, made by the former and the present kings of Chiang Mai, to a monastery just outside Phayao city to the northwest. Mün Udom N¡ Lang À¡◊ËπÕÿ¥¡ π“À≈—ß 1496, Phayao.241 He is the first in a list of at least a dozen local officials from the various government branches who were assembled in a meeting called by the governor of Phayao. They accepted, or attested to, an order by the Mah¡ Thew™, the king’s mother, who reconfirmed previous donations made to a monastery, some as far back as 1411.

237

1.5.1.1 Wat Wisuttha ¤r¡m Khòi Sum 1492. 1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng Mün 1493. 239 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 240 1.5.1.1 Wat ¤r¡m P¡ Ya 1495. The two kings are, Phay¡ Yòt who abdicated probably on 07/06/ 1495 (PAY.PP: 36) and certainly before 31/07/1495 (1.5.1.1 Wat ¤r¡m P¡ Ya) in favour of his son, Phay¡ Käo who, being only 12 or 13years old, was consecrated king with his mother on 05/08/1495 (1.4.1.1 Wat S™ Sutth¡w¡t 1496). 241 1.5.1.1 Wat Phra Kham 1496. 238

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

147

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

148

Mün N¡ Lang À¡◊Ëππ“À≈—ß 1500, Chiang R¡i.242 He is the fourth in a list of at least seven witnesses to the donation a group of 72 ch¡o y¡ng agricultural and forest-gathering people and their taxes to a monastery next to Chiang R¡i town, and to the setting up of a stone inscription which records the donation. Mün N¡ Lang Thän Kham À¡◊Ëππ“À≈—ß ·∑à𧔠1506, Phayao province.243 He is the second in a list of 10 witnesses to a donation of slaves made to a monastery about 12 km northwest of Phayao. Mün N¡ Lang Yòt À¡◊Ëππ“À≈—ß ¬Õ¥ 1516, Phayao.244 He is the first in a list of four persons who helped, chuai ™à«¬, with the casting of a big bronze Buddha image, probably in Wat Sip-sòng Hòng immediately outside Phayao town. Mün N¡ Lang Jòm Sawan À¡◊Ëππ“À≈—ß ®Õ¡ «√√§å Mün N¡ Lang Suan In À¡◊Ëππ“À≈ß  «πÕ‘π∑√å 1529, Phrä.245 The ruling prince of Phrä and his wife had built or rebuilt Wat Bupph¡r¡m (located northeast outside the town of Phrä). Then the prince asked Mün N¡ Lang Jòm Sawan “to bring the merit” ‡Õ“∫ÿ≠‚°∞“°‰ª to Mün Ying so that the latter might present it to the king (in Chiang Mai, viz. Phay¡ Ket). The king then ordered that people and fields be assigned to the monastery. Mün N¡ Lang Suan In was the fifth in a list of eight witnesses to the donation, after five other mün and before a phan (“1000”) thao müang æ—π‡∂Ⓡ¡◊Õß. Probably both mün n¡ lang were local Phrä people. N¡ Ròt Ròt (often lòt ≈Õ¥) means “little, small”; hence n¡ ròt “little field”. Possibly a person with this appellation had to do with rice fields of small significance. See above in the chapter Name and Location of Fields: N¡ Ròt, where the expression n¡ ròt means a type of field. Since the highest rank connected with n¡ Ròt that has been found so far, is only “50”, it may be that n¡ ròt was not a title or rank of a government official, but perhaps the appellation for a farmer who owned a number of minuscule (terraced, hilly?) fields. 242

1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi 1500. 1.5.1.1 Wat Wisuttha ¤r¡m 1506. This monastery, its ruins now nearly disappeared, is identical with Wat Wisuttha ¤r¡m Khòi Sum (see below). 244 1.5.1.1 Wat Sip-sòng Hòng 1516. 245 1.8.1.1 Wat Bupph¡r¡m 1529. 243

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

148

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

149

N¡ Ròt π“√Õ¥ 1500, Chiang R¡i.246 He is the sixteenth in a list of 72 heads of slave families. They were ch¡o y¡ng farming and forest gathering people who were donated, together with their taxes from wet rice fields, oleo-resin and wax, to Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi, just outside Chiang R¡i’s former southern city wall. N¡ Ròt Udom Mongkon π“√Õ¥ Õÿ¥¡¡ß§≈ 1500, Lamph¢n.247 He was the head of one of 12 families donated by the king of Chiang Mai and his mother to the newly-built library of Wat Phra Th¡t Hariphunchai. H¡ Sip N¡ Ròt Àâ“ ‘∫ π“√Õ¥ 1496, Chiang Mai province.248 An official with the lowly rank of h¡ sip “50”, he is the third in a group of three persons (after a mah¡thera and Sän Kh¡o Phan) who were witnesses to the donation of a slave to a Buddha image. N¡ Rüan L¡m P¡k N¡ Rüan Nüa ≈à“¡ª“°π“‡√◊Õπ‡Àπ◊Õ 1492, Phayao province.249 He is the fourth and last in a list of four lay witnesses to a multiple donation consisting of slaves for the service of a Buddha image, an annual delivery of sesame oil, etc. (details lost) made by the governor of Chiang R¡i to a monastery about 12 km northwest of Phayao. Somewhat unusually, this list of lay witnesses is followed, and not preceded, by a list of three monk witnesses. P¡k Rat N¡ Rüan ª“°√—¥ π“‡√◊Õπ 1496, Chiang Mai province.250 He is the third in a group of four persons (two ordinary citizens and two officials, in that order) who escorted a new slave, kh¡ ¢â“, of the Buddha image to the monastery. That slave himself was an official, L¡m Wan ≈à“¡«—π.

246

1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi 1500. 1.3.1.1 Wat Phra Th¡t Hariphunchai 1509. 248 1.2.1.1 Wat Käo L¡t 1497. 249 1.5.1.1 Wat Wisuttha ¤r¡m Khòi Sum 1492. See also note 260. 250 1.2.1.1 Wat Käo L¡t 1497. 247

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

149

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

150

Phan N¡ Rüan Phò Nòi æ—ππ“‡√◊Õπ æàÕπâÕ¬ C. 1485, Müang Lò (35 km northeast of Phayao).251 “Formerly a family, (viz.) the family of ¤i Hao Kham Ling, had borrowed 500 silver from the Buddha image (and had defaulted on repayment). Phò Nòi, the phan n¡ rüan, poured water and donated them as slaves to the (principal Buddha) image.” Phuak Kham N¡ Rüan æ«°§” π“‡√◊Õπ 1488, Chiang Sän.252 He is the fifth in a list of nine witnesses to a donation of fields and slaves, made by the king and his mother to a monastery in Müang Chiang Sän. N¡ S¡i Jao N¡ S¡i ‡®â“π“´â“¬ 1793, N¡n province.253 After the abbot and his disciples, he is the first in a list of four lay persons who made a wooden Buddha image. The honouring prefix jao shows that he either was of princely blood, or a government official with at least the rank of Phan “1,000”, or else was a very respected local personality. L¡m N¡ L¡m N¡ Pik Mò Khwan ≈à“¡π“ªî° À¡Õ¢«—≠ 1493, Phayao.254 He is the ninth in a list of nine or eleven witnesses to a donation made to a monastery. L¡m n¡ was his government title / rank, Pik presumably his personal name, and mò khwan “soul doctor” his sideline. Theoretically, it could be possible that l¡m n¡ pik was his title, n¡ pik supposedly being a certain category of fields. Mün L¡m N¡ H£r¡thibod™ À¡◊Ëπ≈à“¡π“ ‚À√“∏‘∫¥’ 1496, Chiang Mai.255 He is the second in a list of three officials who are sent by the king, Phay¡ Käo, to come here, write (tòng µâÕß “chisel”) the inscription and to set it up (to last) until the end of the Buddhist religion, in order to record the 251

1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497. The date c.1485 (?) for this donation is a guess. M. Lò, also Wiang Lò, present T. Lò, A. J¢n, Phayao province. 252 1.4.1.1 Wat Phan Tòng Täm 1488. Phuak, lit. “group”, meant a guild of persons doing certain kinds of work, like boatmen, etc. Their leader was usually known as jao phuak ‡®â“æ«° but sometimes was simply called phuak. 253 1.7.2.2 Wat N¡ Luang 1793. 254 1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng Mün 1493. 255 1.5.1.1 Wat B¡n D¡n 1496. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

150

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

151

king’s donation of fields and persons to a monastery in Müang Lò (35 km northeast of Phayao). Mün L¡m N¡ Sumeth¡ H£r¡thibod™ À¡◊Ëπ≈à“¡π“  ÿ‡¡∏“‚À√“∏‘∫¥’ 1496, Chiang Mai.256 He is the second in a list of 10 witnesses to the king’s donation of 28 families of Ch¡o Y¡ng Nam Man people in three villages, with their fields and a forest, to a monastery in A. Jä Hom, north of Lamp¡ng. Mün L¡m N¡ H£r¡thibod™ À¡◊Ëπ≈à“¡π“ ‚À√“∏‘∫¥’ 1497, Chiang Mai.257 The king ordered him to organize a donation of fields and persons to a monastery in Müang Lò (35 km northeast of Phayao). P¡k N¡ P¡k N¡ ª“°π“ 1491, Phayao.258 He and his son, together with two others, or two other families, were debt-slaves of a mah¡thera. This monk gave them to the Buddha image for its service, in a monastery near Phayao, together with the N¡ Kluai fields of 30 measures seed-rice. P¡k N¡ Mua ª“°π“ À¡—« 1469, Wang Nüa, about 85 km north of Lamp¡ng.259 The son of P¡k N¡ Mua is the last in a list of seven witnesses to the donation, made by the local governor, of a village and a newly built monastery to the king. The same group also came to set up the stone inscription. L¡m P¡k N¡ Rüan Nüa ≈à“¡ª“°π“‡√◊Õπ‡Àπ◊Õ 1492, Phayao province.260 He is the fourth and last in a list of four lay witnesses to a multiple donation consisting of slaves for the service of a Buddha image, an annual delivery of sesame oil, etc. (details lost) made by the governor of Chiang R¡i to a monastery about 12 km northwest of Phayao. Somewhat unusually, this list of lay witnesses is followed, and not preceded, by a list of three monk witnesses.

256

1.6.1.1 Wat P¡ Bong 1496. 1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497. 258 1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng 1491. 259 1.6.1.1 Wat B¡n Läng 1469. 260 1.5.1.1 Wat Wisuttha ¤r¡m Khòi Sum 1492. See also note 249. 257

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

151

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

152

Names and Titles with “Kh¡o” Phan Kh¡o / Mün Kh¡o / Sän Kh¡o It seems that the rank ròi kh¡o “100 rice” has not yet been found attested. As for phan kh¡o “1,000 rice” I know of only two mentions, and for mün kh¡o “10,000 rice”, there are at present only three known mentions, in an inscription where one sän kh¡o is followed by three mün kh¡o (see below), but all four are preceded by mün of other government departments. The rank usually mentioned is sän kh¡o, “100,000 rice”. It seems to have been rather low in the hierarchy of officialdom, in spite of the high figure “100,000”, because in lists of witnesses where persons obviously are arranged in order of seniority or importance, a sän kh¡o usually is lower than a mün, a phan, a phuak, and even a lamphan. Yet, there is one instance on record which shows that a sän kh¡o certainly had power or at least influence: In that case, two sän kh¡o either re-appropriated a field from its former tenant and transferred it to a monastery, or they simply transferred to a monastery a field that previously had been withdrawn from its tenant. They then ordered the setting up of a stone inscription recording the donation charter for that monastery. See below: Sän Kh¡o Thit and Säng Kh¡o Mongkhon (1520). This brings to mind the not infrequent “sän” titles of the nineteenth century whose holders all seem to have been in charge of rather practical things. For instance, in 1877 there was a Sän Kham who oversaw the entire irrigation system in the Dòi Saket area east of Chiang Mai.261 Therefore it may be that these kh¡o titles / ranks were more of an honorary or perhaps different type than a “real” rank in the hierarchy of government officialdom; or perhaps they were a title of a past age that was difficult and even awkward to place among the then current government functionaries. Phan Kh¡o Hò Li Män æ—π¢â“« ÀàÕ≈‘·À¡π 1495, Phayao.262 He is the seventh in a list of eight lay witnesses to a donation of persons and of a village with two areca trees, jointly made by the former and the present king of Chiang Mai, to a monastery just outside Phayao city to the northwest. He precedes a certain N¡i Kham L¡, last of the group, who was the l¡m khäk ≈à“¡·¢°, perhaps “liaison person with outsiders”. The second in that group of witnesses was Mün N¡ Lang Thep, mentioned above.

261 262

McGilvary 1912 A Half Century: 195. 1.5.1.1 Wat ¤r¡m P¡ Ya 1495. For the two kings, see above under Mün N¡ Lang Thep. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

152

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

153

Phan Kh¡o Hò Li Män /æπ—‡¢“Àà≈‘·À^¡π/, judging by his name, was not a Thai. Perhaps he was a Chinese Hò, possibly a Muslim trader from southern China, presumably Yünnan which is called Müang Män in L¡n N¡, though spelt differently: ·¡π; or perhaps he was from northern Laos - Vietnam, the location of the Män (Mène) people, a Thai group. Phan Kh¡o Phut æ—π¢â“« æÿ¥ 1502, Chiang Mai.263 He was the last in a group of three persons who “accepted an order from the queen mother” (sc. they were ordered to handle it) and forwarded it on its administrative way to a certain Phan N¡ Lang Y¡na Wis¡ Ròt (q.v.) at Wiang P¡ Pao (c. 90 km north of Chiang Mai). That official, in turn, was to arrange the queen mother’s personal donation with an accompanying inscription: 10 families to serve the Buddha image in a monastery near Wiang P¡ Pao and to supply annually 11 kg lamp oil as a gift of worship for the image. Phan Kh¡o Phut was in illustrious company: the first in his group was the king’s brother, and the second was Jao Phuak Y¡na Khongkh¡ Tòng Täm, i.e. the head of the Writers and Painters Guild, tòng täm µâÕß·µâ¡. Mün Kh¡o see below: Sän Kh¡o Jäm et al., 1496. 2 Sän Kh¡o · π¢â“« ∑—Èß 2 1469, Wang Nüa, about 85 km north of Lamp¡ng.264 An unnamed person (or persons) in the service of two unnamed Sän Kh¡o was the sixth in a list of seven witnesses to the donation, made by the local governor, of a village and a newly built monastery to the king. The same group also set up the stone inscription. Sän Kh¡o Sai · π¢â“« „  Sän Kh¡o In · π¢â“« Õ‘π C. 1480, Chiang Mai.265 They were the first and the second in a list of five lay witnesses to a donation of agricultural items made by a person whose name is lost, to the b£t (uposatha precinct plus its building) that was located about 5 km southeast of Chiang Mai. In that list, they preceded, in that order, a lamphan ≈”æ—π , a p¡k ª“° in the service of a Mün Nangsü À¡◊ËπÀπ—ß ◊Õ of the Record Office, and an untitled person from the service of a Mün D¡m Phr¡ À¡◊Ëπ¥â“¡æ√â“.

263

1.4.1.1 Wat Uthumphara ¤r¡m 1502. 1.6.1.1 Wat B¡n Läng 1469. 265 1.2.1.1 K¢ Wat Sao Hin c. 1480. 264

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

153

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

154

Sän Kh¡o Sòi · π¢â“«  Õ¬ 1489, Müang Kuak, Lamph¢n province.266 He was the fifth in a list of seven witnesses to several donations made to a monastery, and to the setting up of a stone inscription which recorded the donations. He ranked after a phan n¡ lang (4th) and before a ròi n¡ lang (6th) and a lamphan (7th). Sän Kh¡o Phò L¡n · π¢â“« æàÕ≈“π 1489, Müang Òi, east of Ph¡n, Chiang R¡i province.267 He was one of nine witnesses to the donation of rice fields and the assignment of six families to the service of a monastery and its mah¡thera. These donations had been ordered by the mother of the king (Mah¡ Thew™). Sän Kh¡o Y¡ Rangs™ · π¢â“« ≠“√—ß ’ 1493, Phayao.268 He is the eighth in a group of nine or eleven witnesses to a donation of slaves made to a monastery. Sän Kh¡o Phan · π¢â“« æ—π 1496, Chiang Mai province.269 He was the second in a group of three persons (after a mah¡thera and before H¡ Sip N¡ Ròt) who where witnesses to the donation of a slave to a Buddha image. Sän Kh¡o Jäm · π¢â“« ·®à¡ Mün Kh¡o Sòi À¡◊Ëπ¢â“«  âÕ¬ Mün Kh¡o Hem À¡◊Ëπ¢â“« ‡À¡ Mün Kh¡o Suan Phay¡ À¡◊Ëπ¢â“«  «πº≠“270 1496, Jòm Thòng, south of Chiang Mai.271 Preceded by three ordinary mün, they are the fourth to seventh in a group of seven witnesses (1) to the donation, made by the king, of a Buddha image to a monastery, and of rice fields as a gift of worship to the image and the monks in the monastery; and (2) to the donation, made by several other persons, of 12 slave families who were to serve the Buddha image and the monks.

266

1.3.1.1 Wat Khuang Chum Käo 1489. 1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Wan 1489. Former Müang Òi, about 40 km north of Phayao and about 50 km south of Chiang R¡i, must have covered much of the eastern part of present A. Ph¡n, Chiang R¡i province. 268 1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng Mün 1493. 269 1.2.1.1 Wat Käo L¡t 1497. 270 Suan Phay¡, spelt / «πª√À≠“/, P. + S. javana-prajñ¡,“quick-witted”. 271 1.2.1.1 Wat S™ Bun Rüang 1496. 267

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

154

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

155

Sän Kh¡o S™l¡ · π¢â“«  ’≈“ Sän Kh¡o Rat · π¢â“« √—µπå 1497, Müang Lò (35 km northeast of Phayao).272 Both are witness to a donation of fields and slaves, made by the king to a monastery in Müang Lò. Sän Kh¡o Rat · π¢â“« √—¥ Sän Kh¡o Mongkhon · π¢â“« ¡ß§≈ 1504, Lamph¢n province.273 They are the fifth and the sixth in a list of 11 lay witnesses to the transfer of a person whose occupation was changed from trimming timber for construction, to the service of the principal Buddha image in a monastery that was situated about 10 km south of Lamph¢n. In that list, the two sän are preceded by a phan “1,000”, a mün “10,000” (in that order!), by someone without numerical rank from the Recorder’s Office (nangsü) and even by a lamphan. On the other hand, they are followed in that list by another person without title from the Recorder’s Office, by another lamphan, and by another phan. Perhaps the sequence of the persons is not strictly to protocol, because the list of lay witnesses precedes the list of eight monk witnesses, all of them of high rank, and that list is followed by the name of another lay witness, no less than a mün ! It looks as if not the final list but elements of its preliminary draft were accidentally inscribed on the stone. Sän Kh¡o Bun · π¢â“« ∫ÿ≠ 1513, near Ph¡n south of Chiang R¡i.274 He is the last in a list of 11 witnesses to a land donation made by the governor of Müang Òi to a Buddha image. In that list, four monks precede seven laymen. In the laymen group, the Sän Kh¡o is preceded by a phan n¡ lang æ—ππ“À≈—ß (the first of that group), then come a phan nangsü æ—πÀπ—ß ◊Õ, a thao müang ‡∂Ⓡ¡◊Õß, a p¡k nangsü ª“°Àπ—ß ◊Õ, an ordinary phan æ—π, and another thao müang ‡∂Ⓡ¡◊Õß. Sän Kh¡o Thit Nòi · π¢â“« ∑‘¥πâÕ¬ Sän Kh¡o Mongkhon · π¢â“« ¡ß§≈ Sän Kh¡o Thòng · π¢â“« ∑Õß 1520, Chiang Mai.275 They are the second to fourth in a list of five persons who sponsored the consecration of an uposatha precinct (khandhas™m¡). They fol-

272

1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497. 1.3.1.1 Wat Bun B¡n 1504. 274 1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513. 275 1.2.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1520. 273

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

155

9/8/05, 8:57

HANS PENTH

156

low a Phan N¡ Lang and precede an untitled but obviously otherwise important person, N¡i Suwan. Besides, Sän Kh¡o Thit and Säng Kh¡o Mongkhon donated a rice field with 6,000 cowries tax, that had been withdrawn from its previous tenant, to the uposatha hall. Sän Kh¡o Thòng also is the second in a group of witnesses to donations made to the uposatha hall. He follows a Phan N¡ Lang and precedes ordinary villagers. The Sän (all three?) also arranged for this stone inscription to be erected in the uposatha hall. Sän Kh¡o Jòm · π¢â“« ®Õ¡ C. 1530, Phayao.276 He is the first in a list of four officials who were asked to testify before an investigating official with the title phan nangsü t¡ng müang æ—πÀπ—ß ◊Õµà“߇¡◊Õß “upcountry registrar with the rank of one thousand”. The inspector had been sent by the king of Chiang Mai. His mission was about a case in which slaves of the Buddha image of Wat Khw¡ng near Phayao had left the image and had themselves set up as freemen, even having their own rice fields. The testimony of Sän Kh¡o Jòm and the three others as persons who “knew”, i.e. as witnesses familiar with the local situation, made the investigating official return the slaves to the Buddha image. Names and Titles with “Ch¡ng, S¡ng” Phan Ch¡ng ¤r™ æ—π©“ß Õ“√’ 1490, Phayao.277 A public collection for the construction of a wih¡n esulted in 3,000 silver. The state granary official Phan Ch¡ng ¤r™ was the first in a group of four donors whose donations were listed apart from the public collection. These donors were mentioned separately and by name; he himself had donated 1,000 silver.

276 277

1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng c.1530. 1.5.1.1 Wat Kl¡ng 1490. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P090-156

156

9/8/05, 8:57

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

157

7. Some Rice Field Statistics a. Fields and their Seed-Rice A number of L¡n N¡ stone inscriptions mention the amount of seed rice needed for rice fields, which was the Yuan way of indicating the size of fields. Such mention usually is part of a report on a donation to a monastery, or part of an inventory that lists the rice field holdings of a monastery. Date

Amount

Region / Province

1411 1411 1411 1412 1466 1476 1476 1479 c. 1480 c.1480 1489 1491 1493 1495

N¡ 21,685 kh¡o N¡ 100 kh¡o N¡ 975 kh¡o (N¡) 500 kh¡o N¡ 30 kh¡o N¡ 200 kh¡o N¡ 100 kh¡o N¡ 20 kh¡o N¡ 250 kh¡o N¡ 100 kh¡o N¡ 200 kh¡o N¡ 30 kh¡o N¡ 5 kh¡o N¡ [825] kh¡o

Phayao228 Phayao229 Phayao230 Phayao231 Chiang R¡i232 Lamp¡ng233 Lamp¡ng234 Chiang R¡i235 Chiang Mai236 Phayao237 Phayao238 Phayao239 Phayao240 Phayao241

228

1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wih¡n 1411. 1.5.1.1 Phayao 1411. 230 1.5.1.1 Wiang Kao Phayao 1411. 231 1.5.1.1 Wat Kao Yòt 1412. 232 1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513. 233 1.6.1.1 WPT Lamp¡ng Luang 1476. 234 1.6.1.1 WPT Lamp¡ng Luang 1476. 235 1.4.1.1 Wat B¡n Y¡ng M¡k Muang 1479. 236 1.2.1.1 K¢ Wat Sao Hin c. 1480 237 1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497. 238 1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497. 239 1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng 1491. 240 1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng Mün 1493. 241 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. “N¡ 825 kh¡o” was the sum total of the holdings of the monastery. Hereafter the inscription listed the individual fields but these details are now incomplete because part of the text has become illegible. 229

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

157

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

158

N¡ 100 kh¡o N¡ 175 (kh¡o) N¡ 100 kh¡o (N¡) 40 kh¡o N¡ 25 kh¡o N¡ 200 kh¡o N¡ 100 (kh¡o) N¡ 50 (kh¡o) N¡ 12 (kh¡o) N¡ 12 kh¡o N¡ 100 kh¡o N¡ 12 kh¡o N¡ 6 rai 12 kh¡o243 N¡ 12 kh¡o N¡ 12 kh¡o N¡ 30 (kh¡o) N¡ 12 kh¡o N¡ 12 kh¡o N¡ 50 (kh¡o) N¡ 50 (kh¡o) N¡ 10 (kh¡o) N¡ 50 (kh¡o) N¡ 500 (kh¡o) N¡ 100 (kh¡o) (N¡) 100 (kh¡o) N¡ 1[0] (kh¡o) N¡ 100 (kh¡o) N¡ 100 kh¡o N¡ 30 kh¡o N¡ 20 kh¡o N¡ 50 kh¡o N¡ 100 (kh¡o) N¡ 50 (kh¡o) N¡ 100 (kh¡o)

1498

242 243

Phayao242

1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498. This inscription lists many individual fields. A very rare statement: rai “plot” and kh¡o “seed-rice”. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

158

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

159

N¡ 100 kh¡o Phayao244 In the inscription corrected to: 200 kh¡o N¡ 10 kh¡o N¡n245 N¡ 50 kh¡o N¡n246 Kh¡o 10,000 Lamp¡ng247 Probable intention: N¡ 10,000 kh¡o. N¡ 200 kh¡o Lamp¡ng248 N¡ 1,000 kh¡o Phrä249 N¡ 50 kh¡o Chiang Mai250 N¡ 50 kh¡o N¡ 30 kh¡o N¡ 50 kh¡o

1498 1500 1500 1504 1504 1529 1554

b. Rice Field Taxes This table contains examples of tax amounts in cowries or bia, with an attempt to separate the amount of tax for an individual field or a small group of fields (for instance given as a donation), and the total amount of a greater donation or the entire holdings of one monastery. Year A.D. c. 1290 c. 1290 1411 1466 1479 1484

Tax

Indiv. Field

‡∫’Ȭ 620,000 500,000 4,686,000 9,000 5,000 50,000

Total Amount

Region Chiang Mai251 Chiang Mai252 Phayao253 Chiang R¡i254 Chiang R¡i255 Chiang R¡i256

x x x x x x

244

1.5.1.1 Wat Ph¡y¡ Ruang 1498. 1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500. 246 1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500. 247 1.6.1.1 WPT Lamp¡ng Luang 1504. 248 1.6.1.1 WPT Lamp¡ng Luang 1504. 249 1.8.1.1 Wat Bupph¡r¡m 1529. 250 1.2.1.1 Jula Khir™ 1554. This inscription lists four individual (groups of) fields. 251 CMA.N: 53; HPms: 2.8 R; W: 39, U: 31.f 252 CMA. N: 53; HPms: 2.8R; W: 39; U: 31. 253 1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wih¡n 1411. 254 1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513. 255 1.4.1.1 Wat B¡n Y¡ng M¡k Muang 1479. 256 1.4.1.1 Dòi Tham Phra 1484. Previous holdings. 245

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

159

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

160

Year A.D.

Tax

Indiv. Field

1484 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1492 1493 1495 1495

82,000 2,000 1,000 5,000 2,000 6,000 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 600,000 3,051,000 2,500 [370,000] [22,000]

‡∫’Ȭ

Total Amount

Region Chiang R¡i257 Chiang R¡i258 Chiang R¡i259 Chiang R¡i260 Chiang R¡i261 Chiang R¡i262 Chiang R¡i263 Chiang R¡i264 Chiang R¡i265 Chiang R¡i266 Chiang R¡i267 Chiang R¡i268 Chiang R¡i268 Chiang R¡i270 Chiang S¡n271 Chiang Mai272 Phayao273 Phayao274 Phayao275

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

257

1.4.1.1 Dòi Tham Phra 1484. A new donation. 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 259 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 260 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 261 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 262 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 263 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 264 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 265 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 266 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 267 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 268 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 269 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 270 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 271 1.4.1.1 Wat Phan Tòng Täm 1488. The original order by the king called for 600,000 cowries field tax. However, for unstated reasons, court and local administrators changed this to 593,000 cowries field tax plus 7,000 cowries tax from a village. 272 1.2.1.1 Wat Tap£th¡r¡m 1492. 273 1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng Mün 1493. 274 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 275 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 258

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

160

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

Year A.D.

Tax

Indiv. Field

1495 1495 1495 1495 1495 1445 1445 1495 1495 1496 1496 1496 1496 1497 1500 1509 1509 1502 1512 1512 1512

45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 96,800 55,000 27,500 5,500 500,000 300,000 100,000 90,000 400,000 1,200,00 100,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 100,000 100,000

‡∫’Ȭ

161

Total Amount

Region Phayao276 ditto ditto ditto ditto Phayao277 Phayao278 Phayao279 Phayao280 Chiang Mai281 Phayao282 Phayao283 Lamp¡ng284 Phayao285 Chiang R¡i286 Chiang Mai287 Lamph¢n288 Lamph¢n289 Lamph¢n290 Lamph¢n291 Lamph¢n292

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

276

1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. This monastery had five (groups of) fields each taxed with 45,000 cowries. 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 278 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 279 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 280 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 281 1.2.1.1 Wat S™ Bun Rüang 1496. 282 1.5.1.1 Wat B¡n D¡n 1496. 283 1.4.1.1 Wat Pr¡s¡t 1496. 284 1.6.1.1 Wat P¡ Bong 1496. This is for 28 families in three villages. 285 1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497. 286 1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi 1500. 287 1.2.1.1 Wat S™ Suphan 1509. 288 1.3.1.1 WPT Hariphunchai 1509. 289 1.3.1.1 Dòi Jam Tham 1502. 290 1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512. 291 1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512. 292 1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512. 277

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

161

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

162

Year A.D.

Tax

1512 1512 1512 1512 1520 1523 1554 1554 1554 1554 1554

100,000 100,000 100,000 25,000 6,000 60,000 81,800 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

For Comparison: 1484 1488 1488 1488 1495 1495 1567

Indiv. Field

‡∫’Ȭ

7,000 400 100 7,000 2,000

6,500 500 silver

Total Amount

x x x x x x x x x x x

Region Lamph¢n293 Lamph¢n294 Lamph¢n295 Lamph¢n295 Chiang Mai297 Chiang Mai298 Chiang Khòng299 Chiang Mai300 ditto ditto ditto

Chiang R¡i301 Chiang R¡i302 Chiang R¡i303 Phayao304 Phayao305

B¡n Tham B¡n Kong B¡n Klòng B¡n unnamed B¡n Phlao with 2 areca trees B¡n Dòn B¡n Pä

Phayao306 Chiang Mai307

293

1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512. 1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512. 295 1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512. 296 1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512. 297 1.2.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1520. 298 1.2.1.1 Wat Y¡ng Num 1523. 299 1.4.1.1 Wat Chiang S¡ 1554. 300 1.2.1.1 Jula Khir™ 1554. The monastery had four individual (groups of) fields each taxed with 50,000 cowries. Theses taxes, however, may have included also village and other taxes; cf. below Wat Jula Khir™, footnote 320. 301 1.4.1.1 Dòi Tham Phra 1484. 302 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 303 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488. 304 1.4.1.1 Wat Phan Tòng Täm 1488. 305 1.5.1.1 Wat ¤r¡m P¡ Ya 1495. 306 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 307 1.2.3.1 Wat Wisutth¡r¡m 1567. 294

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

162

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

163

c. Field Fertility The Ratio between Seed Rice and Tax The following Table indicates the ratio between the amount of seed-rice needed for a field (or for a group of fields) and the tax levied on that field. A high ratio, i.e. a highly taxed field, obviously means a good, fertile field with a high return in yield. Year A.D.

Seed Rice

Tax

¢â“«

‡∫’Ȭ

1411 1459 1466 1479 1493 1495 1495 1495 1495 1495 1495 1495 1554

21,685 2,300 30 20 5 [825] 100 100 175 100 40 25 50

4,686,000 469,000 9,000 5,000 2,500 [370,000] 45,000 45,000 96,800 55,000 27,500 5,500 50,000

Ratio Seed Rice : Tax

Region

Phayao308 B¡n Huai S¡i?309 Chiang R¡i310 Chiang R¡i311 Phayao312 Phayao313 Phayao314 Phayao315 Phayao316 Phayao317 Phayao318 Phayao319 Chiang Mai320

1 : 216 1:200 1 : 300 1 : 250 1 : 500 1 : 448 1 : 450 1 : 450 1 : 553 1 : 550 1 : 687 1 : 220 1:1,000

308

1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wih¡n 1411. 2.2.1.1 Sunanth¡r¡m 1459. B¡n Huai S¡i is in Laos opposite Chiang Kham. But the inscription may originally have belonged to a monastery in eastern L¡n N¡. 310 1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513. 311 1.4.1.1 Wat B¡n Y¡ng M¡k Muang 1479. 312 1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng Mün 1493. 313 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. This is the total amount of the fields owned by the monastery. The following items of Wat L™ are the data of certain individual fields. 314 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 315 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 316 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 317 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 318 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 319 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495. 320 1.2.1.1 Jula Khir™ 1554. This monastery had four individual (groups of) fields. The very high tax for theses four fields cannot be explained by their good fertility alone. It must have either included four villages and other items (the text is not clear) or else it reflects a steep tax increase or an inflation from c. 1495 on. 309

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

163

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

164

Year A.D.

Seed Rice

Tax

¢â“«

‡∫’Ȭ

Ratio Seed Rice : Tax

50,000 50,000 50,000

1:1,000 1:1,666 1:1,000

1554 1554 1554

50 30 50

Region

ditto ditto ditto

8. Bibliography a. General Abbreviations A.D.

Anno domini “in the year of the Lord”, i.e. the now internationally used era. ALI Archive of Lan Na Inscriptions, Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University. BEFEO Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient. B.S. Buddhasakkar¡ja æÿ∑∏»—°√“™ (æ.».). The era presently used in Thailand, beginning on 1. January, also misleadingly called Buddhist Era (B.E.). Subtracting 543 will give A.D. JPTS Journal of the Pali Text Society. JSS Journal of the Siam Society. N.S. Nibb¡nasakkar¡ja. An era used in mediaeval L¡n N¡ and other regions, counted from the death of the Buddha on the full moon of Vis¡kha (appr. May). Subtracting 544 will give approximately A.D. PED T.W. Rhys Davids / William Stede: The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary. London, 1966. b. Inscriptions Inscr. # 14 Wat Khem¡, Sukhöthai, 1536 ● Griswold / Prasöt 1975 Inscr. Wat Khem¡ Inscr. # 49 Wat Sòrasak, Sukh£thai, c.1418. ● Griswold / Prasöt 1968 A Declaration of Independence: 230-242. Inscr. # 93 Asok¡r¡ma, Sukh£thai, 1399+.321 ● Griswold / Prasöt 1969 Asok¡r¡ma Inscription. 1.1.1.1 ¤r¡m S™ Köt 1490 ● Penth 1976 J¡rük Wat S™ Köt

321

The inscription was written after 1399, perhaps between 1413-20. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

164

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

1.2.1.1 K¢ Wat Sao Hin c. 1480 ● Penth et al. 2001 Corpus 4: 47-64 1.2.1.1 Wat Tap£th¡r¡m 1492 ● Schmitt 1898 No.6 Inscription Vat Lampoeung ● Pras¡n/Prasöt 1970 J¡rük Wat Tap£th¡r¡m 1.2.1.1 Wat S™ Bun Rüang 1496 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1971 J¡rük C.S. 858 WPT S™ Jòm Thòng 1.2.1.1 Wat Käo L¡t 1497 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1971 J¡rük C.S. 859 ● Penth et al. 2001 Corpus 4: 77-93 1.2.1.1 Wat K¡n Th£m 1499 ● Penth 1994 J¡rük Wat K¡n Th£m 2042 ● Penth et al. 1999 Corpus 3: 17-34 1.2.1.1 Wat S™ Suphan 1509 ● Schmitt 1898 No.5 Inscription Vat Suvarna Arama 1.2.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1520 ● Penth et al. 2001 Corpus 4: 95-109 1.2.1.1 Wat Y¡ng Num 1523 ● Penth 1975 J¡rük Wat Phan Tao ● Penth 1975 Steininschrift vom Kloster Phan Tao 1.2.1.1 Jula Khir™ 1554 ● Penth 1985 J¡rük Jula Khir™ 1554 1.2.1.1 Wat Hua Nòng ● Penth 1994 J¡rük Wat Hua Nòng 1.2.2.2 W. Dòk Kham 1783 ● Penth 1976 J¡rük phra Phuttha r¢p: No.25 1.2.3.1 Wat Wisutth¡r¡m 1567 ● Unpublished 1.2.3.2 Wat Rai Hòm 1514 ● Penth 1976 J¡rük phra Phuttha r¢p: No.17 1.2.3.2 Wat Mün Tum 1563 ● Penth 1976 J¡rük phra Phuttha r¢p: No.21 1.3.1.1 Wat K¢ Kut 1218 ● Halliday 1930 Inscriptions môn: 91-95. 1.3.1.1 Wat Phra Yün 1370 ● Cham 1965 Lak th™ 62 ● Griswold / Prasöt 1974 Inscription Wat Phra Yün ● Cham 1983 J¡rük Wat Phra Yün 1.3.1.1 Weluwan ¤r¡m 1488 ● Penth et al. 1999 Corpus 3: 49-62

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

165

9/8/05, 8:58

165

HANS PENTH

166

1.3.1.1 Wat Khuang Chum Käo 1489 ● Cham 1957 J¡rük Wat Nòng N¡m ● Cham 1965 Lak th™ ● Penth et al. 1999 Corpus 3: 63-81 1.3.1.1 Dòi Jam Tham 1502 ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 J¡rük s¡l¡ kl¡ng Jangwat Lamp¡ng 1.3.1.1 Wat Bun B¡n 1504 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1978 J¡rük Wat Bun B¡n Lò Phò./20 ● Penth et al. 1999 Corpus 3: 83-95 1.3.1.1 WPT Hariphunchai 1509 ● Schmitt 1898 No.18 Inscription Vat Louang ● Cham 1958 J¡rük Wat Phra Th¡t C.S. 862 ● Cham 1965 Lak th™ 71 ● Penth et al. 1999 Corpus 3: 111-134 1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512 ● Cham 1960 J¡rük Wat Suwann¡r¡m ● Cham 1965 Lak th™ 73 Suwann¡r¡m ● Penth et al. 1999 Corpus 3: 135-151 1.4.1.1 Wat B¡n Y¡ng M¡k Muang 1479 ● Penth 1976 J¡rük Wat B¡n Y¡ng M¡k Muang 1479 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Chò Rò. 33 ● Penth et al. 1997 Corpus 1: 25-32 1.4.1.1 Dòi Tham Phra 1484 ● Schmitt 1898 No.9 Inscription de la caverne ● Th?m / Pras¡n 1974 J¡rük Lò Phò./21 ● Anonymous 1985 Lak th™ 66 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¢ Khing 1488 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Chò Rò. 61 ● Penth et al. 1997 Corpus 1: 47-59 1.4.1.1 Wat Phan Tòng Täm 1488 ● Cham 1963 J¡rük Chiang R¡i C.S. 850 ● Cham 1970 Lak th™ 87 1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Wan 1489 ● Penth 1983 J¡rük Wat Mah¡ Wan 1489 ● Penth et al. 1997 Corpus 1: 61-75 1.4.1.1 Wat Pr¡s¡t 1496 ● Schmitt 1895 No.3 Inscription Xieng Sën ● Cham 1938 J¡rük Wat Pr¡s¡t ● Cham 1965 Lak th™ 69 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Chò Rò.3 ● Penth et al. 1997 Corpus 1: 77-90. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

166

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

167

1.4.1.1 Wat S™ Sutth¡w¡t 1496 ● Schmitt 1898 No.27 Inscription Vat Chay Die Suphan ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Chò Rò. 2 1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi 1500 ● Schmitt 1898 No.20 Inscription Vat Chetyot ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1974 J¡rük Lò Phò./26 1.4.1.1 Wat Uthumphara ¤r¡m 1502 ● Penth et al. 2001 Corpus 4: 199-214 1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513 ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1965 J¡rük Wat S™ Um£ng Kham ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 Lak th™ 99 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 1 1.4.1.1 Wat Chiang S¡ 1554 322 ● Penth 1988 J¡rük Wat Chiang S¡ 1553. ● Penth et al. 2000 Corpus 4: 215-235 1.4.1.1 Mah¡ Th¡t Chiang Lä 1611 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1978 J¡rük Lò Phò. 17 ● Penth et al. 1999 Corpus 3: 233-246 1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¡ Kh¡o P¡n 1617 ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1971 J¡rük Wat Ph¡ Kh¡o P¡n ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Chò Rò. 7 ● Penth et al. 1997 Corpus 1: 127-140 1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wih¡n 1411 ● Thöm et al. 1980 J¡rük kasat Lò Phò./9 ● Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: LòPhò. 9 ● Winai et al. 1991 Lak th™ 301 1.5.1.1 Phayao 1411 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 19 ● Thöm 1995 Phò Yò.19 1.5.1.1 Wiang Kao Phayao 1411 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 47 ● Thöm 1995 Phò Yò.47 1.5.1.1 Wat Kao Yòt 1412 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1974 J¡rük Wat Kao Yòt Lò Phò./27 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1995 Lò Phò.27 1.5.1.1 B¡n Nòng Tao 1474 ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1969 Kham ¡n sil¡ j¡rük

322

When the inscription was first published, its date was thought to fall in A.D.1553. Only later it was found that the date actually corresponds to 4 January 1554. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

167

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

168

Thöm et al. 1970 Lak th™ 302 Pras¡n et al. 1995 Lò Phò. 24 ● Penth et al. 1999 Corpus 3: 247-259 1.5.1.1 Wat Dòn Khr¡m 1488 ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1965 J¡rük Wat S™ Um£ng Kham ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 Lak th™ 100 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 2 ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1995 Phò Yò. 2 1.5.1.1 Wat Kl¡ng 1490 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 57 ● Thöm 1995 Phò Yò. 57 1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng 1491 ● Pras¡n / Thöm 1977 Sil¡ J¡rük Phò.Yò./3 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 3 ● Pras¡n / Thöm 1995 Phò Yò. 3 1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng 1491 (2) ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 46 ● Thöm 1995 Phò Yò. 3 1.5.1.1 Wat Wisuttha ¤r¡m Khòi Sum 1492 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 4 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1995 Phò Yò. 4 1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng Mün 1493 ● Pras¡n 1973 J¡rük B¡n Mä N¡ Rüa ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 6 ● Pras¡n 1995 Phò Yò. 6 1.5.1.1 Wat ¤r¡m P¡ Nòi 1494 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 26 1.5.1.1 Wat ¤r¡m P¡ Ya 1495 ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1965 J¡rük Wat S™ Kh£m Kham ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 Lak th™ 103 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 7 ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1995 Phò Yò. 7 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 27 ● Penth 1995 Phò Yò. 27 1.5.1.1 Wat B¡n D¡n 1496 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1970 J¡rük C.S. 858 ● Penth 1995 Lò Pò. 6 1.5.1.1 Wat Phra Kham 1496 ● Thöm 1995 Lò Phò. 10 ● ●

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

168

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497 ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1965 Sil¡ J¡rük Wat S™ Um£ng Kham ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 Lak th™ 101 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 8 ● Pras¡n / Prasöt 1995 Phò Yò. 8 1.5.1.1 Wat Phra Ruang 1498 323 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 9 ● Thöm 1995 Phò Yò.9 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 59. ● Penth 1995 Phò Yò. 59 1.5.1.1 Wat Wisuttha-¤r¡m 1506 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1973 Sil¡ J¡rük Lò Phò./22 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1995 Lò Phò. 22 1.5.1.1 Wat Sip-sòng Hòng 1516 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 13 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1995 Phò Yò. 13 1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng c. 1530 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Yò. 48 ● Penth 1995 Phò Yò. 48 1.6.1.1 Wat B¡n Läng 1469 ● Pras¡n 1969 J¡rük Wat B¡n Läng ● Penth et al. 1997 Corpus 1: 211-218 1.6.1.1 WPT Lamp¡ng Luang 1476 ● Cham 1952 J¡rük Jangwat Lamp¡ng C.S. 838 ● Cham 1965 Lak th™ 65 1.6.1.1 Wat P¡ Bong 1496 ● Penth 1985 J¡rük Wat P¡ Bong 1496 1.6.1.1 WPT Lamp¡ng Luang 1504 ● Cham 1961 J¡rük WPT Lamp¡ng Luang C.S.858 ● Cham 1965 Lak th™ 70 1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500 ● Cham 1959 J¡rük Wat Ch¡ng Kham C.S.862. ● Cham 1965 Lak th™ 72. ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Nò Nò. 2 1.7.2.2 Wat N¡ Luang 1793 ● Unpublished

323

Formerly this inscription was also known both as ™√.12 and ™√./æ.13. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

169

9/8/05, 8:58

169

HANS PENTH

170

1.8.1.1 Wat Bupph¡r¡m 1529 ● Penth 1983 J¡rük Wat Bupph¡r¡m 1529 ● Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡ (1): Phò Rò. 9 2.2.1.1 Sunanth¡r¡m 1459 ● Kannik¡ 1991 J¡rük B¡n Huai S¡i ● Winai / Kannik¡ 1991 Lak th™ 318 2.3.1.1 Wat P¡ Luang 1808 ● Thöm / Pras¡n 1981 J¡rük Phra Jao In Päng ● Thöm et al. 1986 J¡rük Phra Jao In Päng ● Thawat 1987/88 J¡rük Wat P¡ Yai 2

c. Chronicles and other texts CMA The Chronicle of Chiang Mai. CMA.HPms A palmleaf ms of CMA in the collection of Hans Penth. CMA.N See: Notton 1932 Annales (3). CMA.NL A copy of CMA, probably in the Wachiray¡n National Library, written in a leporello book or pap s¡, photograph in: Coedès 1929 Tamn¡n aksòn thai, p.20. CMA.T See: Thon 1971 Chronicle of Chiang Mai. CMA.U See: Udom 1996 Chronicle of Chiang Mai. CMA.W (CMA.W’1998) See: Wyatt / Arunrat 1995 (1998) Chronicle of Chiang Mai. CMA.NL A copy of CMA, probably in the Wachiray¡n National Library, written in a leporello book or pap s¡, photograph in: Coedès 1929 Tamn¡n aksòn thai, p.20.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

170

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

171

Khana Panja 5 Jamphuak §≥ªí≠® 5 ®”æ«° “The 5 Measurements” A section of “Chanuan H£r¡”, a palmleaf ms of Wat S™ Sòng Müang, T. Chai Sath¡n, A.S¡raph™, Chiang Mai, copied in 1897. It contains principally the tables of 5 kinds of measurements, beginning with a table measures of capacity for rice (th£nathikun , donadigu¥a ‚∑π∑‘§ÿ≥). MRS Mang R¡i S¡t. A corpus of laws the first part of which may go back to King Mang R¡i (r. 1259 or 1261 - 1311 or 1317). MRS.CK A collection of laws with examples from daily life among the Thais and with examples from Indian mythology, to serve as comments on or as guidelines for decisions. It refers to the laws of Mang R¡i and Ai F¡ and also to Burmese law. Manuscript from Wat Chiang Kham, N¡n. MRS.CKcy.A+W A copy of MRS.CK transposed into Modern Thai and translated into English by Arunrat Wichiankhiao and Gehan Wijeyewardene. In: Arunrat / Wijeyewardene 1986 Laws of Mang R¡i. MS The chronicle M¢las¡san¡. MS.P Text edition of MS in modern Thai by Prasöt na Nakhòn (Prasert na Nagara), based on MS.S+P and collated with other MS manuscripts. In: Prasöt 1975 M¢las¡san¡. MS.S+P See: Sut / Phrom 1939 M¢las¡san¡. PAY The chronicle of Phayao. PAY.PP Historical events concerning Phayao included in a ms under the misleading title “Chronicle of Müang Ngön Y¡ng Chiang Sän” µ”π“π‡¡◊Õ߇ߑπ¬“߇™’¬ß· π. In: ª√–™ÿ¡æß»“«¥“√, 61, 2497 (1954), 1-55.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

171

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

172

PAY.WSB A version of PAY in a ms kept at Wat S™ Bun Rüang, Phayao, copied in 1935. “Àπ—ß ◊Õæ◊Èπ‡¡◊Õßæ–¬“” «—¥»√’∫ÿ≠‡√◊Õß, µ.µÿπ, Õ.‡¡◊Õß æ–‡¬“. See: SRI microfilm 80.047.05.022-022. Unpublished.

d. Articles and Books Anonymous 1985 Lak th™ 66 (‰¡àª√“°Ø™◊ËÕºŸâ·µàß) çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 66 »‘≈“®“√÷°¥Õ¬∂È”æ√– ®—ßÀ«—¥‡™’¬ß√“¬ ®.». 846 æ.». 2027é ª√–™ÿ¡

»‘≈“®“√÷°, 3, 2508, 156-159 ●

1.4.1.1 Dòi Tham Phra 1484

Arunrat / Wijeyewardene 1986 Laws of Mang R¡i Aroonrut Wichienkeeo / Gehan Wijeyewardene: The Laws of King Mangrai (Mangrayatham- masart). Canberra, Dept. of Anthropology, ANU., 1986. Bechert 1992 Writing down the Tripi©aka Heinz Bechert: The Writing down of the Tripi©aka in P¡li. Wiener Zeitschr. f.d. Kunde Südasiens, 36, 1992, 45-53. Bock 1884 / 1985 Temples Carl Bock: Temples and Elephants. London, 1884 (Reprint: Bangkok, White Orchid Press, 1985). Bock 1885 Im Reiche Carl Bock: Im Reiche des weißen Elephanten. Leipzig, 1885. Cham 1938 J¡rük Wat Pr¡s¡t

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ 秔Õà“π®“√÷° «—¥ª√“ “∑ ®—ßÀ«—¥‡™’¬ß√“¬ ®.». 858é »‘≈ª“°√, 2.5, 2481 (1938), 35-42. ●

1.4.1.1 Wat Pr¡s¡t 1496

Cham 1952 J¡rük Jangwat Lamp¡ng C.S. 838

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ 秔Õà“π®“√÷° ®—ßÀ«—¥≈”ª“ß ®.». 838é »‘≈ª“°√, 6.3, 2495 / 1952, 89-93. ●

1.6.1.1 WPT Lamp¡ng Luang 1476

Cham 1957 J¡rük Wat Nòng N¡m

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ 秔Õà“π®“√÷°«—¥ÀπÕßÀπ“¡ ... ®.». 851é »‘≈ª“°√, 1.2, 2500 / 1957, 84-92. ●

1.3.1.1 Wat Khuang Chum Käo 1489

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

172

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

173

Cham 1958 J¡rük Wat Phra Th¡t C.S. 862

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷°«—¥«—¥æ√–∏“µÿ ¡ÿ¡µ–«—πÕÕ°‡©’¬ß‡Àπ◊Õ ®—ßÀ«—¥≈”æŸπ ®.». 862é »‘≈ª“°√, 1.6, 2501 (1958), 60-68. ●

1.3.1.1 WPT Hariphunchai 1509

Cham 1959 J¡rük Wat Ch¡ng Kham C.S. 862

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ ç·ºàπ»‘≈“®“√÷° ... ®.». 862 ... «—¥™â“ß§È”é »‘≈ª“°√, 3.4, 2502 / 1959, 65-68. ●

1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500

Cham 1960 J¡rük Wat Suwann¡r¡m

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ 秔®“√÷°Õ—°…√‰∑¬ ... ®.». 874 «—¥ ÿ«√√≥“√“¡é »‘≈ª“°√, 4.2, 2503 / 1960,63-65. ●

1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512.

Cham 1961 J¡rük WPT Lamp¡ng Luang C.S. 858

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... «—¥æ√–∏“µÿ≈”ª“ßÀ≈«ß ... ®.». 858é »‘≈ª“°√, 4.5, 2504 / 1961, 73-79. ●

1.6.1.1 WPT Lamp¡ng Luang 1504

Cham 1963 J¡rük Chiang R¡i C.S. 850

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ 秔Õà“π®“√÷°®—ßÀ«—¥‡™’¬ß√“¬ ®.». 850é »‘≈ª“°√, 7.1, 2506 (1963), 59-64. ● 1.4.1.1 Wat Phan Tòng Täm 1488 Cham 1965 Lak th™ 62

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 62 ... »‘≈“®“√÷°«—¥æ√–¬◊π ®—ßÀ«—¥ ≈”æŸπé ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 3, 2508 (1965), 136-144. ●

1.3.1.1 Wat Phra Yün 1370

Cham 1965 Lak th™ 65

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 65 »‘≈“®“√÷°®—ßÀ«—¥≈”ª“ßé ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 3, 2508 (1965), 152-155. ●

1.6.1.1 WPT Lamp¡ng Luang 1476

Cham 1965 Lak th™ 68

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 68 »‘≈“®“√÷°«—¥ÀπÕßÀπ“¡ ... ®.». 851é ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 3, 2508 (1965), 166-173. ●

1.3.1.1 Wat Khuang Chum Käo 1489

Cham 1965 Lak th™ 69

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 69 »‘≈“®“√÷°«—¥ª√“ “∑é ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 3, 2508 (1965), 174-178. ●

1.4.1.1 Wat Pr¡s¡t 1496

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

173

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

174

Cham 1965 Lak th™ 70

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 70 »‘≈“®“√÷°∑’Ë«‘À“√«—¥æ√–∏“µÿ≈”ª“ßÀ≈«ß ... ®.». 858é ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 3, 2508 (1965), 179-184. ●

1.6.1.1 WPT Lamp¡ng Luang 1504

Cham 1965 Lak th™ 71

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 71 ... »‘≈“®“√÷°«—¥æ√–∏“µÿ ¡ÿ¡µ–«—πÕÕ°‡©’¬ß‡Àπ◊Õ ®—ßÀ«—¥≈”æŸπ ®.». 862é ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 3, 2508 (1965), 185-194. ●

1.3.1.1 WPT Hariphunchai 1509

Cham 1965 Lak th™ 72

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 72 ... «—¥™â“ß§È”é ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 3, 2508 (1965), 195-197. ●

1.7.1.1 Wat Phra Köt 1500

Cham 1965 Lak th™ 73 Suwann¡r¡m

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 73 ...  ÿ«√√≥“√“¡é ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 3, 2508 (1965), 198-201. ●

1.3.1.1 Suwanna ¤r¡m 1512.

Cham 1970 Lak th™ 87

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 87 »‘≈“®“√÷°®—ßÀ«—¥‡™’¬ß√“¬é ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 4, 2513 (1970), 16-21. ●

1.4.1.1 Wat Phan Tòng Täm 1488

Cham 1983 J¡rük Wat Phra Yün

©Ë” ∑Õߧ”«√√≥ 绑≈“®“√÷°«—¥æ√–¬◊πé „π °√¡»‘≈ª“°√ (®—¥æ‘¡æå) 箓√÷° ¡—¬ ÿ‚¢∑—¬é °√ÿ߇∑æœ 2526 (1983), 92-101. ●

1.3.1.1 Wat Phra Yün 1370

Coedès 1925 Tamn¡n aksòn Thai

¬Õ™ ‡´‡¥ å çµ”π“πÕ—°…√‰∑¬é °√ÿ߇∑æœ 2468 (32472/1929) Coedès 1956 Le 2500e anniversaire G. Coedès: Le 2500e annivarsaire du Bouddha. Diogène (Paris), 15, 1956. Credner 1935 / 1966 Siam Wilhelm Credner: Siam. Das Land der Tai. Leipzig, 1935. Osnabrück, 1966 (reprint of the 1935 edition). Falk 1998 The Discovery of Lumbin™ Harry Falk: The Discovery of Lumbin™. Lumbini, 1998 (Lumbini Internat. Res. Institute, Occasional Papers 1).

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

174

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

175

Geiger 1953 C¢lav. Translation Wilhelm Geiger: C¢lavamsa, being the more Recent Part of the Mah¡vamsa. 2 Vols. Colombo, 1953 (2nd edition). Griswold / Prasöt 1968 A Declaration of Independence A.B. Griswold / Prasert na Nagara: A Declaration of Independence and its Consequences. JSS, 56.2, 1968, 207-249. ● Inscr. # 49 Wat Sòrasak, Sukh£thai, c.1418. Griswold / Prasöt 1969 Asok¡r¡ma Inscription A.B. Griswold / Prasert na Nagara: The Asok¡r¡ma Inscription of 1399 A.D. JSS, 57.1, 1969, 29-56. 324 ● Inscr. # 93 Asok¡r¡ma, Sukh£thai, 1399+. Griswold / Prasöt 1973 Epigraphy Mah¡-dharmar¡j¡ I (1) A.B.Griswold / Prasert na Nagara: The Epigraphy of Mah¡dharmar¡j¡ I of Sukhodaya; EHS No.11.1. JSS, 61.1, 1973, 71-179. Griswold / Prasöt 1974 Inscription Wat Phra Yün A.B. Griswold / Prasert ¥a Nagara: The Inscription of Wat Pra Yün. EHS No. 13. JSS, 62.1, 1974, 123-141. ● 1.3.1.1 Wat Phra Yün 1370 Griswold / Prasöt 1975 Inscr. Wat Khem¡ A. B. Griswold / Prasert na Nagara: The Inscription of Vat Khem¡. EHS No. 15. JSS, 63.1, 1975, 127-142. ● Inscr. # 14 Wat Khem¡, Sukh£thai, 1536 Griswold / Prasöt 1977 Judgments A.B. Griswold / Prasert na Nagara: The ‘Judgments of King Ma¬ R¡i’. EHS No. 17. JSS (65.1) 1977 p.137-160. Guignard 1912/1971 Dictionnaire Théodore Guignard: Dictionnaire laotien-français. Hongkong 1912. Reprint: Westmead 1971. Halliday 1930 Inscriptions môn R. Halliday: Les inscriptions môn du Siam. BEFEO, 30.1-2, 1930, 81-105. 324

The inscription was written after 1399, perhaps between 1413-20. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

175

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

176

Hardy 1850 Eastern Monachism R. Spence Hardy: Eastern Monachism. London, 1850. v. Hinüber 1990 On some Colophons Oskar von Hinüber: On some Colophons of Old Lanna P¡li Manuscripts. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Thai Studies, Kunming, 11-13 May 1990, Vol. IV, p. 56-77. v. Hinüber 1996 Chips Oskar von Hinüber: Chips from Buddhist Workshops. Scribes and Manuscripts from Northern Thailand. JPTS, 22, 1996, 35-57. Kannik¡ 1991 J¡rük B¡n Huai S¡i

°√√≥‘°“√å «‘¡≈‡°…¡ 箓√÷°∫â“πÀ⫬∑√“¬é ¿“…“-®“√÷°, 3, 2534 (1991), 9-23. ●

2.2.1.1 Sunanth¡r¡m 1459

Kannik¡ et al. 1991 J¡rük L¡n N¡

°√√≥‘°“√å «‘¡≈‡°…¡ œ≈œ (∫√√≥“∏‘°“√) 箓√÷°≈â“ππ“é, ¿“§ 1 ‡≈à¡ 1 ®“√÷°®—ßÀ«—¥‡™’¬ß√“¬ πà“π æ–‡¬“ ·æ√à, ¿“§∑’Ë 2 ¿“æ, °√ÿ߇∑æœ 2534. / Lan Na Inscriptions, Part 1, Vol.1: Inscriptions from Chiang Rai, Nan, Phayao and Phrae. Vol. 2: Plates. (Bangkok 1991.) Kasem 1964 Tamn¡n Wat Phra Th¡t Lamp¡ng Luang

‡°…¡ ‡°“–ªîπ– çµ”π“πæ√–∏“µÿ≈”ª“ßÀ≈«ßé „π Õ√‘¬– ‡≈‘»√—µπ°√ çµ”π“πæ√–∏“µÿ≈”ª“ßÀ≈«ß, µ”π“πæ√–·°â«¡√°µ, µ”π“π‡®â“‡®Á¥µπé «æ∏ ≈”ª“ßÀ≈«ß 72511, p. 5-31. Krais™ 1984 Felicitation Volume

(‰¡àª√“°Ø™◊ËÕ∫√√≥“∏‘°“√) ç≈“¬§√“¡ ‡æ◊ËÕ‡©≈‘¡©≈ÕßÕ“¬ÿ§√∫ 6 √Õ∫ 𓬉°√»√’ π‘¡¡“π‡À¡‘π∑åé ‡™’¬ß„À¡à 2527 (A.D.1984) Krais™ 1984 Kep phak sai s¡

‰°√»√’ π‘¡¡“π‡À¡‘π∑å 燰Á∫º—°„ à´â“ ‡°Á∫¢â“„ à‡¡◊Õßé. In: Krais(tm) 1984 Felicitation Volume: 127Lamotte 1958 Histoire E. Lamotte: Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien. Louvain 1958, Lingat 1931 Esclavage privée R. Lingat: L’esclavage privée dans le vieux droit siamois. Paris, 1931.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

176

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

177

Man™ 1982 Dic.

¡≥’ æ¬Õ¡¬ß§å çæ®π“πÿ°√¡ ≈“ππ“‰∑¬é ‡™’¬ß„À¡à 2525 (A.D. 1982) McGilvary 1912 A Half Century Daniel McGilvary: A Half Century Among the Siamese and the L¡o. New York 1912. v. Mehren / Sawers 1992 Revitalizing Philip von Mehren / Tim Sawers: Revitalizing the Law and Development Movement. A Case Study on Land Law in Thailand. JSS, 80.2, 1992, 33-57. Met 1965 Dic.

‡¡∏ √—µπª√– ‘∑∏‘Ï çæ®π“πÿ°√¡‰∑¬¬«π-‰∑¬-Õ—ß°ƒ…é (°√ÿ߇∑æœ) 2508 (A.D. 1965) Nai 1992 Dhammas¡t Texts Nai Pan Hla / Ryuji Okudeira (coll.): Eleven Mon Dhammas¡t Texts. Tokyo, The Toyo Bunko, 1992. Nattier 1991 Once Upon a Future Time J. Nattier: Once Upon a Future Time. Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline. Berkeley, 1991. Notton 1932 Chronique de Xieng Mai Camille Notton: Annales du Siam, 3e volume: Chronique de Xieng Mai. Paris 1932. Pavie 1898 Etudes diverses (2) Auguste Pavie: Mission Pavie. Etudes diverses (2): Recherches sur l’histoire du Cambodge, du Laos et du Siam. Paris 1898. Penth 1975 J¡rük Wat Phan Tao

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å 绑≈“®“√÷°®“°«—¥æ—π‡µ“ ‡™’¬ß„À¡àé »‘≈ª“°√, 19.2, 2518 (1975), 103-104. ●

1.2.1.1 Wat Y¡ng Num 1523.

Penth 1975 Steininschrift vom Kloster Phan Tao Hans Penth: Eine Steininschrift vom Kloster Phan Tao (Chiang Mai). ZdMG 125.1, 1975: 140-143. ● 1.2.1.1 Wat Y¡ng Num 1523.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

177

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

178

Penth 1976 J¡rük phra Phuttha r¢p

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å 秔®“√÷°∑’Ë∞“πæ√–æÿ∑∏√Ÿª„ππ§√‡™’¬ß„À¡àé °√ÿ߇∑æœ  ”π—°π“¬°√—∞¡πµ√’ 2519 (1976). Penth 1976 J¡rük Wat B¡n Y¡ng M¡k Muang 1479

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å 绑≈“®“√÷°®“°«—¥∫â“π¬“ßÀ¡“°¡à«ß (æ.». 2022)é »‘≈ª“°√, 20.3, 2529 (1976), 38-40. ●

1.4.1.1 Wat B¡n Y¡ng M¡k Muang 1479

Penth 1976 J¡rük Wat S™ Köt

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å 绑≈“®“√÷°«—¥»√’‡°‘¥ Õ”‡¿Õª“¬ ®—ßÀ«—¥·¡àŒàÕß Õπ æ.». 2032-2033é »‘≈ª“°√, 19.6, 2519 (1976), 72-76. ●

1.1.1.1 ¤r¡m S™ Köt 1490

Penth 1980 The Toponym L¡n N¡ Hans Penth: The Orthography of the Toponym L¡n N¡. JSS, 68.1, 1980, 128. Penth 1983 J¡rük Wat Bupph¡r¡m 1529

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å ç°“√ ”√«®·≈–«‘®—¬®“√÷° 1.8.1.1 «—¥∫ÿ∫º“√“¡ æ.». 2072 / §.». 1529é »‘≈ª“°√, 27.3, 2526 (1983), 73-77. ●

1.8.1.1 Wat Bupph¡r¡m 1529

Penth 1983 J¡rük Wat Mah¡ Wan 1489

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å ç°“√ ”√«®·≈–«‘®—¬®“√÷° 1.4.1.1 «—¥¡À“«—π æ.». 2032 / §.». 1489é »‘≈ª“°√, 22.4, 2526 (1983), 71-81. ●

1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Wan 1489

Penth 1985 J¡rük Jula Khir™ 1554

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å ç°“√ ”√«®·≈–«‘®—¬®“√÷° 1.2.1.1 ®ÿ≈§‘√’ æ.». 2097 / §.». 1554é »‘≈ª“°√, 28.6, 2528 (1985), 20-26. ●

1.2.1.1 Jula Khir™ 1554

Penth 1985 J¡rük Wat P¡ Bong 1496

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å ç°“√ ”√«®·≈–«‘®—¬®“√÷° 1.6.1.1 «—¥ªÉ“∫ß æ.». 2039 / §.». 1496é »‘≈ª“°√, 29.2, 2528 (1985), 65-69. ●

1.6.1.1 Wat P¡ Bong 1496

Penth 1988 J¡rük Wat Chiang S¡ 1553

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å ç°“√ ”√«®·≈–«‘®—¬®“√÷° 1.4.1.1 «—¥‡™’¬ß “ æ.». 2096 / §.». 1553é »‘≈ª“°√, 32.2, 2531, 43-48. ●

1.4.1.1 Wat Chiang S¡ 1554

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

178

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

179

Penth 1994 Jinak¡lam¡l™ Index Hans Penth: Jinak¡lam¡l™ Index. An Annotated Index to the Thailand Part of Ratanapañña’s Chronicle Jinak¡lam¡l™. Oxford (Pali Text Society) / Chiang Mai (Silkworm Books), 1994. Penth 1994 J¡rük Wat K¡n Th£m 2042

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å 箓√÷° 1.2.1.1 «—¥«—¥°“π‚∂¡ æ.». 2042é „π  √— «¥’ ÕãÕß °ÿ≈ 燫’¬ß°ÿ¡°“¡é ‡™’¬ß„À¡à 2537 (1994) Àπâ“ 101-107. ï 1.2.1.1 Wat K¡n Th£m 1499 Penth 1994 J¡rük Wat Hua Nòng

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å 箓√÷° 1.2.1.1 «—¥À—«ÀπÕßé „π  √— «¥’ ÕãÕß °ÿ≈ 燫’¬ß°ÿ¡°“¡é ‡™’¬ß„À¡à 2537 (1994) Àπâ“ 108●

1.2.1.1 Wat Hua Nòng

Penth 1995 Lò Phò. 6 Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å çæ.¬. 27é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 190-195. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat B¡n D¡n 1496 Penth 1995 Phò Yò. 27 Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å çæ.¬. 27é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 153-164. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat L™ 1495 Penth 1995 Phò Yò. 48 Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å çæ.¬. 48é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 325-331. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng c. 1530 Penth 1995 Phò Yò. 59 Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å çæ.¬. 59é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 210-219. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat Mün Lò 1498 Penth et al. 1997 Corpus 1

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å / æ√√≥‡æÁ≠ ‡§√◊Õ‰∑¬ / »√’‡≈“ ‡°…æ√À¡ ºŸâ™à«¬∫√√≥“∏‘°“√ çª√–™ÿ¡®“√÷°≈â“ππ“, ‡≈à¡ 1, ®“√÷°„πæ‘æ‘∏¿—≥±åœ ‡™’¬ß· πé  ∂“∫—π«‘®—¬ —ߧ¡ ¡À“«‘∑¬“≈—¬‡™’¬ß„À¡à 2540. - English title: Hans Penth, Phanphen Khrüathai, S™lao Ketphrom: Corpus of L¡n N¡ Inscriptions, Vol. 1, Inscriptions in the Chiang Sän Museum. Chiang Mai, Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University, 1997, 218 pp.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

179

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

180

Penth et al. 1999 Corpus 3

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å / æ√√≥‡æÁ≠ ‡§√◊Õ‰∑¬ / »√’‡≈“ ‡°…æ√À¡ ºŸâ™à«¬∫√√≥“∏‘°“√ çª√–™ÿ¡®“√÷°≈â“ππ“, ‡≈à¡ 3, ®“√÷°„πæ‘æ‘∏¿—≥±åœ ≈”æŸπé  ∂“∫—π«‘®—¬ —ߧ¡ ¡À“«‘∑¬“≈—¬‡™’¬ß„À¡à 2542. - English title: Hans Penth, Phanphen Khrüathai, S¡lao Ketphrom: Corpus of L¡n N¡ Inscriptions, Vol. 3, Inscriptions in the Lamph¢n Museum. Chiang Mai, Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University, 1999, 362 pp. Penth et al. 2000 Corpus 4

Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å / æ√√≥‡æÁ≠ ‡§√◊Õ‰∑¬ / »√’‡≈“ ‡°…æ√À¡ ºŸâ™à«¬∫√√≥“∏‘°“√ çª√–™ÿ¡®“√÷°≈â“ππ“, ‡≈à¡ 4, ®“√÷°„πæ‘æ‘∏¿—≥±åœ ‡™’¬ß„À¡àé  ∂“∫—π«‘®—¬ —ߧ¡ ¡À“«‘∑¬“≈—¬‡™’¬ß„À¡à 2543. - English title: Hans Penth, Phanphen Khrüathai, S™lao Ketphrom: Corpus of L¡n N¡ Inscriptions, Vol. 4, Inscriptions in the Chiang Mai Museum. Chiang Mai, Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University, 2000, 313 pp. Phräphithay¡ 1964 Dic.

∫√‘…—∑·æ√àæ‘∑¬“«—ß∫Ÿ√æ“ √«∫√«¡‚¥¬ ¡“π‘µ ¡“𑵇®√‘≠ çæ®π“πÿ°√¡‰∑¬é °√ÿ߇∑æœ 32507. Pras¡n 1969 J¡rük Wat B¡n Läng

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç§”Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... ‰¥â¡“®“°«—¥∫â“π·≈ß ...é »‘≈ª“°√, 13.3, 2512, 1969, 114-116. ●

1.6.1.1 Wat B¡n Läng 1469

Pras¡n 1973 J¡rük B¡n Mä N¡ Rüa

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç§”Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... ‰¥â¡“®“°«—¥·¡àπ“‡√◊Õ ...é »‘≈ª“°√, 17.4, 2516 / 1973, 105-108. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng Mün 1493

Pras¡n 1995 Phò Yò. 6

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß çæ.¬. 6é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 134-139. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat N¡ng Mün 1493

Pras¡n et al. 1995 Lò Phò. 24

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√é ≈æ. 24 ®“√÷°æ√–¬“ Õß·§«é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 83-86. ● 1.5.1.1 B¡n Nòng Tao 1474 Pras¡n / Prasöt 1965 J¡rük Wat S™ Um£ng Kham

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... ‰¥â¡“®“°«—¥»√’Õÿ‚¡ß§” ...é »‘≈ª“°√, 8.6, 2508 / 1965, 76-80. ●

1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

180

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

181

Pras¡n / Prasöt 1965 J¡rük Wat S™ Um£ng Kham

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... ‰¥â¡“®“°«—¥»√’Õÿ‚¡ß§” ...é »‘≈ª“°√, 9.1, 2508 / 1965, 46-52. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497

Pras¡n / Prasöt 1965 Sil¡ J¡rük Wat S™ Um£ng Kham

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... ‰¥â¡“®“°«—¥»√’Õÿ‚¡ß§” ...é »‘≈ª“°√, 9.2, 2508 / 1965, 68-71. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat Dòn Khr¡m 1488

Pras¡n / Prasöt 1965 J¡rük Wat S™ Kh£m Kham

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... ‰¥â¡“®“°«—¥»√’ ‚§¡§” ...é »‘≈ª“°√, 9.4, 2508 / 1965, 58-63. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat ¤r¡m P¡ Ya 1495

Pras¡n / Prasöt 1969 Kham ¡n sil¡ j¡rük

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° é »‘≈ª“°√, 13.4, 2512 / 1969, 77-79. (only lines 1-8) ● 1.5.1.1 B¡n Nòng Tao 1474 Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 Lak th™ 99

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 99 »‘≈“®“√÷°«—¥ÀπÕß°«“ßé ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 4, 2513 (1970), 81-85. ●

1.4.1.1 Wat Nòng Kw¡ng 1513

Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 Lak th™ 100

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 100 »‘≈“®“√÷°«—¥¥Õπ§√“¡é ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 4, 2513 (1970), 86-89. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat Dòn Khr¡m 1488

Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 Lak th™ 101

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 101 »‘≈“®“√÷°«—¥ªÉ“„À¡àé ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 4, 2513 (1970), 90-96. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497

Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 Lak th™ 103

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 103 »‘≈“®“√÷°«—¥»√’ ‚§¡§”é ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 4, 2513 (1970), 105-110. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat ¤r¡m P¡ Ya

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

181

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

182

Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 J¡rük Wat Tap£th¡r¡m

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... ‰¥â¡“®“°«—¥µ–‚ª∑“√“¡...é »‘≈ª“°√, 13.6, 2513 (1970), 95-100. ●

1.2.1.1 Wat Tap£th¡r¡m 1492

Pras¡n / Prasöt 1970 J¡rük s¡l¡ kl¡ng Jangwat Lamp¡ng

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... Àπâ“»“≈°≈“ß®—ßÀ«—¥≈”ª“ßé »‘≈ª“°√, 14.3, 2513 (1970), 87-93. ●

1.3.1.1 Dòi Jam Tham 1502

Pras¡n / Prasöt 1971 J¡rük Wat Ph¡ Kh¡o P¡n

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... «—¥ºâ“¢“«ªÑ“πé »‘≈ª“°√, 15.2, 2514 (1971), 89-94. ●

1.4.1.1 Wat Ph¡ Kh¡o P¡n 1617

Pras¡n / Prasöt 1995 Phò Yò. 2

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ çæ.¬. 2 ®“√÷°«—¥¥Õπ§√“¡é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 105-109. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat Dòn Khr¡m 1488 Pras¡n / Prasöt 1995 Phò Yò. 7

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ çæ.¬. 7 ®“√÷°«—¥ªÉ“≠–é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 165-172. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat ¤r¡m P¡ Ya 1495 Pras¡n / Prasöt 1995 Phò Yò. 8

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ çæ.¬. 8é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 202-209. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat P¡ Mai 1497 Pras¡n / Thöm 1977 Phò.Yò./3

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... æ.¬./3é »‘≈ª“°√, 21.3, 2520, 26-28. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng 1491

Pras¡n / Thöm 1995 Phò Yò. 3

ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ 秔Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... æ.¬./3é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 110-115. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng 1491

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

182

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

183

Prasöt 1971 Mang R¡i S¡t

ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ ç¡—ß√“¬»“ µ√åé °√ÿ߇∑æœ 2514. Prasöt 1975 M¢las¡san¡

ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ çµ”π“π¡Ÿ≈»“ π“é °√ÿ߇∑æœ 2518. Purnell 1963 Dic. Herbert C. Purnell: A Short Northern Thai - English Dictionary (Tai Yuan). Chiang Mai, 1963 Rispaud 1937 Les noms Jean Rispaud: Les noms à éléments numéraux des principautés tai. JSS, 29.2, 1937, 77-122. Sarasin 1933 (1959) Prehistorical Researches Fritz Sarasin: Prehistorical Researches in Siam. JSS, 26.2, 1933 p. 171-202. Reprint: The Siam Society: Selected Articles from The Siam Society Journal, vol.3, Bangkok, 1959, p.101-132. Schmitt 1895 No. 3 Inscription Xieng Sën Schmitt: No.III. Inscription thaie de Xieng Sën ...; in: Lucien Fournereau: Le Siam ancien, Première partie, Paris, 1895, p.142-145 + 2 pl. ● 1.4.1.1 Wat Pr¡s¡t 1496 Schmitt 1898 No. 5 Inscription Vat Suvarna Arama Schmitt: V. Inscription thaie du roi de Xieng-Mai Somdec Pavitra Matra Raja Chao du Vat Suvarna Arama. In: Pavie 1898 Etudes diverses (2): 261-275. ● 1.2.1.1 Wat S™ Suphan 1509 Schmitt 1898 No. 6 Inscription Vat Lampoeung Schmitt: VI. Inscription ... du Vat Lampoeung. In: Pavie 1898 Etudes diverses (2): 277-295. ● 1.2.1.1 Wat Tap£th¡r¡m 1492 Schmitt 1898 No. 9 Inscription de la caverne Schmitt: IX. Inscription thaie ... de la caverne du mont Doi-tham-phra ... In: Pavie 1898 Etudes diverses (2): 331-339. ● 1.4.1.1 Dòi Tham Phra 1484

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

183

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

184

Schmitt 1898 No.18 Inscription Vat Louang Schmitt: XVIII. Inscriptions thaies de Lampoun-Haripuñjayapura. Vat Louang ... In: Pavie 1898 Etudes diverses (2): 399-405. ● 1.3.1.1 WPT Hariphunchai 1509 Schmitt 1898 No. 20 Inscription Vat Chetyot Schmitt: XX. Inscriptions thaies du Vat Chay Die Chetyot (Cheti Cet Yot) ... In: Pavie 1898 Etudes diverses (2): 411-423. ● 1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Ph£thi 1500 Schmitt 1898 No. 27 Inscription Vat Chay Die Suphan Schmitt: XXVII Inscription thaie du Vat Chay Die Suphan. In: Pavie 1898 Etudes diverses (2): 447-448, 459-463. ● 1.4.1.1 Wat S™ Sutth¡w¡t 1496 Shorto 1971 Dic. Mon Inscriptions H.L. Shorto: A Dictionary of the Mon Inscriptions from the Sixth to the Sixteenth Centuries. London, OUP, 1971. Suárez 1999 Early Mapping Thomas Suárez: Early Mapping of Southeast Asia. Singapore, Periplus Editions, 1999. Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao  ÿ®µ‘ µå «ß…å‡∑» (∫√√≥“∏‘°“√) “ª√–™ÿ¡®“√÷°‡¡◊Õßæ–‡¬“, Inscriptional History of Phayao” °√ÿ߇∑æœ

¡µ‘™π 2538 (1995). The book contains 112 mostly stone inscriptions from Phayao province. Each inscription is presented, with good photographs, in transliteration as well as in a modern Thai reading with notes, and the names of the authors responsible for them are indicated. However, there is reason to suspect that these text editions are not always ascribed to the correct authors, and also, that footnotes were altered, omitted and added without the author’s knowledge. Sut / Phrom 1939 M¢las¡san¡

 ÿ¥ »√’ ¡«ß»å / æ√À¡ ¢¡“≈“ çµ”π“π¡Ÿ≈»“ π“é °√ÿ߇∑æœ °√¡»‘≈ª“°√ 2482. Tavernier 1718 Les six voyages Jean Baptiste Tavernier: Les six voyages ... en Turquie, en Perse, et aux Indes, pendant espace de quarante ans ... La Haye, 1718. (2 vols)

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

184

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

185

Thawat 1987/88 J¡rük Wat P¡ Yai 2

∏«—™ ªÿ≥‚≥∑° 绑≈“®“√÷°Õ’ “π ¡—¬‰∑¬-≈“«é °√ÿ߇∑æœ (Vol. 1, Texts) 2530 (1987), Àπâ“ 372-376; (Vol.2, Illustrations) ç ¡ÿ¥¿“滑≈“®“√÷°Õ’ “πé °√ÿ߇∑æœ 2531 (1988) Àπâ“ 105 (箓√÷°«—¥ªÉ“„À≠à 2é) ●

2.3.1.1 Wat P¡ Luang 1808

Thöm 1995 Phò Yò. 3 ‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ çæ.¬. 3é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 116-120. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat Khw¡ng 1491 (2) Thöm 1995 Phò Yò. 9

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ çæ.¬. 9, ®“√÷°«—¥æ≠“√à«ßé in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 228-233. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat Phra Ruang 1498

Thöm 1995 Lò Phò. 10

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ ç≈æ. 10, ®“√÷°«—¥æ√–§”é In: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 173-183. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat Phra Kham 1496

Thöm 1995 Phò Yò. 19

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ çæ.¬. 19, ®“√÷°§” “ª·™àßé In: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 385-389 ●

1.5.1.1 Phayao 1411

Thöm 1995 Phò Yò. 47

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ çæ.¬. 47, ®“√÷°‡®â“À¡◊Ëπ‡≈’È¬ß ‡ªìπ‡®â“ ’ËÀ¡◊Ëπ‡¡◊Õß欓«é In: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 64-67 ● 1.5.1.1 Wiang Kao Phayao 1411 Thöm 1995 Phò Yò. 57 ‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ çæ.¬. 57é In: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 122-127 ● 1.5.1.1 Wat Kl¡ng 1490 Thöm et al. 1991 Lak th™ 302

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 302 ®“√÷°æ√–¬“ Õß·§«é ª√–™ÿ¡ »‘≈“®“√÷° ¿“§∑’Ë 7 °√ÿ߇∑æœ 2534 (1991) Àπâ“ 99-101 (only lines 1-8). ●

1.5.1.1 B¡n Nòng Tao 1474

Thöm / Pras¡n 1970 J¡rük C.S. 858

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç§”Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... ®.». 858 ... ≈ª/摇»… 1é »‘≈ª“°√, 14.4, 2513 (1970), 95-100. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat B¡n D¡n 1496

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

185

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

186

Thöm / Pras¡n 1971 J¡rük C.S. 859

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç§”Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... ®.». 859é »‘≈ª“°√, 14.5, 2514 (1971), 115-119. ●

1.2.1.1 Wat Käo L¡t 1497

Thöm / Pras¡n 1971 J¡rük C.S. 858 WPT S™ Jòm Thòng

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç§”Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ... ®.». 585 ... «—¥æ√–∏“µÿ»√’®Õ¡∑Õßé »‘≈ª“°√, 14.6, 2514 (1971), 82-87. ●

1.2.1.1 Wat S™ Bun Rüang 1496

Thöm / Pras¡n 1973 J¡rük Lò Phò./22

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç§”Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ≈æ./22é »‘≈ª“°√, 17.1, 2517 / 1973, 92-96. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat Wisuttha-¤r¡m 1506

Thöm / Pras¡n 1974 J¡rük Lò Phò./21

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç§”Õà“π»‘≈®“√÷° ≈æ./21é »‘≈ª“°√, 18.3, 2517, 15-17. ï1.4.1.1 Dòi Tham Phra 1484 Thöm / Pras¡n 1974 J¡rük Lò Phò./26

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç§”Õà“π®“√÷° æ‘æ‘∏¿—≥±åœ ≈æ./26é »‘≈ª“°√, 18.4, 2517 (1974), 85-88. ●

1.4.1.1 Wat Mah¡ Ph™thi 1500

Thöm / Pras¡n 1974 J¡rük Wat Kao Yòt Lò Phò./27

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç§”Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° «—¥‡°â“¬Õ¥ ≈æ./27é »‘≈ª“°√, 18.1, 2517, 76-79. ●

1.5.1.1 Wat Kao Yòt 1412

Thöm / Pras¡n 1978 J¡rük Wat Bun B¡n Lò Phò./20

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç§”Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° «—¥∫ÿπ∫“π ≈æ./20é »‘≈ª“°√, 22.1, 2521, 51-53. ●

1.3.1.1 Wat Bun B¡n 1504

Thöm / Pras¡n 1978 J¡rük Lò Phò. 17

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç§”Õà“π»‘≈“®“√÷° ≈æ. 17é »‘≈ª“°√, 22.3, 2521, 68-71. ●

1.4.1.1 Mah¡ Th¡t Chiang Lä 1611

Thöm / Pras¡n 1981 J¡rük Phra Jao In Päng

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç»‘≈“®“√÷° æ√–‡®â“Õ‘π·ªß Õ∫./14é »‘≈ª“°√ 24.6, 2524 / 1981, 5664. ●

2.3.1.1 Wat P¡ Luang 1808

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

186

9/8/05, 8:58

On Rice and Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡

187

Thöm / Pras¡n 1995 Lò Phò. 22

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç≈æ. 22 ®“√÷°«—¥«‘ ÿ∑∏Õ“√“¡é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 265-272. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat Wisuttha ¤r¡m 1506 Thöm / Pras¡n 1995 Lò Phò. 27

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß ç≈æ. 27 ®“√÷°«—¥‡°â“¬Õ¥é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 72-78. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat Kao Yòt 1412 Thöm / Pras¡n 1995 Phò Yò. 4

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß çæ.¬. 4 ®“√÷°«—¥«‘ ÿ∑∏“√“¡é in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 128-133. ● 1.5.1.1 Wat Wisuttha ¤r¡m Khòi Sum 1492 Thöm / Pras¡n 1995 Phò Yò. 13

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß çæ.¬. 13 ®“√÷°«—¥ ‘∫ ÕßÀâÕßé in: Sujit 1995 Prachum J¡rük Phayao: 296-305. ●1.5.1.1 Wat Sip-sòng Hòng 1516 Thöm et al. 1980 J¡rük kasat Lò Phò./9

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ 绑≈“®“√÷°°…—µ√‘¬å√“™«ß»å¡—ß√“¬ ≈æ./9é »‘≈ª“°√, 24.2, 2523, 46-51, 3 figs. ●

1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wih¡n 1411

Thöm et al. 1986 J¡rük Phra Jao In Päng

‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß / ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ 箓√÷°æ√–‡®â“Õ‘π·ªßé „π: ÀÕ ¡ÿ¥·Ààß™“µ‘ (®—¥æ‘¡æå) 箓√÷°„πª√–‡∑»‰∑¬é, ‡≈à¡ 5, 2529 (1986), 253-257. (No footnotes). ●

2.3.1.1 Wat P¡ Luang 1808

Thon 1971 Chronicle of Chiang Mai

∑π µπ¡—Ëπ (ª√‘«√√µ) çµ”π“πæ◊Èπ‡¡◊Õ߇™’¬ß„À¡àé °√ÿ߇∑æœ  ”π—°π“¬°√—∞¡πµ√’ 2514. Udom 1991 Dic.

Õÿ¥¡ √ÿà߇√◊Õß»√’ çæ®π“πÿ°√¡≈â“ππ“-‰∑¬é °√ÿ߇∑æœ 2534. (A.D. 1991) Udom 1996 Chronicle of Chiang Mai

Õÿ¥¡ √ÿßà ‡√◊Õß»√’ çµ”π“πæ◊πÈ ‡¡◊Õ߇™’¬ß„À¡à ©∫—∫ 700 ªïé ‡™’¬ß„À¡à »Ÿπ¬å«≤ — π∏√√¡®—ßÀ«—¥‡™’¬ß„À¡à  ∂“∫—π √“™¿—؇™’¬ß„À¡à 2539.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

187

9/8/05, 8:58

HANS PENTH

188

Wershoven c. 1900 Lehrbuch F.J. Wershoven: Lehr- und Lesebuch der Siamesischen Sprache. Hartleben, Wien, Pest, Leipzig, no date. Appr. 1900. Winai et al. 1991 Lak th™ 301

«‘π—¬ æß»å»√’‡æ’¬√ / ‡∑‘¡ ¡’‡µÁ¡ / ª√– “√ ∫ÿ≠ª√–§Õß çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 301 ®“√÷°«—¥ ÿ«√√≥¡À“«‘À“√æ–‡¬“é ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷°, 7, 2534 (1991), 2534, 89-98. ●

1.5.1.1 Phra Suwanna Mah¡ Wih¡n 1411

Winai / Kannik¡ 1991 Lak th™ 318

«‘π—¬ æß»å»√’‡æ’¬√ / °√√≥‘°“√å «‘¡≈‡°…¡ çÀ≈—°∑’Ë 318, ®“√÷°‡®â“À¡◊Ëπ§”π§√ ∫â“πÀ⫬∑√“¬≈“«é ª√–™ÿ¡ »‘≈“®“√÷°, 7, 2534 (1991), 168-174. ●

2.2.1.1 Sunanth¡r¡m 1459

Wyatt / Arunrat 1995 Chronicle of Chiang Mai David K. Wyatt / Aroonrut Wichienkeeo: The Chiang Mai Chronicle. Chiang Mai, Silkworm Books, 1995; second ed. 1998.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P157-188

188

9/8/05, 8:58

ECLIPSES IN SIAM, 1685 AND 1688, AND THEIR REPRESENTATION Michael Smithies

Abstract The Jesuits as part of their conversion strategy sought to impress royal courts and nobles with their mathematical and astronomical knowledge. The first French Jesuits to come to Siam in 1685 were on their way to China for this purpose. They profited from a lunar eclipse to demonstrate their science to King Narai. One of their number, Tachard, instead of going to China returned to France and brought back in 1687, supposedly at King Narai’s request, fourteen more mathematical Jesuits, this time destined to stay in Siam. The following year they observed, separately from the king, a lunar eclipse on 16 April at a crucial juncture of events for the French in Siam, when General Desfarges had refused to advance to Lopburi to support Phaulkon in his bid to check the impending revolt of Phetracha. There was also a solar eclipse witnessed on 30 April 18 days before the coup led by Phetracha; this was witnessed by the king and the Jesuits, but only one text remarks on this. The lunar eclipse of 1685 and the solar eclipse of 1688 were both (probably imaginatively) illustrated contemporaneously, and the contents of the collection of naïve watercolours in which the solar eclipse is found, in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, are examined. The first French embassy to Siam, led by the Chevalier de Chaumont and seconded by the Abbé de Choisy in 1685, was accompanied by six Jesuits, led by Fr de Fontaney, and comprising Bouvet, Gerbillon, Le Comte, de Visdelou and the intrepid Guy Tachard, who was to play such an unfortunate role in Franco-Siamese affairs. None of the Jesuits, who as well as being mathematicians were also astrologers, was destined to remain in Siam; they were on their way to China, to impress the court, as the full title of Tachard’s record of the embassy shows, here given as in Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

189

9/8/05, 8:59

189

MICHAEL SMITHIES

190

the 1688 London edition: Relation of the Voyage to Siam performed by six Jesuits sent by the French King, to the Indies and China, in the Year 1685, with their Astrological Observations, and their remarks of Natural Philosophy, Geography, Hydrography, and History. Siam was only a stopping-off place; the real aim was China, where Matteo Ricci had worked so effectively from the end of the sixteenth century. The first batch of Jesuits sent to China via Siam in 1685 did not waste their time. Apart from all the prayers and masses on board, they took out their instruments at the first opportunity and did not hide their light under a bushel. They impressed the Dutch governor at the Cape with their calculations, and when in Batavia some went ashore to take observations at night. Only Choisy, though, mentions that on 16 June, nine days after leaving the Cape for Bantem, there was a lunar eclipse. We observed this evening a lunar eclipse... The penumbra began at 6.15 in the evening, and the eclipse at 6.43 and 26 seconds. You can see that Father de Fontaney and I go into the greatest details. The eclipse was total for one hour ten minutes. We saw the reddish disk of the moon, smaller than when illuminated; with the telescope we saw a sort of vast plume covering the whole body of the moon. Our poor mandarins,1 who make so much ado about the moon, came out of their lair, from which, in parenthesis, they never emerge, and came to see the piteous state it was in; they could not bear the sight of it, and went back to bed. (Choisy 1993: 89) The other chroniclers of the outward journey, Chaumont, Forbin, Bouvet, and even Tachard, pass over the event in silence. In Siam the Jesuits had to wait until they were in Lopburi for an occasion to show off their knowledge, for a lunar eclipse took place on 11 December 1685 and this time Tachard, the self-appointed recorder of the six Jesuits, did not hesitate to devote several pages to a description of the occasion and how much King Narai was interested in astronomy. Choisy is, as usual, more succinct: his entry for 11 December reads

1

The returning khunnang, Khun Pichit Maitri and Khun Phichai Walit, sent to France in 1684 to discover what had happened to the embassy of 1680 (lost a total wreck off Madagascar about the end of 1681). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

190

9/8/05, 8:59

Eclipses in Siam, 1685 and 1688 and their Representation

191

Last night there was an eclipse of the moon, which began at a quarter past three in the morning. Father de Fontaney and his companions set up all their telescopes in a room next to that of the King, and His Majesty observed everything with them. He left behind on this occasion his seriousness, and permitted them to be at the same height as he, and showed himself much pleased. (Choisy 1993: 215) Tachard’s prolix account shows that the viewing of the eclipse took place at “Thlee-Poussonne” (Tale Chupson), a kind of Siamese Trianon a league outside Lopburi. The Jesuits went to the Gallery where the observation was to be made. It was then near Three of the Clock in the Morning... We prepared a very good Telescope for [His Majesty] five foot long, in a Window of a Room that looked into the Gallery where we were... The King expressed a particular Satisfaction, seeing all the Spots of the Moon in the Telescope... He put several Questions to us during the Eclipse. He had a mind to look in a Telescope twelve foot long... He suffered us to rise and stand in his Presence, and would look in the Telescope after us, for we must needs set it to its Point when we presented it to him... (Tachard, 1688: 236-8) This scene is visually recorded in his first Voyage de Siam... (1686, with many reprints). Van der Cruysse (1995: 459) noted that much of the success of Tachard’s volume lay in the ‘dozen very mediocre engravings’ it contained (in fact there were thirty, though only thirteen dealt with Siam, the rest covering the Cape of Good Hope, Bantam, and Batavia). Engraving XXVI has as its legend a banner, in French, flying above The Palace of Louvo from where the King of Siam observes a lunar eclipse. The night scene shows King Narai at a balcony, looking into a long telescope, with a shadowy figure beside him probably meant to represent the Levantine favourite Constantine Phaulkon, six variously prostrating courtiers to the left, and to the right six squatting Jesuits looking through their instruments at the moon. Michel Jacq-Hergoualc’h, in his catalogue of the exhibition Phra Narai, Roi de Siam, et Louis XIV held at the Musée de l’Orangerie, Paris, in 1986, notes that the vignettes in Tachard’s book were drawn by Pierre-Paul Sevin and engraved in Paris by Cornelius-Martin Vermeulen, neither of whom accompanied the Jesuits, nor formed part of the ambassadorial retinue of Chaumont. The drawings and engravings were probably made in great haste after a few casual descriptions gleaned from the manuscript or possibly Tachard in person, and perhaps sketches which he Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

191

9/8/05, 8:59

MICHAEL SMITHIES

192

The lunar eclipse, illustrated in Tachard (1686)

may or may not have seen. The text of the book was probably ready for publication by the time he and the Chaumont embassy returned to France in June 1686, leaving the other five Jesuits in Siam to continue their journey to China, which they did with some difficulty. A second French mission to Siam, led by the envoys extraordinary La Loubère and Céberet, was decided upon in Paris, and left Brest in March 1687 together with an expeditionary force commanded by General Desfarges with secret orders to take the ports of Bangkok and Megui by force if necessary. Also on board the five vessels taking the mission were the returning Tachard, with fourteen other royally-appointed Jesuits (one of whom was to die en route) skilled in mathematics and astrology, selected to impress King Narai with their knowledge; Phaulkon, then wielding much influence at the Siamese court, had suggested in a letter of December 1685 taken and recorded by Tachard (1688: 245) to Fr de La Chaize, Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

192

9/8/05, 8:59

Eclipses in Siam, 1685 and 1688 and their Representation

193

Louis XIV’s confessor, that twelve mathematical Jesuits would give the king much joy; Phaulkon doubtless hoped they would be useful in aiding the king’s improbable conversion to Catholicism. Tachard and his fellow-Jesuits in 1687 were able to witness a solar eclipse on 11 May at sea near the Tropic of Capricorn. They had been alerted to this by the director of the Paris observatory, Cassini, before their departure from France. Tachard’s account of his second journey to Siam is stuffed with extracts taken from the writings, usually acknowledged, of others; in this case it is Fr Richaud who provides the text describing the eclipse (Tachard 1689: 30-31). But Tachard’s Second Voyage..., which had very little success and no relevant illustrations, only covers the period from the departure from France to Tachard’s leaving Siam at the beginning on January 1688, as the personal representative of King Narai to Louis XIV and Pope Innocent XI. On his departure Fr Le Royer became the superior of the remaining twelve, who appear to have mostly stayed together close to the court in Lopburi, where three spent their days in Thai monasteries learning the royal language, rajasap. There were no less than three eclipses visible in Siam in 1688. The first occurred at a crucial juncture of events for the French. Phaulkon had summoned Desfarges to Lopburi on 31 March or 1 April 1688 to discuss what to do about the plot being hatched by Phetracha against himself and King Narai. Phaulkon managed to arrange a brief audience with the king, Desfarges agreed to return to Bangkok, select around eighty men (the number varies, though Desfarges himself says seventy men and five officers) and return to Lopburi to nip the plot in the bud (Smithies 2002: 28). He selected his best men, got as far as Ayutthaya, and there allowed himself to be persuaded by Véret, the head of the French East Indies Company godown in Ayutthaya, who detested Phaulkon, and the Abbé de Lionne (then also Bishop of Rosalie), maintaining that the city was full of rumours that King Narai - whom Desfarges had seen a couple of days previously - was dead, that it was a plot of Phaulkon’s to have the French support him at this moment of crisis, and that the way from Ayutthaya to Lopburi was full of troops ready to attack the handful of French. Louis Laneau, Bishop of Metellopolis, the head of the French Foreign Missions in Siam, sensibly suggested sending a messenger to Lopburi to find out the truth of the situation. Lieutenant Le Roy was selected and arrived in Lopburi, without meeting any troops en route, to find everything quiet. The relevant texts give details. The usually reliable, and still unpublished anonymous text Relation des principales circonstances qui sont arrivées dans la Révolution du Royaume de Siam en l’année 1687 (with a clearly wrong date probably added by someone other Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

193

9/8/05, 8:59

MICHAEL SMITHIES

194

than the author), is very informative in the matter of the lunar eclipse: It was therefore resolved to send an officer to Louvo to see if the warnings of Véret were justified, to inform M. de Constance of the cause of his [Desfarges’] delay in arriving, and during the interval M. Desfarges would leave [the city of] Siam with his troops to go and station himself two leagues below the city. An infantry lieutenant was selected to take the letter [of Desfarges], and after taking all precautions which a man could take who did not want to be surprised, he hid it in the knot of his wig, and only travelled through the fields. But he was quite astonished to see that these precautions were pointless, and all he met with on his journey were elephants, horses, barges and palanquins which M. de Constance had sent half-way to receive M. Desfarges and his troops. As soon as this officer had arrived at Louvo, where he expected to see at least great agitation and people under arms, he was very surprised to find everything completely quiet, both at the house of the Jesuit Fathers, who were observing a lunar eclipse at the same time as the king was doing the same thing in his palace, and he sent questions to them from time to time about this eclipse, and at the house of M. de Constance everything was quite normal. (BN Ms Fr 6105, ff.12r-v) The king and the Jesuits watched the lunar eclipse (since it was at night it could not be otherwise), but the king did so separately in his palace, and the Jesuits in their house. There is no mention of Phetracha, and Phaulkon was not indicated at being present at the viewing of the eclipse. The anonymous, badly spelt and poorly penned Relation de se qui cest pasé a Louvo... confirms that Mr Desfarges sent a lieutenant who found everything calm in Louvo and saw no disturbance. He went first of all to the Jesuit fathers who had observed that night a lunar eclipse, about which the king himself had asked for explanations which these Fathers gave him; from there he went to the residence of Mr Constance where he found everything calm. (AN Col. C1 24 f.142r) The Missionary Fr Martineau, writing to the Directors of the Mission Etrangères in Paris on 12 July 1689 to summarize events which had occurred in 1688 and subsequently, wrote that Desfarges, after selecting his men to take to Lopburi, ‘arrived in the town of Siam on 15 April, being Maundy Thursday’.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

194

9/8/05, 8:59

Eclipses in Siam, 1685 and 1688 and their Representation

195

(Launay, 1920: 202) Le Roy is not named as messenger, but is said to have met on the way to Lopburi (where he arrived at midnight) ‘many armed men’ which caused Desfarges to decide to return to Bangkok. Nothing is said about the eclipse or its observation, but we are given a firm calendar date. Two Jesuits, de Bèze and Le Blanc, both in Lopburi at the time, left detailed accounts of events in 1688. De Bèze’s text was not published until 1947.2 His comment is relevant: after listening to Laneau’s advice, to explain to Phaulkon the rumours circulating in the capital, one of the officers, Mr Le Roy, was sent off with a letter from the General to Constance... The bearer of this letter arrived in Louvo at 1 a.m. on Good Friday, but Constance had not yet retired to bed. After joining our [i.e. the Jesuits’] party in order to observe an eclipse of the Moon, he had then engaged in devotions before the Holy Sacrament, exposed in the Chapel...(Hutchinson, 1969: 843) His fellow Jesuit, Le Blanc, published in 1692 his account of events of 1688. He does not name Le Roy, but says an officer was secretly sent to observe the state of affairs on the way to and in Lopburi. He arrived at midnight...[and] reached the city gates... but he was very surprised to find the gates open as usual... He found no one in the streets, but everywhere a total silence and darkness. He went to the house of the Jesuit Fathers where he was still more frightened, when he found the outer door open, and was in no doubt that everyone had perished. But he was soon reassured on hearing the laughter and voices of the French workmen who lived in a courtyard of the house. There was that night a lunar eclipse. The Fathers had observed it, M. and Mme Constance with two Portuguese relatives of theirs had out of curiosity taken part in the observation. The king was also observing the eclipse in his palace with his Brahmin astrologer, and even sent to the Fathers a mandarin to ask them several questions. In this measure was the court in total tranquillity, since the night was spent in such a peaceful occupation. (Le Blanc, 2003: 30-31).

2

It badly needs reprinting; only one copy apparently exists in Paris. There is an editorial parenthesis at the time of 1 a.m., ‘[16 April 1687].’ Hutchinson may have checked this in the texts or in a perpetual calendar, but made a proofing error in the year. 3

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

195

9/8/05, 8:59

MICHAEL SMITHIES

196

The 1688 solar eclipse

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

196

9/8/05, 8:59

Eclipses in Siam, 1685 and 1688 and their Representation

197

The two Jesuits make clear that the lunar eclipse was observed by the Jesuits at their house in the company of Phaulkon and others of his party. De Bèze supplies indirectly a date for the event (16 April). Le Blanc gives no date, but specifies that Desfarges arrived in Ayutthaya from Bangkok on 15 April. He also makes clear that the king observed the eclipse in his palace, and sent a mandarin with some questions about the event to the Jesuits, though his text does not indicate if the mandarin was sent once or several times, as Anon.6105 claims. Other relevant texts (of Beauchamp, Saint Vandrille, La Touche, Véret, the pro-Dutch Relation succincte...) make no mention of the lunar eclipse on 15-16 April though do deal with the departure of Le Roy for Lopburi. According to a perpetual calendar (see note 4 below), another lunar eclipse was visible in Siam on 9 October 1688. No reference to this has been found by us in any text. The French, holed up in their fort in Bangkok, were undoubtedly far too preoccupied with the unexpected arrival of Madame Phaulkon in the fort on 4 October, only to be forced out, on Desfarges’ orders, by Beauchamp on 18th (see Relation de se qui cest pasé...ff.162r-164v). There was yet another eclipse to be seen in Siam in April 1688, this time solar. Astonishingly, only Beauchamp appears to note this, when still in Lopburi, eight pages after mentioning the Le Roy mission: Mr Constance, who only saw the king with difficulty, though every day he went to the palace, to dissuade me of the view held that he was dead, took me with him, and when His Majesty was passing to see his elephants he presented me to thank him for the thousand écus he had caused to be given me. This monarch was in a chair carried on the shoulders of four men, accompanied by Phetracha. Mr Constance took advantage of this occasion to speak to him about an eclipse of the sun which was to occur in a few days; he asked if his health was strong enough to allow him to witness it, and [if so] the Jesuit Fathers would give him this pleasure. He replied he was, and he should bring them when the eclipse was to occur. Mr Constance brought the Jesuit Fathers to the palace; they set up their telescopes before the king who spent at most less than half an hour with them because the weather was not as good as one would have hoped. After that eclipse Mr Constance did not see the king... (Beauchamp ff.518v-519v)

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

197

9/8/05, 8:59

MICHAEL SMITHIES

198

This eclipse is confirmed, for China, by Le Comte (1696: 456-463), one of the six Jesuits who went to Siam in 1685. He witnessed it ‘at the end of April in the year 1688’ in ‘Kiam Chéou...in the province of Chansi’ (probably Changchih in Shansi), and notes it was also visible in other parts of China, namely ‘Pekin and HamChéou’ (Beijing and Hangchow). The date of 30 April 1688 is also confirmed by a perpetual calendar program available on the internet,4 which indicates the solar eclipse was visible in Siam. For Siamese, who disliked eclipses as much as Le Comte indicated the Chinese did (believing that the moon or sun was being devoured by a dragon, to avoid which they made as much noise as possible to frighten the dragon away), to have both a lunar and a solar eclipse within a couple of weeks must have increased a sense of general foreboding among the populace. Choisy’s observation of the reaction of the two returning khunnang to the lunar eclipse of 16 June1685 has already been noted. There exists an often reproduced naïve watercolour by an unknown artist showing King Narai watching this solar eclipse from a window in his palace, with a standing Jesuit nearby handing him an instrument, ten other Jesuits seated in a circle round a long telescope, a seated European wearing a wig in the circle on the palace side, and a small figure close to the telescope in the foreground, each of the two flanks of the circle decorated with six prostrate courtiers apiece, their heads bowed to the ground and their hands joined in reverence. The legend for the solar eclipse scene reads (in French), after the title ‘The eclipse of the sun at Siam in 1688 in the month of April’, This was viewed by the Missionary and Mathematician Jesuits sent by the King to the East Indies in 1687. It was at Louvo in the King’s palace that it was observed in the presence of this prince who was at a window of a large Hall of His Palace seated in an armchair, and the Jesuits with Mr Constance who acted as interpreter for them were seated with their legs crossed on a large Turkish carpet. One saw on both sides a row of prostrate mandarins with their heads bowed down to the ground. On this occasion a fine parallactic machine, which is a kind of clock to which is attached a telescope that follows the Movement of the Sun, was used. There can be seen the mandarin Opra Pitratcha who came to see this machine close to. It is he who seized the Kingdom of Siam and chased out the French. (Van der Cruysse 1995: 461) 4

For this information and for the textual reference for Le Comte, I am indebted to Monsieur Bernard Suisse, who notes that the program is called Calendar Magic, the site of which is http:// www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,944,00.asp. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

198

9/8/05, 8:59

Eclipses in Siam, 1685 and 1688 and their Representation

199

This confirms Beauchamp’s account (though does not give a precise date either), but whether Phetracha was present is doubtful; he was already suspected by Phaulkon of plotting against the king, and is unlikely, as a declared supporter of the Buddhist clergy (‘pagodiste’, as Le Blanc has it) to have welcomed being in the presence of several Jesuits. On the other hand, he may have chosen to go to the palace to keep an eye on what Phaulkon might say to the king, and, as seen from Beauchamp’s text, was wont to accompany the king at a time when Phaulkon’s star may have been waning. The garrison adjutant Beauchamp had little time for Phaulkon once he saw which way the wind was blowing, and still less for the engineer Vollant des Verquains, who remained in Bangkok while Desfarges and then Le Roy were travelling to Lopburi. Vollant gives two entirely different versions of events in Lopburi on 16 April. In an unpublished letter written from prison in Middelburg, dated 17 November 1689, probably addressed to the Marquis de Seignelay, he notes The Sieur Le Roy ... first went to the Jesuit Fathers, where Mr Constance was just leaving with his lady, having gone there to observe that evening a lunar eclipse. (AN Col C1 25 f.85v) But in the 1691 published version of his record of events, Histoire de la Révolution de Siam..., he has the unnamed officer with Desfarges’ letter concealed in his wig expecting the worst but being pleasantly surprised: He was deceived on entering Louvo; he saw the palace externally in complete tranquillity... The king was as absolute as ever there, and amusing himself by observing in his palace a lunar eclipse with the Jesuit Fathers, to whom he gave the honour of asking explanations of various points concerning astronomy. In short, everything was calm and the situation ordinary, but particularly at the house of Mr Constance, who was relaxing on the assurance he had been given and who was expecting to see himself shortly delivered of a redoubtable enemy. (Vollant 1691: 31; Smithies 2002: 113) Clearly Vollant is confusing the lunar eclipse of 16 April with the solar eclipse of 30 April; as he was not present in Lopburi that is perhaps not surprising. What is surprising is that neither de Bèze nor Le Blanc, neither inclined to pass over any Jesuit entrée with the king, makes any mention of the solar eclipse of 30 April and the Jesuit presence in the palace to observe it. The illustration of the solar eclipse was published as item 99 in Michel Jacq-Hergoualc’h’s catalogue of the 1986 Orangerie exhibition. The item was titled Usages du Royaume de Siam, cartes, vues et plans: sujets historiques en 1688 (Customs of the Kingdom of Siam, maps, views and plans: historical subjects in

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

199

9/8/05, 8:59

MICHAEL SMITHIES

200

1688). Jacq-Hergoualc’h noted it was in ‘small folio, and comprised 33 watercolours and two pages of writing, one Chinese, one Persian.’ The watercolour shown was listed as number 7, the dimensions were given as 40 x 28.5, and the source the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, Cabinet des Estampes, Od. 59. The catalogue entry went on to comment (in French): There are numerous similarities between these watercolours and the engravings in the Voyage de Siam des Pères Jésuites... published by Tachard in Paris in 1686. When the astronomic observation shown in this watercolour was made, the revolution was a few weeks away; its instigator, Petracha, is shown, as is C. Phaulkon, who talks with the Jesuit Fathers and Phra Narai at his window. Other observations of the same kind took place during the two French embassies, notably of a lunar eclipse on the night of 10-11 December 1685, in the presence, again, of the king. The watercolour (24 x 19) carried a detailed legend... (Jacq-Hergoualc’h 1986: entry 99) It is perhaps worth considering a little more closely this collection. Dirk Van der Cruysse (1995: 459-462) published in his edition of Choisy’s Journal as an annex a note on the sixteen colour illustrations concerning Siam appearing in the text between pp.240 and 241. The collection of watercolours reproduced in Van der Cruysse includes, in addition to the eclipse, two scenes, The Tavoy River between Mergui and Pegu (number 15), and The Fortress of Bangkok (number 16 in the original, misplaced in the Fayard edition to number 6) dealing with events which took place after the coup of May 1688. These were the Tavoy blockade, in which Beauregard and d’Espagnac were captured and from which du Bruant only escaped with difficulty, in June or July 1688 (and not known about by the French in Bangkok or Pondichery until February 1689), and the siege of the Bangkok fort from June to November 1688. The other watercolours deal with Ayutthaya (number 2 the customs house, number 6 the Great Temple, and number 14 the city plan), barges and barge processions (numbers 1, 3, 5); inevitably elephants, their stables, the method of catching them, and fighting with a tiger (numbers 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12); and the observatory and church built for the Jesuits (number 13) at Lopburi, though the legend does not indicate the location. This last shows the observatory as a completed structure, which it almost certainly never was, but the church only has its foundations. The original accompanying legends are in each case faithfully reproduced in modern French in Van der Cruysse’s annex. The artist (stylistically there is some unity, and one assumes only one artist is involved) is unlikely to have had access to Beauchamp’s manuscript, assembled Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

200

9/8/05, 8:59

Eclipses in Siam, 1685 and 1688 and their Representation

201

in the prisons of Middelburg from the end of 1689 (when the garrison adjutant’s memory of events might have dimmed), and only published once, in 1861. The watercolour of the solar eclipse, for want of other information, should probably be assumed to be accurate, howsoever surprising the presence of Phetracha may seem. There remain three further points to be discussed, namely the subjects of the remaining illustrations found in the small folio folder Od.59 in the Cabinet des Estampes in Paris, their dating and authorship. Seventeen other illustrations exist in Od.59, in addition to the two pages of writing, in fact both Chinese, though the folio contents listing indeed indicates one as being Persian. Number 17 shows the siege of Pondichery by the Dutch in 1693, with two fleets flying Dutch flags drawn up on either side of a fortified settlement bristling with cannons; the detailed caption is written in a crabbed hand, and in a different one at the end appear the words ‘Cette prise n’est pas juste et trop grossièrement dessinée...’ (This scene is not exact and crudely sketched). Number 18 shows a ‘Plan de la Ville et Forteresse de Pondichery’. Numbers 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31 all deal with fauna found on the Coromandel Coast (respectively flying cats, catching fish with birds, dancing snakes, hunting birds, a kind of hedgehog, ditto, bats, and an animal yielding musk), in much the same way as so many of the thirty illustrations in Tachard’s first Voyage... dealt with strange beasts and humans found at the Cape of Good Hope. Number 23, reproduced in Morgan Sportès’ volume, Ombres Siamoises (n.d.[?1994]: 53), is entitled ‘Catamaron’ (sic) and accompanied by a detailed description of the construction of such a craft, without specifying location or date. The watercolour shows a Jesuit being transported on a catamaran across a river or bay, with two seated servants behind him, and in front six rowers, three on each side, wearing pointed conical caps. The scene appears to be on the Coromandel Coast, as catamarans are virtually unknown in Siam. Number 24 is extremely interesting, showing the ‘Jesuit house and garden at Chandernagor... in 1696’; the caption notes ‘what can be seen above are clouds of locusts which covered Bengal in 1696 for eight days; these insects ate everything where they landed and to save the gardens one had to bang on frying pans’. This was reproduced in Smithies and Bressan (2001: 123) and is of importance since this was the last resting place of the intrepid Fr Tachard, who, on his virtual expulsion from Pondichery in 1710 by its new governor, went to Changernagor and died there in 1712. The remaining illustrations no more live up to the title of the collection than the others from numbers 17 on. Number 25 shows an architectural sketch of the Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

201

9/8/05, 8:59

MICHAEL SMITHIES

202

façade of the Jesuit church in Chandernagor, number 26 a cross-section of the same church, number 27 gives a plan of the French godown in Bengal, number 32 shows a map of a part of India, and the last, number 33, illustrates the course of the ‘River of Ava’. Known to us are copies of two other watercolours, apparently in the same naïve style, and with similar handwriting in the legends below. Both are of religious subjects: one shows the funeral procession of a Malabar Christian on the Coromandel Coast (bearing two numbers, 11 and 13); the other is divided into two views, the upper one showing the hill ‘a short league’ from Meliapur5 on the Cormandel Coast ‘in which is found the cave where St Thomas was martyred’ and the lower one showing the church of Our Lady two leagues from Meliapur where is found ‘the famous cross of St Thomas on which he fell when he was killed’ (this sheet is numbered 20, with the numbers 24 and possibly 21 crossed out; it contains no legend). It is not known from which collection these two illustrations are taken; they are not in small folio Od.59. Jacq-Hergoualc’h (1986) thinks that the barge procession engraving in Tachard’s first Voyage to Siam... (plate 18), has its source in the naïve watercolour of the event found in Od.59. The occasion was the solemn entry of the French ambassadors into Ayutthaya by barge, and their audience, occurred on 18 October 1685. There is no reason why the artist who painted this event need actually have witnessed it (there were several published descriptions available from 1686), and the watercolour may simply have been another version of an event already illustrated in Tachard’s 1686 volume and found in other prints, as in the bilingual engraving by Delsenbach. If all the watercolours in Od.59 are by the same artist, and if Jacq-Hergoualc’h is correct in attributing the barge procession to the first embassy of 1685, then the artist may have been in the region from 1685 to 1696. But there is nothing in the captions to the illustrations that specifically links any of them to the first French embassy of 1685, and the eclipse scene (number 7), the plan of Ayutthaya (number 14) with its reference to an Augustinian Father being in residence in 1688 in a hermitage shown there, the Tavoy river escapade (number 15), and the siege of Bangkok (number 16) are all specific to 1688. This makes us think that the artist was in fact only present at the time of the second embassy of 1687; he may have been, somewhat improbably, with the French troops, or in the entourage of the envoys, or more likely part of the Jesuit phalanx, though not necessarily a Jesuit himself. The emphasis on the Jesuits in their observatory and church in Louvo 5

São Tomé de Meliapur is close to Madras, above Pondichery. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

202

9/8/05, 8:59

Eclipses in Siam, 1685 and 1688 and their Representation

203

(number 13), as well as the solar eclipse, the catamaran scene and the Chandernagor Jesuit house, all point to a keen interest in Jesuit affairs on the part of the artist. Interestingly, the capture of Pondichery in 1693 and the Jesuit residence in Chandernagor, as well as all the events in Siam except those dealing specifically with 1688 (the solar eclipse, the siege of Bangkok, and the capture of Tavoy), where some imagination seems to have prevailed, involve Tachard. He was present at the elephant hunts in Siam, he was in Pondichery when it was captured by the Dutch (he was taken, with Martin, the governor, and his wife, to Batavia, but Tachard was retained on an offshore island, whereas Martin and party were allowed to go to Chandernagor in Bengal), and as noted he moved to Chandernagor after a conflict with the new governor of Pondichery in 1710. We would certainly not go so far as to propose Tachard was the artist of these illustrations, but it might have been someone in his train: the Jesuit La Breuille comes to mind. A more likely person is Tachard’s secretary-assistant Moriset (sometimes Morisot or Moricet), who however was with Tachard in Europe in 1688. At this distance in time, though, we are unlikely to discover the identity of the naïve anonymous watercolourist. Bibliography Anon., Relation des principales circonstances qui sont arrivées dans la Révolution du Royaume de Siam en l’année 1687 [1688]. BN, Ms Fr. 6105, ff.170r. Anon., Relation de se qui cest pasé [sic] a Louvo, royaume de Siam, avec un abrégé de se qui cest pasé [sic] a bancoq pendant le siege en 1688. AN Col. C1 24, ff.140r-171r. Anon., Relation succinte [sic] des changements dans le Royaume de Siam en l’année 1688, AN Col. C1 24, ff.130-139. Beauchamp, Major de, Relation des revolutions de la Cour de Siam, BN Fr. 8210, ff.506r-570r (said to be by Pinsonneau). Bèze, Père de, Mémoire du Père de Bèze sur la vie de Constance Phaulkon premier minister du roi de Siam, Phra Narai, et sa triste fin, ed. J. Drans and H. Bernard. Tokyo, Presses Salésiennes, 1947. Bouvet, Joachim, Voiage de Siam du Père Bouvet, ed. J.C. Gatty. Leiden, Brill, 1963. Chaumont, Chevalier de and the Abbé de Choisy, Aspects of the Embassy to Siam, 1685, ed. and trans. M. Smithies. Chiangmai, Silkworm Books, 1997. Choisy, Abbé de, Journal of a Voyage to Siam 1685-1686, ed. and trans. M. Smithies. Kuala Lumpur, Oxford University Press, 1993. Choisy, François-Timoléon de, Journal du Voyage de Siam, ed. D. Van der Cruysse. Paris, Fayard, 1995.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

203

9/8/05, 8:59

MICHAEL SMITHIES

204

Forbin, Claude de, The Siamese Memoirs, 1685-1688, ed. M. Smithies. Chiangmai, Silkworm Books, 1996. Hutchinson, E.W., 1688 Revolution in Siam: The Memoir of Father de Bèze, S.J.. Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, 1968. Jacq-Hergoualc’h, Michel, ed., Phra Narai, Roi de Siam et Louis XIV. Catalogue of an exhibition held in the Musée de l’Orangerie, Paris, 13 June–13 July, 1986. Launay, A., Histoire de la Mission de Siam 1662-1811. Documents Historiques I & II. Paris, Téqui, 1920. Le Blanc, Marcel, S.J., History of Siam in 1688, ed. and trans. M. Smithies. Chiangmai, Silkworm Books, 2003. Le Comte, Louis, Nouveaux mémoires sur l’état présent de la Chine. Paris, Anisson, 1696. Lingat, R., ‘Une lettre de Véret sur la révolution siamoise de 1688’, T’oung Pao, vol. XXXI, 1936: 330-362. Saint-Vandrille, Sieur de, Relation des révolutions arrivées dans le Royaume de Siam. AN Col. C1 25 ff.106-117. Sportès, Morgan, Ombres Siamoises. Paris, Editions Mobius, n.d. [1994]. Smithies, Michael, ed. and trans., Three Military Accounts of the 1688 ‘Revolution’ in Siam. Bangkok, Orchid Press, 2002. Smithies, Michael and Luigi Bressan, Siam and the Vatican in the Seventeenth Century. Bangkok, River Books, 2001. Tachard, Guy, A relation of the Voyage to Siam performed by six Jesuits sent by the French King, to the Indies and China in the year 1685. London, 1688 (reprinted Bangkok, Orchid Press, 1981). Tachard, Guy, Second Voyage du Père Tachard et des Jésuites envoyez par le Roy au Royaume de Siam contentant diverses remarques d’Histoire, de Physique, de Géographie, et d’Astronomie. Paris, Horthemels, 1689. Van der Cruysse, Dirk, Siam and the West 1500-1700, trans. M. Smithies. Chiangmai, Silkworm Books, 2002. Vollant des Verquains, Jean, Histoire de la Révolution de Siam arrivée en l’année 1688, Lille, J.C. Malte, 1691. Vollant des Verquains, Jean, Le sieur Vollant à Midelbourg le 17 novembre 1689, lettre adressée à ‘Votre Grandeur’ (sans nom) AN Col. C1 25 ff.84r–90v.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P189-204

204

9/8/05, 8:59

HEALTH CARE DEVELOPMENTS IN CHANGING THAI SOCIETY: BEYOND THE PHYSICAL Marco Roncarati

Abstract This paper1 examines how health care in Thailand is currently at a significant and even pivotal stage of its development, as a result of attempts to improve services by integrating traditional medicine and conventional medicine. In addition, the changing roles of traditional healers in the light of government initiatives are considered, as are ways in which issues of spirituality have been neglected by mainstream health care until recently. Despite what might be viewed as a series of dichotomies into dualistic categories of mind and body, modern and traditional, and traditional healer and conventional medicine practitioner, emphasis is on how certain people are working to transcend these categories by adopting integral perspectives.

Introduction Aggregate health-related statistics reveal that Thailand’s “health profile”, as measured in physical terms, has largely improved over the past half century, with it essentially having completed its demographic transition. In fact, by mid1980 Thailand–like Sri Lanka, China, Costa Rica and other countries with significantly reduced infant mortality, and increased life expectancy and literacy rates– was lauded as a developing world “superior health achiever” (Caldwell 1986). Provision of basic public and primary health programmes–including water and sanitation, immunization and maternal and child health–has helped reduce morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, especially diarrhoea and respiratory diseases. Furthermore, a “health transition” has occurred, with (apart from the

1

Based on field research undertaken during September 1999–September 2000 and May–October 2002, with financial support from the Central Research Fund of the University of London and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

205

9/8/05, 9:00

205

MARCO RONCARATI

206

recent growth of HIV/AIDS as a major cause of morbidity and mortality) a shift from communicable diseases to non-communicable (“lifestyle”) diseases and accidents, such as cardio-vascular diseases, cancers, occupational diseases and road accidents. In spite of these trends, with a focus on measurable physical conditions, many health care practitioners in Thailand today say that it is difficult to judge whether there have been improvements in the quality of health of the average person. This is especially so when considering aspects of mental health, and even “spiritual dimensions”, often neglected in mainstream health care discourse and practice–the mainstream fundamentally consisting of conventional medicine (biomedicine). By the “spiritual”, this refers to what in Buddhist terms relates to well-being associated with eliminating greed, anger and delusion; developing compassion, mindfulness and wisdom; and extinguishing dukkha (imperfection or suffering). Thailand has a long history of religion and healing going hand-in-hand, especially with Buddhist influences on health, including the condition of the mind and the social role of individuals in society. Nonetheless, the spiritual domain, and healing in such terms, has been mainly left to traditional healers and monks who heal. Health care statistics themselves might not lead to valid conclusions due to the process of “medicalization”. Medicalization implies: “…the way in which the jurisdiction of modern medicine has expanded in recent times and now encompasses many problems that formerly were not defined as medical entities” (Gabe and Calnan 1989:23). Medicalization may negatively affect individual and community self-reliance in health care, with implications in terms of reduced ability to cope with disease and misfortune. This is especially so since medicalization arguably “…now includes a wide variety of phenomena, such as many of the normal phases of the female life-cycle... old age, unhappiness, loneliness and social isolation, and the results of wider social problems, such as poverty or unemployment” (Helman 1994:156–157). As a result–at least in part–of this, in Thailand the number of in-patients visiting government hospitals lately has increased and “the trend is that this number will rise continuously” (Heath Systems Research Institute Bulletin, June 2000:3). Many factors contribute to such trends, and even sectors of the government suggest that overuse and misuse of antibiotics, analgesics and cold remedies (all widely promoted by advertisements) are much to blame (ibid:3). The implications are that medical conditions are reduced to physical disorders, and the remedies promoted follow similar reasoning–such as working with chemicals in medication to alter chemical imbalances in the body/mind, including those that are said to cause depression and anxiety. Concerns are also expressed regarding the overall lack of morality in society, with materialism and selfishness bringing about much disharmony. In some senses this stretches to much of mainstream health care, where doctors, clinics and hospitals have become disproportionately wealthy, and caring is often lacking. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

206

9/8/05, 9:00

Health Care Developments in Changing Thai Society: Beyond the Physical

207

Turning to access to health services, Whittaker (1999:117) argues that inequality has increased and “…diseases of poverty continue to be the primary causes of morbidity and mortality.” This, many socially-orientated individuals and groups propose, is just one aspect of the dilemmas facing Thai health care today. While poverty is indeed closely correlated to a lack of material requirements, another dimension which is stressed as vital by many critics is the significance of developing awareness–through contemplative spiritual practices, including meditation, which are generally neglected–and working on the root cause of the factors that contribute to disease and misfortune. This would also allow people to see beyond physically-measurable criteria and look at the mind, ethics and education to change behaviour for individual and social benefit. In fact, despite the criticisms, there are signs of what might be considered positive developments, and to overcome existing shortcomings elements of the mainstream, as well as certain people on the “margins” (especially traditional healers and monks), are seeking to breach the gap between the physical and the spiritual, as well as that between practitioners of conventional medicine and traditional medicine. Health care reform and a more open aproach to healing Disagreement as to how to remedy imperfections in the Thai health care system exist, yet there is general consensus (evidenced by conferences, media reports and recent writings and discussions involving academics, Thai Ministry of Public Health [MoPH] officials and health care workers) that Thailand needs to develop a new system of medicine. Regarding the mechanism to make this possible, the MoPH promotes what is referred to as health care reform or “patir¢p rabob-borik¡n sukhaph¡p” (literally, “reform of the system of health care services”). The MoPH Office for Health Care Reform was inaugurated in May 2000 in order to spearhead the implementation of the national health care reform movement. Complaints that the existing system is outdated, not cost-effective, inefficient and unfair are voiced by a variety of health care practitioners and other interested parties. At the same time, proposed remedies tend to centre around the increasing focus on preventive medicine, raising levels of education and improving the health care system through reform of bureaucracy and the way medical services are delivered. Another related phrase commonly used with the aim of improving the system is “k¡n pheung ton-eng” (self-reliance) where individuals and members of local communities are more in control of their health care exigencies. Several prominent writers, as well as active health care personnel, point to the need to empower people and improve their overall health and well-being by encouraging consideration of spiritual matters. Prawet (2000:4) cites the WHO declaration: “Health is complete physical, mental, social and spiritual well-being”,

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

207

9/8/05, 9:00

MARCO RONCARATI

208

and adds that only through “self-transcendence”, self-sacrifice and spiritual development are real happiness and harmony possible. Otherwise a combination of selfishness and lack of peace in families and communities will bring about deterioration in mental health. Prawet (ibid:23-24) also suggests that conventional medicine practitioners should be more open to alternative and complementary forms of healing, in particular learning more about traditional medicine, so that Thailand can be more like China and India in integrating their traditional medical systems with conventional medicine. The MoPH (in a 1999 booklet distributed to health care centres across Thailand) specifically targets self-reliance, by encouraging greater community involvement to develop sustainable health care. This, it proposes, needs to be done by means of MoPH officials, community health care volunteers and people with indigenous healing knowledge working together. Therefore, the MoPH states, traditional healing knowledge and techniques may be combined with modern ones to bring about the best results (ibid:18). To resolve problems in the health care system, the MoPH suggests health care workers adopt a format to evaluate existing self-reliance, based on five qualitative indicators (related to human resources, funding, management, the process and transmission of knowledge, and local people themselves). This process of evaluation may lead to a large database, but several people working in government health care centres and with interest in instilling self-reliance and promoting community development are not particularly optimistic that it will significantly influence the average person. It might be because the MoPH in its official booklet (1999) adopts a standard social science approach without reference to health beyond that largely considered in physical terms, or reference to spiritual health and getting to the core of effecting attitude changes. To prevent disease/illness, Jarat (2000) suggests that people should change their lifestyles, not only vis-à-vis diet and physical exercise, but by considering health more holistically and with longer-term perspectives; this, he says, may be new for conventional medicine, yet has always been stressed in traditional medicine. He (ibid:23) proposes that health care has become commercialized, largely depending on market mechanisms, despite knowledge of their imperfections, and this is why people should consider ethical matters as fundamental. Furthermore, he (ibid:33) feels that health care reform strategies may be effective only if people recognize internal (self-healing) energy (something considered fundamental by traditional healers) and integral connections between physical and mental phenomena and the crucial role of the mind in healing. On the other hand, Thara (1998:64-65), emphasizing developing complementary (traditional) medicine and integrating it into the national health care system, recommends that “…the concept of integrative medicine should be introduced in the medical and paramedical curriculum” and policy-makers should actively promote it. To do this, knowledge

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

208

9/8/05, 9:00

Health Care Developments in Changing Thai Society: Beyond the Physical

209

of what constitutes traditional medicine is required, and elements of the government are in many ways working to make such knowledge more accessible. Recent developments in traditional medicine Traditional medicine in Thailand–for the purposes of this article “traditional medicine”– can effectively imply two medical systems: phe¯t phe¯n-thai (literally “Thai medicine”), or what is known as Thai traditional medicine (TTM), and phe¯t phe¯¢n-b¡n (“local community medicine”). The latter is practised in more “folk” terms without government endorsement, while TTM is state-sponsored and regulated by the National Institute for Thai Traditional Medicine (NITTM) in the MoPH. TTM is said to involve “the traditional philosophies, bodies of knowledge, and modes of practice to care for Thai people’s health and cure their diseases and illnesses, which are congruous with the Thai way of life and Thai culture” (NITTM 1996a:7). Such an approach to traditional medicine purportedly focuses on the value of old texts and the transmission of knowledge from “forefathers”, while claiming to be a holistic system, working to achieve balance in body and mind. Not all health care workers, academics and traditional healers are content with official views of TTM–which are at times considered or intended (by those in authority) to encompass all traditional medicine in Thailand–since they (particularly those in peripheral regions) feel that it is just another form of homogenization and domination of Central Thai culture within national boundaries. Consequently, they tend to refer to much of traditional medicine as a diverse group of different phe¯t phe¯¢nb¡n and emphasise local beliefs, rituals and practices. Standardized MoPH TTM exams favour the Central Thai model, particularly by adopting Central Thai names and concepts related to medicinal herbs. In rural areas far from Bangkok herbs have their own particular names, different dialects/languages are spoken and distinct therapies are practised; many related to beliefs in supernatural powers are certainly not discussed in TTM textbooks. Beyond TTM’s conceptual, technical and legal framework traditional medicine exists as a diverse entity, hence a medical system (involving numerous sub-systems) with many similarities to TTM, but effectively self-regulating and, despite several homogenous characteristics, possessing manifold heterogeneous traits. A further term, phe¯t phe¯n-bor¡n (literally “ancient/traditional medicine”), often describes traditional or indigenous medicine in its broadest context. However, objections that this term suggests an outdated system, lacking capacity to develop, led to TTM being adopted and promoted by the MoPH. Hence, argue Sawapa et al. (1996, cited in Mali 2000:1), its status was raised to the level of “Chinese medicine”. This reasoning holds little weight, considering indigenous Chinese medicine is both officially and commonly called traditional Chinese

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

209

9/8/05, 9:00

MARCO RONCARATI

210

medicine (TCM). Nevertheless, it reflects that, vis-à-vis China (and to a certain extent India), the Thai government had long neglected traditional medicine. The name change also served as a break from the past by introducing a more systematic, better-organized and dynamic traditional medicine, fulfilling the criteria of both having traditional legitimacy and being compatible with modern health care needs. Furthermore, it might indeed offer opportunities for increasing awareness, especially in what might be called the expanding middle class, that health can be considered in a manner not restricted to physical criteria. Prior to the NITTM’s establishment in March 1993 and changes in government attitudes towards health care in the 1980s that preceded this, the MoPH, with its “scientific and rationalist bias” (Irvine 1982:47) paid little attention to traditional medicine. In fact, though it makes no mention of its independent dynamism, one NITTM publication (1996a:6) sheds light on official policy by stating: “For almost a century, Thai traditional medicine had been a nonformal medical system, dormant without continuous support and development on the part of the government.” Based on research in the mid-1980s, Brun and Schumacher (1987:235–237) state that attitudes of the government and many Western-trained members of the “medical establishment”, and the “dwindling number” of licences in traditional medicine issued by the MoPH “…could well be interpreted to show that the ministry actively follows a policy aimed at limiting the number of general practitioners of the traditional school by making examinations so difficult that students cannot pass them.” What such comments suggest is that mainstream Thai health care was principally geared toward conventional medicine. With the NITTM, the situation may have somewhat changed, though many challenges still lie ahead. For instance, NITTM director Dr Pennapa Subcharoen feels that it is difficult to make most MoPH policy-makers accept TTM, and recently expansion of NITTM activities have been hindered following reduced funding due to the mid-1997 economic/financial crisis. Nevertheless, during 1994–1997 the number of Provincial Health Offices (MoPH branches) with TTM “development activities” increased from 32 to 75, or full coverage (NITTM n.d.:33). This trend followed the ideal of what the seventh and eighth National Health Development Plans (1992–2001) heralded as a “Decade of TTM”, in which: “The overall objective is to preserve… [TTM], the national heritage and wisdom of Thailand, besides developing it to become an integral part of the present national health care and primary health care system, leading to self-reliance within the health care delivery system both at national and community level” (NITTM n.d.:19). The extent to which this has occurred, though hard to evaluate accurately, is varied, with only certain hospitals and health care centres offering traditional medicine therapies. Certainly there has been an expansion in the availability of traditional medicine in such places but, as will be seen, this may not represent a widespread break from the established practice of looking at disease and illness in physical terms. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

210

9/8/05, 9:00

Health Care Developments in Changing Thai Society: Beyond the Physical

211

Qualifications, licences and traditional healers While traditional medicine may be experiencing a revival, other developments related to how traditional medicine is offered as a service are changing considerably. Across Thailand, as the population becomes more educated and the economy moves toward greater value-added production with skilled labour and a service orientation, demand for academic and professional qualifications—for competitive edges in employment, for self-esteem or to fulfil government criteria— continues to rise. This is also the case with regard to traditional medicine. Until the NITTM’s inauguration, traditional medicine, though not actively promoted, was regulated to a certain extent with examinations and licences for those wanting officially to practise pharmacy (pe¯ sachakam), general medical theory (we¯chakam), midwifery/obstetrics (k¡n-phadungkhan), fields still recognized today. There are also certificates attainable after taking massage courses, but the government was and still is less concerned about regulating this form of therapy, though many reputable private centres exist. Most controlled are pharmacy and general medical theory, and their exams are considered demanding for traditional healers. A qualified/licenced pharmacist can legally make herbal concoctions and run a shop selling traditional herbs, a potentially lucrative business requiring quality control, and hence official regulation. One qualified in general medical theory, attainable after becoming a licenced pharmacist, can diagnose patients and offer various therapies, including advice on diet and lifestyle. Pharmacy and general medical theory exams are usually taken after approximately one and three years study respectively. However, many healers take exams repeatedly, some not passing after five or ten years. Included in this group are recognized “experts” who ironically even teach at the MoPH. Many are simply unfamiliar with exam formats and modern ways of intellectualizing knowledge, by adopting particular classifications and hypothesizing or reifying medical contexts without the tangible and subtle manifestations associated with actually being with a patient. Moreover, some complain that to pass exams one needs only memorization, while ability to deal with herbs (a “hands-on” approach) is not tested. Certain more elderly healers are simply uninterested in exams, knowing their memories might fail them (though confident that in practical situations they know the appropriate herbs and treatments to prescribe to patients) or because they are barely literate. Many healers in peripheral regions commonly cite differences in herbal nomenclature between Central Thai (the language of official exams) and local dialects/languages as an obstacle. The general MoPH policy appears relatively laissez-faire regarding uncertified healers, especially older ones, as they often provide basic, low-cost health care services without instigating controversy. Similar situations exist regarding healer monks, who cannot be officially certified or recognized as healers

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

211

9/8/05, 9:00

MARCO RONCARATI

212

since monkhood rules forbid involvement in “professions” and “worldly pursuits”. This is purely a formality (or lack of it), and many monks are known for their skills (especially with herbs and using powers of the mind to heal) and are sometimes actively involved with (traditional) healer societies. Nearly all districts in Thailand have such societies (frequently forming part of larger provincial societies or even cross-provincial society networks) that operate as regulatory units with specific codes of conduct. These relatively recent developments tend to be welcomed by the MoPH as they offer some order in the system. For instance, the Chiang RaiPhayao healer society, established in 1994, has over 400 members. Only 204 members have “official” cards and are registered (with details of their background, skills and healing experiences), but some records of other members, such as name and address and main field of practice, are also kept. If police/authorities ever query card-holding members and the issue is not particularly serious, Ajarn Singkham Yoatmoondee, the society president, is telephoned, and, depending on healers’ existing records, might be able to help. For those without cards it is more complicated, and for healers outside the society (most healers in the two provinces, and generally considered less reputable by society members) they are basically alone if questioned. Many healers who are not society members, in these provinces and elsewhere, are often farmers with relatively limited knowledge of traditional medicine (usually learnt from parents or grandparents) and they treat people only occasionally and for minor ailments. Some, though, are very skilled, yet feel no need to join societies. Certain healers, as in the case of those with additional forms of employment or those with an established client base, are simply uninterested in being officially recognized. On the other hand, many society members, especially in remote areas, complain about the effort, cost and time required to attend meetings (usually held monthly) and some even doubt whether it is all worthwhile, again a matter of costs versus benefits (prestige, security, new information, etc.). Financial concerns sometimes strongly influence healers’ decisions, which introduce a common anxiety: traditional medicine’s commercialization. Images of the past created by both healers actively practising and writers on traditional medicine imply that healers, though sometimes relatively wealthy and of high status, practised their art out of ethical imperatives, and their therapies, beside possible accidents, were natural and safe. This was (and is still said to be) particularly so with herbal remedies that, despite acting more slowly than modern drugs, have few or no side effects. Having said this, nowadays various stories of healers mixing their herbs with antibiotics and steroids to make their medicines more powerful circulate, with also comments that the “pumped-up” medicine may initially have a rapid and apparently beneficial affect for those with asthma, aches and other complaints. However, such judgement may not take account of long-term effects,

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

212

9/8/05, 9:00

Health Care Developments in Changing Thai Society: Beyond the Physical

213

which include osteoporosis, high blood pressure, ulcers and the accumulation of body fat. The recommendations tend to be that in order to avoid such risks one should look for traditional medicines that on their label bear clear FDA [Thai Food and Drug Administration] registration and the name of the manufacturer. Undoubtedly the nature of the media increases awareness of irregularities performed by “charlatans” and devious practitioners, but what concerns many healers is the common public obsession with material possessions, physical characteristics and socio-economic status. This goes against the ethical imperative of much traditional medical knowledge and disregards the significance of the mind in determining health and well-being. It is also something which ultimately cannot be controlled by any form of exams or licences. Nevertheless, it is likely that exams and licences will become more significant in the years ahead. It should be mentioned that even within the TTM framework, where ethical issues feature, there is often flexibility to adopt healing techniques far removed from what is taught in official texts. This does not overcome the possibility of malpractice, but it could be encouraging in terms of promoting open-mindedness to a greater variety of forms of health care and even relevant spiritual considerations. Dr Pennapa stresses that the NITTM’s objective is not to eradicate phe¯t phe¯¢n-b¡n practices incompatible with the general rubric of TTM, because each region has distinctive cultural traditions. This issue is actually discussed in the introduction to the NITTM’s “Handbook for Practising TTM”, where it is states that TTM “includes” phe¯t phe¯¢n-b¡n practices, and these are recognized as specific to Thailand’s different regions (NITTM 1996b: 10). Rhetoric may not indicate practice. However, healers, particularly those relying on “supernatural methods” and not adopting empirically scientific reasoning when discussing disease/illness with patients, often show signs of fearing modern developments. They are generally accustomed to holistic modes of thinking to the extent that they see conventional medicine–with its Western-influenced, rational, analytical approach–as segmented, rigorous and revealing, and ultimately harmful to their traditional way of life. Those confident in their knowledge (through analytical thinking, balanced by faith in their teachers/tradition, awareness of spiritual considerations and an understanding of a more integral approach to health that includes the strengths of both traditional and conventional medicine) seem less concerned about conventional medicine being a threat, other than it not accepting traditional medicine and ignoring benefits of integrating the two systems. Even those in this group without licences are not so bothered about government pressure, actual or perceived. This is often reflected in attitudes of more liberal health care officials, conscious of the inherent ethical nature of such individuals, and their success in healing. Generally, the potential status, security and financial rewards of being licenced or employed at government health care centres are factors many healers consider.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

213

9/8/05, 9:00

MARCO RONCARATI

214

Nonetheless these are counterbalanced by possibilities of having to compromise in the techniques they feel free to adopt, especially those dealing less with physical disease/illness, such as s¢ khwan (calling back the spirit-soul), se¯¢ap chat¡ (extending fortune) and using kh¡th¡ (mantras/incantations). Herbal medicine is potentially the area of greatest concern but least contention. The concern is that limited regulation, whether jural in conventional terms (i.e. with regard to FDA involvement and quality control) or ethical terms (i.e. following s™ladhamma, or Buddhist morality), may lead to opportunism and worse health by any standard. The lack of contention derives from the belief that quality should actually improve, despite threats by powerful pharmaceutical companies with access to traditional herbs who might undercut prices healers charge to sustain their activities, and out-perform them with more comprehensive marketing and distribution strategies. Although the legal framework can be tightened and traditional medicine schools can teach morality, many healers stress that a true understanding of s™ladhamma cannot be attained by force nor imposition, but rather through promoting wider awareness, self-reliance, socially-oriented education and reflection on spiritual/metaphysical matters. To this end, such healers use their interactions with patients as opportunities to provide education about the role of the mind in health and how to increase all-round well-being and prevent future disorders. Variations between tradition and modern healers and ways Writers as early as Boesch (1972:6) suggest that doctors of conventional medicine form part of “service elites”, with a significant role in the development process. They often feel self-confident, behave arrogantly, mix official and private practice (reducing official consultation times and health care standards) and consider themselves the “cream of society”, practicing the most esteemed profession and avoiding underdeveloped provinces (Goldschmidt and Hofer 1972:5–9). Even today people voice similar complaints. The perceived “elevated status” of conventional medicine practitioners creates a social distance between them and patients, particularly less-educated, rural ones. Consequently, in communication semantic and cognitive barriers exist and the often-mystified patients generally behave passively and deferentially. Furthermore, practitioners may face conflicting loyalties, as members of various groups, including their families, their profession and their hospitals. This could mean minimum loyalty directed to the disadvantaged patients, who are purely anonymous individuals (cf. Boesch 1972:7). Nevertheless, the above argument is primarily aimed at practitioners dealing with somatic disorders and it should be mentioned that certain practitioners are actively involved in emphasizing issues of spirituality to improve mental and spiritual health. Evidence of such

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

214

9/8/05, 9:00

Health Care Developments in Changing Thai Society: Beyond the Physical

215

“enlightened” ideas and practices exists among a small though possibly growing number of relatively young psychiatrists in both peripheral provinces and Bangkok. These practitioners promote integral perspectives and support initiatives to encourage practices like meditation, Buddhist rituals, and traditional therapies which include spiritual components, although they frequently encounter resistance from colleagues who frown on anything but evidence-based medicine with empirical backing. Unlike most conventional medicine practitioners, traditional healers, especially in rural areas, generally form part of wider communities whose underlying social ethic promotes mutual interdependence. Hinderling (1973) argues that when healers and patients interact, as a norm no conflict occurs; while communication is usually easy and relatively uninhabited. Moreover, the “[e]thics of Buddhist-Thai medicine ensures that a [traditional] doctor, especially a minor one, does not practice primarily for financial reasons but for social reasons, out of sympathy for patients or perhaps to achieve ‘bun’ [merit]” (ibid:83). Yano (1999:174) argues that in the “traditional model of medicine” healers, patients’ families and the “larger community” were all “…responsible for providing the patient with compassion, comfort and care.” In such settings, Kleinman (1980:364) suggests: “Sickness [and healing] is best regarded as semantic networks (culturally articulated systems) that interrelate cognitive categories, personal experiences, physiological states, and social relationships... Biomedical and psychiatric reductions make it impossible to study healing from this cultural standpoint.” These settings are found in Thailand today, as people try to negotiate their lives in a changing society and amid uncertainty. What might add to that uncertainty is not knowing and trusting healers as well as in the past, when communities were more tightly knit, and fear that the healers do not necessarily behave as ethically as they might have in former times. Despite this uncertainly, people, especially in rural areas, may feel more comfortable with and find it easier to relate to healers than conventional medicine practitioners, where language, image and physical surroundings are more controlled, following strict professional and hygienic criteria. This introduces another dimension. Critics voice the concern that large and powerful companies, driven by profit, encourage the consumption of goods that are often unnecessary, potentially harmful and aimed at inducing narcissistic satisfaction–and modern pharmaceutical enterprises may operate likewise. Turton (1984:40) notes that drugs are over-imported, over-stocked and marketed in an unregulated fashion, so that “…in many cases Thailand is used as a testing ground for dangerous drugs.” The enterprises, argue many healers, continue promoting their medications, ignoring placebo effects and even influencing behaviour of conventional medicine practitioners by highlighting evidence from clinical research that supports their interests. Healers, struggling to make their herbal remedies comply

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

215

9/8/05, 9:00

MARCO RONCARATI

216

with FDA regulations and compete with mass-produced medicines of pharmaceutical enterprises, are frequently frustrated by this. Proponents of traditional medicine say that ample evidence shows how meditation, exercise, a balanced diet of unprocessed foods and other practices conducive to health, cost little and would reduce dependence on medical services. Nevertheless, they add that interest groups with political and economic strength often control the information that influences the general public. Statistics can powerfully influence attitudes, but medicalization renders making conclusions difficult, even using implications of empirically-provable health data, themselves largely bound to physical phenomena. Cassell (1976) differentiates between the terms “disease” and “illness”, explaining that the former (determining doctors’ perspectives) is an objective, scientifically-quantifiable entity, while the latter is the subjective response of patients, loaded with cultural and social meanings. It could be added that the former term is more geared to somatic characteristics than the latter. Conventional medicine practitioners, educated in clinical settings to see patients and diseases in value-free objectified terms (cf. Good and DelVecchio Good 1993), usually work in relatively impersonal hospital-like environments. Moreover, the “modern professional practitioner” is taught to cure rather than care, since this “…profound distortion of clinical work is built into the biomedical training of physicians” (Kleinman 1980:363). With emphasis on curing and maintaining the “machine-like” body, amelioration in physical health and control of pain through painkillers would indeed point to general diachronic improvements in recent years. Using approaches largely void of modern/empirical medical and scientific dimensions, mainly practicing in rural homes or temples and regularly in contact with patients, healers and monks arguably work more with “illness”, helping patients understand the meanings of poor health. This usually necessitates moral and spiritual perspectives. Hence many monks and healers are less concerned about judging things using physical criteria and point out that mental and spiritual health has not necessarily improved and may have even deteriorated. Nevertheless, they do not stress pessimism in adopting such an attitude, yet rather the need to use it for its didactic worth and see the benefits of employing environmentally-friendly and socially-aware traditional teachings, while being cautious of apparently progressive and convenient aspects of modernity. This is especially so with regard to trends for greater infatuation with materialistic pursuits and concern with bodily image. Almost all practitioners feel that health care in Thailand is changing rapidly, with greater emphasis on empirical evidence. Healers particularly voice this, alone, at group meetings, and participating in projects to evaluate and assess their shifting position in the midst of new government regulations towards their practice. Regarding data collection for empirically-provable evidence, science and con-

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

216

9/8/05, 9:00

Health Care Developments in Changing Thai Society: Beyond the Physical

217

ventional medicine have achieved wonders and will continue to do so. For instance, certain healers and monks say that unravelling the DNA code will lead to various cures; yet trouble will arise as long as behaviour is driven by tanh¡ (desire) and attachment to the body. They feel that Buddhism, like science, has its hypotheses and one is cautioned against blind belief; but even supposedly well-educated and clever people become fooled by science, just as many are fooled by “charlatan” healers and “spiritual teachers”, whether they be monks or lay people. From the above analysis health care in Thailand appears to be dichotomised into categories of “good” traditional medicine and “poorly-suited” conventional medicine. Over-generalizing or denying that conventional medicine practitioners and healers make up diverse groups of individuals does not accurately reflect existing circumstances, particularly the fact that traditional medicine and the way it is practised (especially in commercial terms) is evolving. Rather it shows extremes, as perceived by certain writers, and possibly affected by the alienation of modern (particularly urban) depersonalised life, and popular Thai nostalgia for a past commonly portrayed as pervaded with happiness, harmony, abundance and integrity. Helman (1994:88) proposes that such nostalgia for a sense of community and a caring extended family appears widespread in an increasingly impersonal and industrialised world. Despite these trends, developments that encourage improved overall well-being and integrating traditional medicine with conventional medicine exist. Spreading traditional medical knowledge and spiritual awareness Concerning the integratation of traditional medicine into the national health care system, several challenges remain, in particular coping with risks that it may be forced to develop into a more empirical system with greater emphasis on physical disorders. Statistics show that in 1997 official TTM, as practised at public health service offices, primarily treated “diseases and symptoms” related to the “respiratory system”, the “dermatological system”, the “gastro-intestinal system” and the “musculoskeletal system” (NITTM n.d: 35). These figures by no means represent what healers effectively practise across Thailand, but show that, even given the NITTM’s good intentions, TTM is being forced to adopt biomedical terminology and somatic reductionism (cf. Klieinman 1980). It may indeed seem that “…traditional medicine is being swallowed up by the modern” (Brun and Schumacher 1987:239). Yet there are signs that certain establishments adopt more liberal approaches to traditional medicine, letting it almost regulate itself via community supply and demand. This is so in the Mae Orn Sub-District Hospital in Chiang Mai province, where diverse traditional medicine therapies beyond those officially endorsed by

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

217

9/8/05, 9:00

MARCO RONCARATI

218

TTM are common practice. For example, there are healers specializing in treatments such as he¯k–involving a tiger’s tooth, deer’s horn or other knife-like implements being scraped along the skin to expel toxins–while at the same time openly discussing rit ([supernatural] potency/power) and its applications. Many therapies used have a physical orientation, but, during healing, ethical matters and spiritual considerations are also stressed, without objection by the medical authorities. Moreover, some healers employed at the hospital are uncertified and ironically working under the auspices of TTM projects and treating patients in ways not included in official documents nor tested in exams. Another case in which traditional medicine is actively promoted and even used as a complement to conventional medicine is the Phayamengrai District Hospital in Chiang Rai province. This, under the auspices of its director, the late Dr Thara Onchomchant, by the end of the 1990s was Northern Thailand’s bestknown example of integrating traditional medicine and conventional medicine. However, notwithstanding the hospital’s successes, after more than fifteen years promoting herbal medicine and massage in district hospitals, interested parties say that they still face an uphill battle convincing policy-makers to invest more in traditional medicine and integration. Consequently, for the time being, despite plans for widespread availability and awareness of traditional medicine and having it as a viable and desired form of therapy, this only appears to be occurring in relatively localized situations. To conclude and see what are some of the main obstacles to increasing spiritual awareness, to integrating traditional medicine and conventional medicine and exploiting the potential of the former more effectively, two healers and their experiences are discussed. Ajarn Pinkaew Tannuan, an influential healer in Chiang Mai province, considers traditional healing knowledge part of his family heritage. With four years of state education and no other formal qualifications he is a ninth-generation healer in an unbroken lineage. He was a samanera (novice monk) and a monk (each for a year), and attributes most of his knowledge to family members and other teachers, including monks, as well as his self-study and meditation. He has three sons; the eldest (22 years old) is a monk, the other two (20 and 16 years old) have studied traditional healing with him and are helping him with a herbal medicine “factory”, where herbs are produced, processed and packaged. Ajarn Pinkaew views modern scientific knowledge as just one of many types of knowledge useful in promoting health. He regrets not speaking English and is guaranteeing that between his sons they have the knowledge and skills to become competent in Dharma (Buddhist teachings), traditional medicine, English, computer usage and technicalities regarding operating the factory. He feels that traditional healers must change with the times to survive, and is seeking contacts with people abroad with potential interest in his herbs (he already has experience exporting herbs to Japan). He also

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

218

9/8/05, 9:00

Health Care Developments in Changing Thai Society: Beyond the Physical

219

has been the “subject” of a Master’s degree dissertation (Tanachai 1999) by a relatively well-known researcher who spent six months studying with him. Nevertheless, he mentions that he has had unfortunate experiences with certain Thais who “used” his knowledge and took advantage of him. This has made him more prudent and ever more aware of the need for morality and the realization of how health and well-being go beyond material and physical considerations. Walking with him near his “factory” he points out dozens of herbs in the surrounding vegetation, saying that knowledge about their healing properties can be learnt by memory, but really to understand one needs access to “higher/transcendental” knowledge. He feels that in Thailand such knowledge is valued less and less. Thus, unlike certain others, fearing “theft” of knowledge, he is willing to establish links with foreigners. This, he believes, if done properly and through the right channels, could lead to greater recognition of Thai traditional medicine abroad (like TCM), and ultimately would make Thais change their attitudes and accept traditional medicine more. Ajarn Pinkaew regularly attends meetings with highlevel MoPH officials and helps in the procedure of quality control of herbs. He views this as one side of traditional medicine’s development, though he sees ethical “regression”—regarding healing in general and its uncontrolled commercialization—as another side. He says that being a traditional healer does not involve religion (vis-à-vis many rituals and “external” activities), but is rather associated with determination in one’s heart to help others. He mentions that Buddhism points to paramattha-sacca (ultimate reality) so one can see it; but effectively if one sees it one must have an att¡ (self). Thus, the only way to follow Buddhist teachings and transcend the att¡ is to “realize” lokutara (the supramundane/ transcendental), something that (unlike the “mundane world”) cannot be conventionally measured and tested in laboratories. He feels that the best way would be for conventional medicine and traditional medicine to work together on the level of medication and healing techniques. However, beyond the body and on the level of mind, an abstract area where teaching is harder, knowledge comes from using Dharma in dealing with everything, traditional and modern. Ajarn Prasart Tetyaem, from Lopburi province, with nine years of state education and a year as a monk, unlike most healers has qualifications/licences in pharmacy and general medical theory. He believes that traditional medicine faces similar problems to those suggested by Ajarn Pinkaew; but, living closer to Bangkok and the MoPH, he favours an approach working with traditional medicine students within Thailand. These are mainly people from Bangkok visiting his home on MoPH-organized “study tours”. He realizes traditional medicine must change with the times, yet says that this can only be in the way it is taught, classified and regulated, and how patients are treated. The core of traditional medicine, he says, involves unchanging truths taught in Buddhism, which address issues of the mind

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

219

9/8/05, 9:00

MARCO RONCARATI

220

and how behaviour and health are determined by karma (volitional action). Regarding his experience, Ajarn Prasart says that, like all knowledge and all herbs, it comes from nature; thus, he cannot keep it because it belongs to nature and the world (global society). He expresses interest to teach anyone willing to learn by saying that anyone wanting the knowledge can take it, though he feels that they should then use the knowledge to help others. He also feels that working with the MoPH and their plans to “modernize” traditional medicine is best. Whenever he visits the MoPH and meets professors and conventional medicine doctors, he tells them he has little knowledge, though his knowledge is about “essential” traditional medicine. This implies the subtle source of the knowledge, which, like knowing the earth (the source of all herbs), allows one to understand what gives herbs their curative properties. Some people cannot accept that matters are so simple, and even criticize him; yet this, he states, is “good” because it allows him to see his “shadow”. Likewise, when praised he does not take it seriously, as he believes that good, honest people do not offer much praise, just like skilled healers do not talk a lot (about themselves and their achievements). Consequently, he “selectively” deals with the MoPH, allowing him usually to stay at home, so that people can visit him and see how he informally works with his herbs and often treats patients just by talking about Dharma, teaching meditation and encouraging more integral perspectives than can transcend dualities. Regarding traditional medicine’s future, Ajarn Prasart is neither optimistic nor pessimistic, for this is not the way of s™ladhamma. Nevertheless, having spent much time in self-study, he willingly teaches others how to do likewise and embrace modern changes being experienced in Thailand. He says that, formerly “masters” needed to know “disciples” a long time before teaching, but nowadays, with people liking things fast, this is no longer possible. However, everything around one can be used in learning, and with arguably more going on there are more potential lessons; if one can find and witness stillness in all movement and discriminate between the useful and harmful. For Ajarn Prasart, any increase in scepticism, as that inherent in scientific inquiry, can help eradicate impractical traditional superstitions that obstruct development of paññ¡ (wisdom), while treating new discoveries dispassionately. The “new generation”, as individuals and groups, with rises in the extent and potential access to diverse forms of knowledge, can go either way: to eliminate dukkha or generate more of it. As for health care in Thailand, Ajarn Prasart–like several other healers, monks and more open-minded conventional medicine practitioners–feels that, through reform and other means, there is the potential for much improvement and a better understanding of spiritual issues that can bring about higher standards of health in terms of the body and the mind. To what extent that potential will be realized is difficult to gauge; nevertheless it requires people recognizing the risks of being limited to physical criteria.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

220

9/8/05, 9:00

Health Care Developments in Changing Thai Society: Beyond the Physical

221

References Boesch, E.E. Communication Between Doctors and Patients in Thailand: Part I: Survey of the Problem and Analysis of the Consultations. Saarbrucken: University of the Saar, 1972. Brun, V. and Schumacher, T. Traditional Herbal Medicine in Northern Thailand. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987. Caldwell, J.C. Routes to Low Mortality in Poor Countries. Population and Development Review, 2 (1986): 171-220. Cassell, E.J. The Healer’s Art: A New Approach to the Doctor-Patient Relationship. New York: Lippincott, 1976. Gabe, J. and Calnan, M. The Limits of Medicine: Women’s Perception of Medical Technology. Social Science and Medicine, 28 (1989): 3: 223-231. Goldschmindt, A.M.F. and Hofer, B. Communication Between Doctors and Patients in Thailand: Part II: Analysis of the Interviews with the Doctors and the Patients. Saarbrucken: University of the Saar, 1972. Good, B.J. and DelVecchio Good, M. “Learning Medicine”: The Constructing of Medical Knowledge at Harvard Medical School. In Lindenbaum, S. and Lock, W. (eds.) Knowledge, Power and Practice: The Anthropology of Medicine and Everyday Life. London: University of California Press, 1993. Health Systems Research Institute Bulletin. s¡th¡na sukhaph¡p khong khon thai (The Health Status of Thai People). Nontaburi: Ministry of Public Health, June (2543) 2000. Helman, C. Culture, Health and Illness. London: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1994. Hinderling, P. Communication Between Doctors and Patients in Thailand: Part III: Interviews with Traditional Doctors. Saarbrucken: University of the Saar, 1973. Irvine, W. The Thai-Yuan ‘Madman’, and the Modernising, Developing Thai Nation as Bounded Entities under Threat: A Study in the Replication of a Single Image. Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, 1982. Jarat Suwanawera. m¢m-mong mai rabob sukaph¡p (A New Perspective on the Health care System). Nontaburi: Health Systems Research Institute, Ministry of Public Health, (2543) 2000. Kleinman, A. Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture: An Exploration of the Borderland between Anthropology, Medicine and Psychiatry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. Mali Sithikriengkrai. sat¡nak¡n le thitth¡ng k¡n-wijai k¡n-phe¯ t phe¯ ¢n-b¡n ph¡k-ne¯¢a (The Situation and Direction of Northern Thai Traditional Medicine). Paper distributed at the “First Conference of Research to Empower Communities”, Chiang Mai, 24-26 April 2000. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

221

9/8/05, 9:00

MARCO RONCARATI

222

Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) (2542) 1999. kh¢-me¯ ¢ prame¯ ¢n sakhayaph¡p k¡n pheung ton-eng d¡n s¡t¡rana-suk khong chum-chon (Handbook to Evaluate the Potential for Self-Reliance in Community Public Health Care). Nontaburi: samnak-ng¡n k¡n s¡t¡rana-suk munt¡n (Committee for Basic Public Health Care), Ministry of Public Health, (2542) 1999. National Institute of Thai Traditional Medicine (NITTM). The National Institute of Thai Traditional Medicine. Nontaburi: Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, 1996. National Institute of Thai Traditional Medicine. Integration of Thai Traditional Medicine into the National Health Care System. Nontaburi: Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, n.d. National Institute of Thai Traditional Medicine. kh¢-me¯¢ patibat-ng¡n k¡n-phe¯t phe¯ n-thai (Handbook for the Practice of Thai Traditional Medicine). Nontaburi: Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, (2539) 1996. Prawet Wasi. sukaph¡p nai tana udomk¡n khong manut (Health in Terms of Human Ideology). Nontaburi: Office for Health care Reform and Health Systems Research Institute, Ministry of Public Health, (2543) 2000. Tanachai Tiemngam. k¡n-seuks¡ ong-khw¡m-r¢ th¡ng k¡n-phe¯ t phe¯¢n-b¡n l¡nn¡: koran™-seuks¡ m£ pinkeow tannuan (The Study of Healing Knowledge of “Lanna” Traditional Medicine: A Case Study of Doctor Pinkaew Tannuan). Master’s Degree Dissertation. Mahidol University, (2542) 1999. Thara Onchomchant. Integration of Complementary Medicine into District Health Care Systems in Thailand. M.A. Dissertation. Leeds University, 1998. Turton, A. Limits of Ideological Domination and the Formation of Social Consciousness. In Turton, A. and Tanabe, S. (eds.) History and Peasant Consciousness in South East Asia. Senri Ethnological Studies, No. 13, Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, 1984. Whittaker, A. Introduction to the section “Health and Civil Society: Policy, Participation, Justice and Politics.” Handbook to the 7th International Conference on Thai Studies, Amsterdam, 4-8 July 1999: 117-118, 1999. Yano, S. Phra Kru Supajarawat: Finding the Middle Path Between the Modern and the Traditional. In Sulak Sivaraksa, Pipob Udomittipong and Walker, C. (eds.) 1999. Socially Engaged Buddhism for the New Millennium: Essays in honor of The Ven. Phra Dhammapitaka (Bhikkhu P.A. Payutto) on his 60th birthday anniversary. Bangkok: Sathirakoses - Nagapradipa Foundation & Foundation for Children, 1999.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P205-222

222

9/8/05, 9:00

Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam : from Silent Movie to Novel?

223

BAN MAHA PHAI AND PHRAE DAM: FROM SILENT MOVIE TO NOVEL? David Smyth

Abstract Luang Saranupraphan was one of the most prominent figures in the Thai literary world of the early 1920s, both on account of his own writings and his editorship of two journals, Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat and Saranukun, which attracted many famous writers of the day. As a novelist, he is remembered chiefly for Phrae Dam and Na Phi. While both of these works are regularly mentioned in biographical entries on Luang Saranupraphan and in literary histories, they are not readily accessible and probably few people today have read them. Following the publication of Suphanni Waratho’n’s Prawat kan praphan nawaniyai thai in 1976, it has been widely assumed that Luang Saranupraphan took the plot of Phrae Dam from a western movie, ‘The House of Hate’ which was shown in Bangkok a few years earlier. Since Luang Saranupraphan was vociferous in promoting his own novel as being an entirely original work, and emphasizing that it was ‘not a translation, nor a transposition nor an adaptation, in any way whatsoever,’ the link between Phrae Dam and ‘The House of Hate’, or Ban Maha Phai as it was called in Thai, is worth examining in more detail. From an examination of the novel Phrae Dam, a ‘House of Hate’ press booklet produced by Pathé for trade distribution in England, and the Ban Maha Phai set of film-books by ‘Khon Than’, it can be concluded that despite some superficial similarities, Phrae Dam and the ‘House of Hate’ are very different works and Luang Saranupraphan’s claims to originality perfectly reasonable. This paper sets out firstly to restore Luang Saranupraphan’s integrity and discourage literary historians from repeating the claim that Phrae Dam is copied from a foreign movie, and secondly to awaken interest in the career of Luang Saranupraphan.and his role in the development and promotion of the early Thai novel. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

223

9/8/05, 9:01

223

DAVID SMYTH

224

Introduction* In December 1922 the Editor’s Page of Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat drew readers’ attention to a new serial appearing in that issue, called Phrae Dam (‘Black Silk’): ‘It can be said that there are few original Thai works of fiction being written which do not take their plot from foreign fiction, for reasons we discussed in detail in the Editor’s Page of volume 6 part 4. However, the fact that the author of Phrae Dam devised this story himself, without copying the plot from any other story, is likely to be criticized by many who disagree with this approach. But the author says that he is happy to submit himself fully to the criticisms of all those who do not like it, without making any excuse whatsoever. This is because the author merely has the hope of creating a memorial to himself as having written one long Thai story (Serial) in his writing career.1 The lack of ‘original Thai works of fiction’ (ru’ang thai thae) was something that vexed the editor of Sena su’ksa ... and was a recurrent theme in his columns. Now, in Phrae Dam, however, it seemed he had found a rare example, so it was not surprising, therefore, that he was prepared to promote it with some enthusiasm. In March 1923, after devoting considerable space to explaining why the author, Luang Saranupraphan, had been unable to deliver the fourth episode on time, he issued a forceful reminder to readers of the uniqueness of this work: ‘But Phrae Dam is not like Chinese works of fiction. It is very far removed indeed, because Phrae Dam is not a translation, nor a transposition, nor adaptation, in any way whatsoever. There was no pre-existing manuscript; it is, genuinely, a new piece. The author *

I gratefully acknowledge the research grants I have received from the British Academy Committee for South-East Asian Studies, which has made this and other aspects of my research on the early Thai novel possible. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to Achin Chantarampho’n and Suchart Sawatsi for their friendship, encouragement and assistance with various sources and to Dome Sukwong and Chalida Uabumrungjit at the National Film Archive for facilitating my access to film-books. 1 Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat, vol. 6 pt. 12, 1922, p. 1494. The novel Phrae Dam published in Sena su’ksa ... is unrelated to the 1961 Ratana Pestonji film of the same name. The author of Phrae Dam’s defiant attitude towards those who would criticize him for not copying his plot from elsewhere has to be seen in the context of the period, when translations and adaptations of foreign stories were automatically deemed superior to original Thai works, and Thai authors even resorted to disguising the originality of their work by giving their characters Western names. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

224

9/8/05, 9:01

Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam : from Silent Movie to Novel?

225

says that if he had not written it with his own hand, Phrae Dam would simply not be Phrae Dam.’2 If the anonymous editor appeared hyper-protective of Phrae Dam, the reason became apparent three months later, when he revealed that he and the author of Phrae Dam were one and the same person—Luang Saranupraphan. But the revelation of his identity did nothing to dampen Luang Saranupraphan’s enthusiasm for proclaiming the merits of his own work, and for the next few months, even after the serial had ended, he could often find a reason to mention Phrae Dam in his editorials. In the July 1923 issue, he offered reassurance that the story had no basis in fact and expressed delight at the response of his readers: ‘Talking specifically about Phrae Dam, my (your editor’s) own story, the concluding episode of which is published here, I would like personally (and not in my role as editor) to declare that I feel very pleased to know that you all enjoyed reading it. I have, moreover, received many letters from satisfied subscribers overseas. I bow my head in humble and sincere acceptance of their words of praise and will keep their opinions of Phrae Dam as a lasting memory.’3 The following month found Luang Saranupraphan vigorously refuting an alleged suggestion from some readers, that a Sena su’ksa ... without a story like Phrae Dam was ‘bland’, and insisting that he regarded himself as merely one of the journal’s ‘team’. In the December issue of the same year he announced a new story with the line, ‘You liked Phrae Dam so much, you won’t be able to put this one down’.4 It was emphasized that, like Phrae Dam, this new story was neither translation nor adaptation; and at the end of the paragraph, it was revealed that this story, too, was written by Luang Saranupraphan. Forty years after the appearance of Phrae Dam, in the first attempt to chronicle the history of the Thai novel, Yot Watcharasathian wrote: ‘The honour of being the first person to write genuine Thai mystery stories goes to Luang Saranupraphan (Nuan Pachinphayak) with Phrae Dam being the first work and Na Phi, the second. They were published consecutively in the magazine Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat and proved hugely popular with readers. Everyone called him ‘Luang Sara Phrae Dam’... Following Luang Saranupra-

2

Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat, vol. 7 pt. 3, 1923, p. 401. Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat, vol 7 pt 7, 1923, pp. 910-11. 4 Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat, vol 7 pt 12 , 1923, pp. 1562-3. 3

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

225

9/8/05, 9:01

DAVID SMYTH

226

phan’s great success with these two mystery stories, many others with a genius for writing turned to producing this kind of story.’5 Other early writers on the novel, such as Prakat Watcharapho’n and Chu’a Satawethin were quick to follow Yot in identifying Phrae Dam as a pioneering work in the history of the Thai novel, and Luang Saranupraphan’s position as the major Thai novelist of the early 1920s thus seemed secure.6 But from the mid1970s, following the publication of a book entitled, Prawat kan praphan nawaniyai thai (‘History of the Writing of the Thai Novel’), Luang Saranupraphan’s proud– and not infrequent–claims about the originality of his work began to sound a little hollow.7 In this book, the author, Suphanni Waratho’n, argued that there was a more than coincidental similarity between Phrae Dam and a foreign silent movie called Ban Maha Phai, which had been shown in Bangkok some years before the appearance of Luang Saranupraphan’s novel. From the evidence she put forward, it was difficult not to conclude that Luang Saranupraphan had simply transplanted the plot of a foreign movie to a Thai setting; and that is, indeed, the conclusion that a number of literary historians, textbook writers and cinema historians have subsequently drawn. This paper looks more closely at the relationship between the movie Ban Maha Phai and the novel Phrae Dam. Early cinema in Siam and ‘film books’ The first commercial cinema show in Siam took place on 10 June 1897, scarcely 18 months after the Lumière brothers had staged the world’s first public moving picture show in Paris.8 The country’s first permanent cinema was built in 1905 at Wat Tuk on Charoen Krung Road, where Tomoyori Watanabe, a Japanese film entrepreneur, screened nightly shows from 20:15 to 22:45; the popularity of this venture led to the use of the term nang yipun (‘Japanese shadow theatre’) to 5

Yot Watcharasathian, Khwam pen ma khong kan praphan lae nak praphan thai. Bangkok: Phrae phitthaya, 1963, p.174. 6 P. Watcharapho’n, Thamniap nak praphan. Bangkok: Do’k Ya, 1989, pp. 295-302 (1st edition, Bangkok: Phadung su’ksa, 1963); Chu’a Satawethin, Prawat nawaniyai thai. Bangkok: Suthisan kan phim, 1974, p. 35. 7 Supphanni Waratho’n. Prawat kan praphan nawaniyai thai. Bangkok: Munnithi khrongkan tamra sangkhomsat lae manutsayasat, 1976. 8 For further details of early cinema in Siam, see Chamroenlak Thanawangnoi. Prawatisat phapphayon thai tangtae reak roem chon sin samai songkhram lok khrang thi so’ng. Bangkok: Samnakphim Mahawitthayalai Thammasat, 2001; Dome Sukwong. Kamnoet nang thai. Bangkok: Matichon, 1996; and Dome Sukwong and Sawasdi Suwannapak, A Century of Thai Cinema. London: Thames and Hudson, 2001. The latter includes numerous old photographs and reproductions of newspaper announcements. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

226

9/8/05, 9:01

Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam : from Silent Movie to Novel?

227

describe any moving picture show.9 From then, the cinema grew rapidly in popularity, with Siamese entrepreneurs setting up companies to build cinemas and distribute imported films. The earliest cinema programmes were announced in newspapers. But competition between rival cinemas and distribution companies quickly emerged and new advertising ploys had to be found. These included the use of billboard announcements on horse-drawn carts, and leaflets, printed in Thai, Chinese and English, with details of forthcoming programmes and sometimes brief summaries of the films to be shown. As the plots of the imported silent movies became more complex, and with the growth in popularity of serials shown over a period of several weeks, three to four line summaries no longer offered audiences sufficient clarification of events unfolding on screen. Unlike in China and Japan, early Thai cinema did not employ an interpreter to stand alongside the screen to shout out a running commentary for the benefit of the audience. Instead, longer, more detailed abridgements of the plots began to appear in daily newspapers, such collaboration boosting the sales of both cinema tickets and newspapers.10 Cinema-owners went a step further in commissioning small paperback booklets, known as nangsu’ phapphayon (‘film-books’), which were sold to cinema-goers. A single volume would suffice for a short film, but for serials, eight or nine volumes was not uncommon. Film-books quickly became so popular that publishers would bid for the right to print them; publication dates were timed to coincide with a film’s release for maximum mutual publicity, and by 1923, print-runs of 8,000 copies were not unexceptional.11 The primary aim of film books was, of course, to provide the audience with a clearer understanding of what they were about to see, had just seen, or in the case of a serial, an episode they had perhaps missed. But they had a much wider and more lasting significance, in that they encouraged a reading and book-buying habit among the public, particularly the younger generation.12 Film books were popular 9

The programme would typically consist of 12 to 14 items, some of which changed nightly, while others ran for several consecutive nights. Admission prices were 30 satang for 3rd class seats, 1 baht for 2nd class and 2 baht for 1st class. 10 Perhaps the idea was copied from America, where Rufus McCormick, is said to have increased the readership of the Chicago Tribune by 50,000 in December 1913 by publishing abridged versions of each episode of the serial, ‘The Adventures of Kathlyn’; his rival, William Randolph Hearst, was quick to follow, with the Pearl White serial, ‘The Perils of Pauline’, being simultaneously serialized in his newspapers in 1914. 11 S. Bunsanoe Tam roi lai su’ thai. Bangkok: Phi Wathin Publication, 1988, p. 99. 12 The writer Sao Bunsanoe recalled borrowing or renting film books as a schoolboy and later saving his lunch money in order to buy them. ibid. pp. 94-5. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

227

9/8/05, 9:01

DAVID SMYTH

228

for only a few years. Their demise was linked closely to the decline of the foreignmade serial film, the birth of a local film industry and the coming of sound and dubbing.13 But in stimulating a demand for light reading material, and awakening both aspiring writers and publishers alike to the commercial possibilities of prose fiction, film-books paved the way for the rapid growth in popularity of the novel towards the end of the second decade of the twentieth century; indeed, many of the novelists who emerged at this time had begun their career producing film-books. Ban Maha Phai and ‘The House of Hate’ One of the most popular films showing in Bangkok cinemas in 1919 was a twenty-part Pathé serial called ‘The House of Hate’, renamed Ban Maha Phai (literally, ‘house of great danger’) in Thai.14 No copies of the film appear still to exist, books on cinema history offer only scant references to it, and even contemporary reviews give little impression of what happened on screen. By chance, however, a small piece of cinema ephemera, a ‘House of Hate’ press booklet, produced by Pathé for trade distribution, has survived and is now kept in the Library of the British Film Institute in London. This provides page-long summaries for all but the last episode, each accompanied by four or five still photographs from the film; the page for the final episode consists of a crude drawing of ‘The Hooded Terror’ with a question mark superimposed, and a rhymed invitation to guess his identity. This press booklet conveys something of the intricacy of the plot, non-stop action and daring stunts that led a contemporary reviewer to comment that this ‘latest serial may readily be welcomed as the best yet.’15 The plot basically involves a conflict over who should assume control of the family-owned ordnance works, once the elderly patriarch relinquishes power. His sudden murder by a hooded figure, who is determined to harm the heroine, introduces the element of mystery, and the challenge for audiences was to guess the identity of the villain. After fourteen episodes had been shown in Bangkok, the local distributor even offered cinema-goers a very substantial prize of 200 baht for guessing correctly, a strategy

13

Siam’s first home-produced film, Chok so’ng chan (‘Double Luck’) was shown in July 1927, followed in September by Mai khit loei (‘Unexpected’); the country’s first ‘talkie’, Long thang (‘Gone Astray’) was released in April 1932. 14 First released in Hollywood in late 1918, it was directed by George B. Seitz and starred Pearl White, famous for her daring stunts in earlier Pathé serials, such as ‘The Exploits of Elaine’ and ‘The Perils of Pauline’, with Antonio Moreno as leading man. 15 The Bioscope, vol. 40, n. 627, 17 October, 1918, p. 32. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

228

9/8/05, 9:01

Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam : from Silent Movie to Novel?

229

which doubtless encouraged sales of both ticket and film-books.16 Episodes of ‘The House of Hate’ see-saw through a catalogue of attempts on the heroine’s life, dramatic escapes or rescues by the hero, and apparently imminent revelations of the identity of the ‘Hooded Terror’. The setting of a number of scenes in a munitions factory, the heroine’s sale of arms to a French army officer, the unmasking of a spy called Baron von Rath, and the testing of flame throwers and biological weapons provide a contemporary background. The Siamese distributor would almost certainly have received a copy of the press booklet, but in its bare outline of the major events in each episode, it needed much more than a straight translation to turn it into a film-book of the appropriate length and quality. The man commissioned to do the job was Chup Chakhaphirom, a well-known writer of the period, who wrote under the pseudonym ‘Khon Than’. He duly produced ten film books to accompany the serial, each containing two episodes of approximately 20 pages. More by luck than design, a complete set of his Ban Maha Phai film books has survived and is now housed in the Thai Film Foundation at Salaya, Nakhorn Pathom, where it represents one of the best-preserved examples of the genre.17 Like most film books, the Ban Maha Phai books are approximately 5 x 7 inches in size, around 40 pages in length, printed on paper of modest quality, and cost 25 satang each.18 The covers, printed in three colours, are identical for all ten volumes, with photographic reproductions of the two leading stars portrayed beneath an image of the masked villain, dagger in hand. The title of most of the twenty episodes are accurate translations from the English (e.g. Episode 4 ‘The Man from Java’ - Butkhon phu ma chak ko’ chawa; Episode 7 ‘The Germ Menace’ – Chu’a rok an raikat; Episode 11 ‘Haunts of Evil’ – So’ng ai wai rai) or occasionally, an intelligent alternative (e.g. Episode 6 ‘A Live Target’ – Gresham klai pen pao; Episode 17 ‘The Death Switch’ – Nak thot phu to’ng prahan). Film book writers, such as ‘Khon Than’, had to have a good command of English and the ability to write well to tight deadlines; they were usually paid

16

‘Khon Than’, Ban Maha Phai, vol. 7. There were, of course, a couple of let-out clauses: if the winner failed to collect his prize within seven days, it would be donated in his name to the Municipal Fire Brigade; and if a number of people guessed correctly, the prize money would be shared equally, unless there were more than 20 winners, in which case, again, the prize money would be donated to the Municipal Fire Brigade. 17 This is a second ‘revised’ edition, dated 1919. 18 Chusri Kalavantavanich, Phattanakan kho’ng nangsu’ pok o’n nai prathet thai.Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Library Science, Chulalongkorn University, 1975, p. 81–3. Examples of film book covers appear in Dome Sukwong and Sawasdi Suwannapak., op. cit. p. 30–31 , and Anake Nawigamune. A Century of Thai Graphic Design. London: Thames and Hudson, 2000, p. 102–3. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

229

9/8/05, 9:01

DAVID SMYTH

230

30-40 baht per story by cinema-owners, roughly what an ordinary worker might expect to make in a month.19 Their work began with a preview of the film, before it went on general release, in a room specially set aside for the purpose. In a room on an upper floor of the Siam Cinema Company office, for example, there were three screens lined up close against the wall and three small projectors permanently set up and manned by projectionists. Films were normally previewed at night, since most of the writers had daytime jobs, and each would be allocated the kind of film that reflected their strengths as a writer. When the film reached a point where there were English inter-titles, the writer would tell the projectionist to stop the film so that he could translate what was on screen; this involved an element of risk, since the heat from the projector could cause the film to go up in flames.20 When ‘Khon Than’ began drafting episodes one and two for the first volume of Ban Maha Phai, he probably had no idea how the film would turn out. His task was simply to stick closely to what was happening on the screen, as it occurred, and set it down on paper, complete with translations of the inter-titles. As a result, we have a very detailed impression of what ‘The House of Hate’ was like. At the same time, some of the limitations of film-books as a literary genre are readily apparent. Since they were written with the assumption that readers already had, or soon would have, a clear visual image in their mind as they read, detailed descriptive passages were unnecessary. The writer’s task was essentially to record the often-complex comings and goings of characters, major and minor, and to faithfully translate the inter-titles, and all within a limited number of pages. One problem was the switches between scenes on screen, conventionally used to portray simultaneous action, which produced a clumsy and disjointed narrative when transferred to the page. Another, bigger, problem was that there was sometimes just too much happening on screen, in too short a space of time, to do events full justice with the written word, as the following two-page account of the kidnap of the heroine of Ban Maha Phai and the car/motorcycle chase that followed illustrates: At the same time, Pearl was getting ready for bed. As she approached the door of her room, the black-garbed villain, who was hiding, gave a sharp tug on the curtain hanging from the door. It fell, engulfing Pearl. Bravely, she tried to put up a fight. They rolled back and forth in the room. Eventually the villain carried Pearl down the stairs into the living room, where Pearl began to struggle again. 19

According to the Statistical Year Book of the Kingdom of Siam (1922) daily wages for a cook between 1918–21 were roughly one baht a day, for an engineer, three baht a day, and for an Indian watchman 28 baht a month. 20 S. Bunsanoe. op. cit. pp. 100–1. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

230

9/8/05, 9:01

Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam : from Silent Movie to Novel?

231

But it was in vain. The villain held her firmly and carried her down into the secret cavern beneath the building. Gresham went to examine the car and found there was no one there. He was about to return, when he turned and saw the villain carry Pearl out from a door in the wall, which was the entrance to the cavern, and hand her over to a waiting accomplice. Gresham ran up and became involved in a fierce fight, but he was hit in a vital part and fell senseless to the ground. The villain’s henchman was thus able to make his get-away with Pearl, but his boss returned to the cavern. The henchman placed Pearl in the car but had no time to drive away. A policeman, who had learned of events from Herrick over the telephone, arrived on a motorcycle and immediately engaged him in a fight. The policeman fired a bullet, but instead it pierced the radiator at the front of the car, and water ran out. A fierce struggle continued for a while and then the policeman was floored. The henchman quickly picked up Pearl, who had been lying unconscious in the car, and placed her on the policeman’s motorcycle and drove off quickly. Before the motorcycle had gone very far, another police car arrived at the scene of the incident. The policeman who had been knocked down, quickly got up and gave instructions to follow the henchman. The henchman drove quickly. When he turned the motorcycle into the compound of Mr Winthrop Waldon’s weapons factory, he was struck by a piece of wood that had been placed across the road. He and Pearl fell off the vehicle and lay by the side of the road. Despite this, he still tried to carry Pearl through a shortcut into the factory compound. But if the car in which the police were following in hot pursuit had not had to stop because of a train passing, there would have been no question as to whether he would have been able to make his getaway.21 But whatever shortcomings may be apparent to the reader in the twentyfirst century, it has to be remembered that, in the 1920s, reading material in Thailand was still limited and books such as Ban Maha Phai were a welcome break from stodgy school textbooks. ‘Khon Than’’s efforts received sufficient popular approval for it to go into a second, revised edition. 21

‘Khon Than’, Ban Maha Phai, 1919. vol. 1, pp. 21–3. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

231

9/8/05, 9:01

DAVID SMYTH

232

Suphanni and the link between Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam Published in 1976, Suphanni Waratho’n’s Prawat kan praphan nawaniyai thai (‘History of the Writing of the Thai Novel’) first saw the light of day as an MA thesis at Chulalongkorn University in 1973. This was a time when there was a growing interest among writers, critics and academics in twentieth century Thai writers and their works, and when the map of modern literary history was beginning to be plotted.22 Most MA theses get a nod of approval from an examining committee and then lie forgotten, shelved with hundreds of other identically-bound volumes in a dusty corner of a university library, to be disturbed only rarely, if at all, by the occasional diligent graduate student. But Suphanni had addressed a gaping void in Thai literary history, and with the quality of her research readily apparent, her thesis was chosen for publication as part of a programme to improve the quality of academic textbooks. Since then, and despite the shameful fact that it has never been reprinted after the first run of 3,000 copies, it has remained the best, and most widely-quoted source on the early Thai novel. In discussing the influence of foreign films on the Thai novel, Suphanni cites the film Ban Maha Phai and the novel Phrae Dam as an example, devoting ten pages to comparing the plot and characters.23 She notes that apart from the fact that both are mystery stories with hooded villains, there are a number of striking similarities, such as the abduction of the heroine, disputed legacies, houses with secret passageways and similar casts of characters; and to back this up, she quotes descriptions of the abductions of the heroines and the deaths of the villains’ accomplices from the film-book and the novel for comparison.24 Suphanni concludes, ‘All these points of comparison between the film Ban Maha Phai and the crime novel Phrae Dam which I have cited, show their strong similarities in structure, incident and characterization. Such similarities are unlikely to have been coincidental, but rather through the one undoubtedly influencing the other. In this instance, the film and film-book Ban Maha Phai must have been the inspiration for Luang Saranupraphan to write Phrae Dam, because they existed 22

Smyth, David. ‘Towards the canonizing of the Thai novel’. In Smyth, David (ed.) The Canon in Southeast Asian Literatures, Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 2000, pp. 172–82. 23 Suphanni pp. 104–114. When Suphanni refers to the ‘film’ Ban Maha Phai, she really means the ‘film book’ by ‘Khon Than’, as is apparent from her footnotes. 24 Suphanni’s footnotes do not indicate which volume of Ban Maha Phai she is quoting from, but her first two quotes are from volume 1 and the third from episode 19 in volume 10 (which should read ‘pp. 373–4’ and not ‘73–4’). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

232

9/8/05, 9:01

Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam : from Silent Movie to Novel?

233

before and had been very popular at the time. Apart from that, the words of one of the characters in Phrae Dam who says of ‘The Hooded Fiend’, ‘I’ve only ever seen such a thing in a movie’, makes this hypothesis the more reasonable.’25 Suphanni’s views on the connection between Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam have subsequently been quoted or echoed by, among others, Roengchai Puttharo, writing on Luang Saranupraphan, Dome Sukwong, on early Thai cinema, and Jacqueline de Fels on the early history of the novel.26 Luang Saranupraphan and Phrae Dam Luang Saranupraphan was born on 24 August, 1896. His father, the owner of a school in Bangkok, gave him the personal name ‘Nuan’ and following a royal decree on surnames in 1913, the family name became ‘Pachinphayak. He was an outstanding pupil, coming top in the secondary school examinations of 1910, but he did not accept a King’s Scholarship to study abroad. He started a career as a teacher at Suan Kulap School at the age of 15, transferring in 1916, at the request of the Ministry of Defence, to the Army Officer Cadet School to teach Thai and English. He soon became heavily involved as an assistant editor on the newly established journal, Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat, published by the Department of Strategic Studies. In 1921 he was promoted to the post of editor and given the title ‘Luang Saranupraphan’. As editor, Luang Saranupraphan, invited some of the country’s best-known writers to contribute, broadening the readership of Sena su’ksa ... beyond military circles, and establishing it as one of the most important literary journals of the day. He himself was also a prolific contributor, with his translation of William Le Queux’s ‘Rasputin, the Minister of Evil’, Phachon Phai Chiangmai (‘Chiangmai Adventure’) and, best-known of all, Phrae Dam and Na Phi (‘Ghost Face’) which all appeared between 1921 and 1924. When the Director General of the Department of Strategic Affairs was suddenly transferred to a provincial post, Luang Saranupraphan, perhaps in protest, failed to submit the final episode of Na Phi and, as a result, was imprisoned for 15 days, and dismissed from government service, for damaging sales of Sena su’ksa ... .

25

Suphanni p. 114. Roengchai Puttharo. Nak khian thai. Bangkok: Saengdao, 1998, p.134; Dome Sukwong. Kamnoet nang thai. Bangkok: Matichon, 1996, p. 4; De Fels, Jacqueline. Promotion de la Littérature en Thaïlande (2 vols.). Paris: INALCO, 1993, pp. 248–9. 26

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

233

9/8/05, 9:01

DAVID SMYTH

234

Luang Saranupraphan subsequently published the complete Na Phi as a single volume.27 In February 1925 he launched a weekly magazine, Saranukun, which with its combination of factual articles and fiction became enormously popular. It had a claimed circulation of 3,000 copies a week, and many of the leading writers of the day at some time contributed to it; his own contributions included the mystery stories, Phrae Dam II and Mu’ Mu’t (‘The Dark Hand’) and translations of Sherlock Holmes. After the demise of Saranukun in 1929, Luang Saranupraphan became involved in political journalism, as editor of the Bangkok Daily Mail. He returned to government service in 1931, and as a loyal supporter of Phibun, he was made Director General of the Department of Religious Affairs in 1942. His fortunes subsequently rose and fell with Phibun’s, but after the latter’s return to power in 1948, Luang Saranupraphan was appointed Director General of the Department of Public Relations. He died in 1954. Phrae Dam is one of those books that everyone interested in the early Thai novel has heard of, but which no one has actually read. It appears that the seven serialized episodes in Sena su’ksa ..., were in fact once printed as a single volume, but such copies have long since disappeared from memory and the only way of gaining access to it today is through copies of the journal preserved in libraries.28 While there are plenty of references to Phrae Dam in literary histories, biographies and textbooks, where it is typically cited as an example of a ‘mystery story’ or a ‘famous early novel’, or ‘Luang Saranupraphan’s most famous work’, no summary exists to convey some idea of the content, nor, with the exception of Suphanni, is there any critical comment on the work. With a growing interest in earlier writers and their works over the last twenty years, it is a curious omission and it is difficult not to suspect that some literary historians may now see Phrae Dam as something of an embarrassment, something not quite genuine, something that claimed to be more than it really was. Indeed, even Roengchai, who has written at greatest length about Luang Saranupraphan, could find only half a page to say about this, the author’s most famous work, and then his main point was merely to reiterate Suphanni’s claim about the link between Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam.29

27

Like Thailand’s first novel, Khwam mai phayabat (‘Non-Vendetta’), published in 1915, but which subsequently disappeared from public view for decades, this is another famous book that has fallen victim to a lack of national policy on collecting and preserving the country’s literary heritage. If anyone knows of the existence of a copy of the book, please make it known. 28 Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat, vol. 7 pt 12, 1923, p. 1561. 29 Roengchai, op. cit. pp. 134-5. The reproduction of pages from Sena Su’ksa ... show that Roengchai had tracked down Phrae Dam, so his reticence about the novel cannot be attributed to a lack of access to the work. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

234

9/8/05, 9:01

Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam : from Silent Movie to Novel?

235

Phrae Dam is set in contemporary (i.e. 1922) Bangkok and the plot is built on a police investigation into a money-counterfeiting operation being run from the home of an aristocrat. The title of the novel refers to the sinister hooded figure who, dressed head-to-toe in black, makes frequent appearances at the house, terrorizing the owner’s adopted daughter. Phrae Dam is the kind of early novel in which characterization counts for little and action everything. The writer is concerned with creating suspense and excitement within the framework of a logical plot, and at the end of each chapter, he focuses readers’ thoughts with the question, ‘Who is ‘Phrae Dam’?’ printed in large letters. Luang Saranupraphan demonstrates considerable skill and ingenuity in keeping the reader guessing right through to the final episode. He starts by making Prasit, the unpleasant son of the household, the most obvious candidate; but then almost immediately the heroine, Prayun, voices reasonable suspicions about her sister, while the investigating police officer, Lt. Chamnun’s line of questioning, appears to point the finger at the owner of the house, Phraya Khamnun. Later, after the circumstantial evidence against Prasit has accumulated to the point where it appears incontrovertible, the reader’s expectations are suddenly confounded, when Prasit is killed by ‘Phrae Dam’. ‘Phrae Dam’ removes his mask in the penultimate chapter, but is then confronted by another ‘Phrae Dam’, whose identity emerges in the final chapter, where the puzzle of the existence of two ‘Phrae Dams’ – and, apparently, two Phraya Khamnuns – is resolved. The pace throughout is fast, with conversations constantly interrupted by footsteps on staircases, knocks on doors, screams, sounds of fighting and so on; there are several fights, a car chase, and an array of secret rooms, passageways and trapdoors through which characters can conveniently appear and disappear. But the author, remarkably, given that episodes were written to meet the monthly publishing deadline, never allows readers to lose sight of the plot, often slipping in reminders of significant details at appropriate points.30 The first episode of Phrae Dam appeared in December 1922, under a striking graphic heading, which included an illustration of a hooded figure with raised dagger, surrounded by a huge question mark. Beneath the title, the work was described as ‘a mystery, detective, adventure and love story’. Although masked or hooded villains were by no means uncommon in films of the period, anyone who had seen either the film or the film-book of Ban Maha Phai could scarcely have failed to notice the visual similarity.31 This is the first of several references to the film; but on the Editor’s Page, the still anonymous Luang Saranupraphan teased 30

For example, in Chapter 5, when Phraya Khamnun asks for six armed police, he reminds readers of Phraya Khamnun’s earlier insistence (in Chapter 3) on not involving the police at any cost. 31 In 1913, for example, the French film ‘Fantomas’ starred an identically-clad master villain. Karney, Robyn (ed). Chronicle of the Cinema. London: Dorling Kindersley, 1995, p. 101. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

235

9/8/05, 9:01

DAVID SMYTH

236

readers about jumping to the wrong conclusion about Phrae Dam: ‘The story, when you look at it superficially appears to be a ‘nang chai’ (‘movie’) or ‘phapphayon’ (‘film’) story. In fact, the author confessed that he intended that readers should think this. But once they come to the final part of the story, every reader will know the plot and agree with the author that it is really just a normal piece of fiction (ru’ang an len thammada) ...32 So confident was Luang Saranupraphan in the originality of Phrae Dam–and that he could not be accused of adapting or imitating a foreign work–that he proceeded to drop deliberate references to the film Ban Maha Phai into the text of his novel. In the second episode, for example, one of the characters describes the hooded villain like this: ‘Black, he was, blacker than ink. Dressed just like in a nang yipun (movie). I saw one once. They said it was called ‘Ban Maha Phai’, or something. I can’t remember.’33 In the same episode, one of the supporting characters remarks, after listening to the heroine’s account of her encounter with the hooded figure, ‘It’s strange. I’ve never heard of this kind of thing in Thailand before. I’ve only ever seen it in movies.’34 In Episode 5, the description of the hooded villain as, ‘ai tua maha phai’ (‘That creature of great danger’) consciously echoes the earlier film title;35 while in Episode 6, the villain reveals where the idea for his disguise came from: ‘I would always try to come down to Bangkok and come and have a chat with him [Prasit] at this house. Then, one day, he took me to see a movie at a cinema near Wat Tuk. It was a really good film that night and the place was packed. What the title was, I don’t really remember. It was a long movie that ran to dozens of reels, but that night there were only two episodes in four reels. There was one thing that made an impression on me and was to be the source of the 32

Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat, vol. 6 pt. 12, 1922, p. 1484. Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat, vol. 7 pt. 1, 1923, p. 88. 34 Ibid. p.96; Suphanni, (op.cit. p.114) also quotes part of this line. 35 Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat, vol . 7 pt. 5, 1923, p. 658. 33

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

236

9/8/05, 9:01

Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam : from Silent Movie to Novel?

237

career I have followed until now. In the film there was a mysterious figure, completely dressed in black. He went around in this disguise, so no one could recognize him, doing whatever he wanted. I tell you frankly that I really liked that film. When we got back home, Prasit and I talked about it and decided we’d have a bit of fun.’36 Phrae Dam and Ban Maha Phai To what extent, then, did Phrae Dam borrow from Ban Maha Phai/‘The House of Hate’? The two works belong to the same mystery/adventure genre, which climaxes with the unmasking of a hooded villain, they share several common features and incidents, and Phrae Dam includes a number of deliberate and open references to Ban Maha Phai. Suphanni, is, without doubt, correct in claiming that the similarities are more than coincidental.37 So why, then, did Luang Saranupraphan make such loud and repeated claims to originality? If he was going to appropriate a foreign work and rewrite it in a Thai setting, would it not have been wiser, first, not to boast about its originality, in case anybody chanced upon the original, and, second, not to draw attention to that original source through repeated references to it? We can either conclude that Luang Saranupraphan was an arrogant liar, who thought all his readers stupid, or that the link between Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam is not quite as it has hitherto been assumed. A fairly cursory comparison of Phrae Dam and the film-book Ban Maha Phai will quicky reveal two things: firstly, that they are a world apart in terms of structure, and secondly, that the superficial similarities between the two works are largely confined to the first of the twenty episodes of Ban Maha Phai. Where Luang Saranupraphan’s novel consists of a unified and well-constructed plot, with tightlylinked chapters and carefully-laid clues, Ban Maha Phai spins out its basic plot with gratuitous, meandering episodes, that involve unlikely and barely relevant characters, such as Patch-Eye Pete, and increasingly less plausible situations, such as the heroine’s impersonation of a condemned prisoner. Where Luang Saranupraphan set out to engage readers intellectually by laying a path of clues, the film Ban Maha Phai aimed to thrill cinema-goers visually, through a succession of daring stunts, which could only be inadequately conveyed on the pages of the

36

Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat, vol. 7 pt. 6, 1923, p. 761. If my conclusions about Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam differ in emphasis from those of Suphanni, this is in no way intended to challenge the overall authority of her work, which remains a major landmark in Thai literary historiography. 37

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

237

9/8/05, 9:01

DAVID SMYTH

238

film-book.38 More than eighty years after the two works appeared, Phrae Dam still appears a competently-written mystery story, while the Ban Maha Phai film-books today seem crude and unsophisticated by comparison. From his editorials in Sena su’ksa ... it is clear that Luang Saranupraphan cared deeply about the newly-emerging prose fiction, using his position to promote original Thai work, and to encourage writers to move away from adaptations and translations from foreign works. His decision to take deliberately and openly some elements from the foreign-created Ban Maha Phai, was not due to a failure of imagination, nor the desire to get away with writing a novel with minimum effort; nor was it simply an attempt to promote his work by linking it with a successful movie. Rather, in developing those elements into his own, more-tightly constructed framework, he was demonstrating to readers of Sena su’ksa ... that Thai writers were capable of producing good original work of their own, and providing a lesson in plot-construction. If he stopped short of openly inviting readers to compare Phrae Dam with the film-book that ‘Khon Than’ had produced, and notice the vast superiority of his own creation, his references to Ban Maha Phai could not help but draw them in that direction. Ironically, however, two generations later, it is only the similarities between the two works that are noted, when Luang Saranupraphan expected contemporary readers to recognize the differences; he would, undoubtedly, have been amazed and shocked that, years later, Phrae Dam could be so completely mis-read. Conclusion In this paper I have argued that, despite some obvious intentional superficial similarities between Phrae Dam and Ban Maha Phai ‘The House of Hate’, Phrae Dam is quite clearly not a plagiarized work, nor the author’s claim to originality fraudulent. Since Phrae Dam was written more than eighty years ago, and nobody reads it nowadays, should it be of any concern to us today? Yes, indeed: firstly, and most obviously, because Luang Saranupraphan’s own reputation has suffered unfairly, for many will have been led to the conclusion that the plot of his best-known work was copied from a foreign film; and secondly, as a result of doubts about his integrity, Luang Saranupraphan’s importance in the Thai literary world, particularly in the promotion of the novel, has been neither fully recognized nor properly researched, so that a crucial period in Thai literary history has remained obscured. This paper will, I hope, contribute to a greater awareness of and interest in Luang Saranupraphan and the Thai novel of the early 1920s and bring an end to repeated claims that Phrae Dam was copied from a foreign movie. 38

Sena su’ksa lae phae witthayasat, vol. 7 pt. 8, 1923, pp. 1041-1042. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

238

9/8/05, 9:01

Ban Maha Phai and Phrae Dam : from Silent Movie to Novel?

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P223-239

239

9/8/05, 9:01

239

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P240-244

240

9/8/05, 9:02

240

The First Printed Sentence in Thai: A.D. 1646

241

THE FIRST PRINTED SENTENCE IN THAI: A.D. 1646 Luigi Bressan

In all texts discussing Thai literature we read that the first printed book in Thai, in Romanized characters (Thai-wat), was a catechism of the Catholic doctrine published in 1796, with the title Kham Son Christang Phae Ton. This work was printed in Bangkok by the French missionary Bishop Arnaud Garnault,1 who had nurtured the idea since 1787, when he was in Pondichery. Already in 1674 the French Missionary Father Langlois2 wrote from Ayutthaya to his superiors in Paris, asking to be provided with the means of printing books in the Siamese language. He asserted that the other Missionaries had already a printing press in their Missions.3 He was referring to the Jesuits who were publishing books in local languages in India, Japan, Philippines and China since the end of the previous century. However the request of Fr Langlois was not granted by Paris, and the coup d’état of 1688, with subsequent restrictions on the work of the Christian missionaries in Siam, put an end to that project, even though Kosa Pan, as first ambassador of King Narai to Louis XIV, on visiting the royal printery when in Paris in 1687, expressed the desire that printing in Thai be introduced into Siam.4 Texts with Siamese characters were first printed in 1835 by the American Missionary Dan Beach Bradley, followed soon by the Assumption Press. However, there exists a short Siamese sentence printed as early as 1646 by the Jesuits. The Company of Jesus was founded in 1540 by Ignatius de Loyola and quite soon many young priests from Europe adhered to its spiritual ideals, spreading over different parts of the world, and setting up religious houses in Europe, America, and Asia, establishing an international network. To express visually its

1

Arnaud Garnault (1745–1811, dying in Chantabun), worked in the mission in Siam from 1772; he was expelled from Siam on the orders of Phya Tak (Taksin) on 1 December 1779, and went to Pondichery. He returned to Siam, after working in Kedah, under the Chakri dynasty. 2 Of the Missions Etrangères in Paris. Pierre Langlois was in Siam from 1671-1680 working first in the college in Ayutthaya, and then 1677–78 in the mission in Phitsanulok. 3 In his letter of 30 December 1674, urging the sending of a printery to Siam, he wrote “Paper comes from China very cheaply. Ink costs virtually nothing. Learning to print and even make letters is easy. The Chinese, Tonkinese and Cochinchinese are capable of doing anything they can witness being done.” 4 See L. Bressan, A Meeting of Worlds, Bangkok, Assumption University Press, 2000, pp.101–113 and 121–125. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P240-244

241

9/8/05, 9:02

241

LUIGI BRESSAN

242

unity and its ramifications, many attempts were made since the foundation of the Order. As the shape of a tree was already the favourite way for showing family genealogies, the well-known Jesuit geographer and mathematician Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680)5 drew a tree showing all the Jesuit houses of the world on the occasion of the election of the new General Superior, Fr Vincent Carafa6 in 1646. Saint Ignatius is seen kneeling at the base of the tree holding the Jesuit Constitutions in his hands, with the background opening onto a seascape of sailing vessels taking Jesuits to the farthest regions of the globe. The lower part of the trunk represents the Italian Assistancy, the upper part the German. Smaller branches terminate in leaves bearing the names of towns in which Jesuit schools were located. The lushness of the tree coupled with the harmonious integration of the trunk reflect the conception of the Society of Jesus held by Kircher.7 The Jesuits by 1646 were already a globalized reality with 45 “provinces” each with several communities. In Asia we can find the Provinces of China, Malabar (with a house in Pegu), Japan, and Goa, totalling 28 houses. Unfortunately for an historical documentation Siam does not appear in this list. That does not mean that the Jesuits had neglected Siam. The Portuguese Father Balthasar Sequeira sojourned in Ayutthaya between 1607 and 1609, followed by other Jesuits. In 1626 Father Antonio Francisco Cardim tried to establish a permanent residence in the “Portuguese village” (Ban Farang or Ban Portuges). He had to leave the country because he was appointed by his Superiors to other duties, and his successor Father Giulio Cesare Margico was put in jail, where he died in 1630. Jesuit activity in Siam was interrupted until 1656, when a new house was opened by the Sicilian Fr Thomas Valguarnera. He was a very talented man, who started a school and quite soon received from the king the title of Engineer to the Crown for his dedication in building the fortifications of Ayutthaya, Bangkok and Lopburi. He died in Siam in 1677.8 5

Kircher was born in Fulda and spent part of his life in Avignon (France); after 1635 he resided in Rome. He published several books on Egyptian history, on medicine, mathematics, geology etc. One of his best known publications is the China monumentis qua sacris qua profanis illustrata (China illustrated by religious and secular monuments), Rome 1667. He maintained a large correspondence with all the Missionaries of his time. The Archives of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome have 114 volumes of letters addressed to him. Many have never been published. 6 Vincent Carafa was born on 9 May 1585 and elected as the seventh General Superior of the Company of Jesus on 7 January 1646. He died in Rome in 1649. 7 This description is adapted from S.J. Harris, The Jesuits. Yearbook 2002, Rome 2002, 16. 8 See L. Bressan, A Meeting of Worlds, op. cit., pp. 3–21; G. Gnolfo, Un missionario assorino: Tomaso dei Conti Valguarnera S.J. 1609–1677, Catania 1974; M. Teixeira, Portugal na Thailândia, Macau 1983, pp. 352–400 about the Jesuits in Siam. The Jesuits remained in the church of St Paul until the destruction of Ayutthaya. Father Valguarnera also compiled a dictionary of Thai language, but no copy has been traced. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P240-244

242

9/8/05, 9:02

The First Printed Sentence in Thai: A.D. 1646

243

We understand now why in 1646 no Jesuit house is listed in Siam. But reference to Siam there is not lacking. The huge genealogical tree depicted by Kircher is surrounded by the sentence “From East to West praiseworthy is the name of Our Lord”, a sentence which comes from the first verse of the 50th Psalm in the Bible. It is printed in 34 languages, often with the alphabetical characters of the language. That is the case for Syrian, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Coptic, three Indian languages, Chinese etc. There are also translations of the sentence into some American languages, into Irish, Scottish and Basque (with its own alphabet).9 The Romanized Siamese sentence, near the word “Siam” in the upper right hand corner, reads / Manusa tag lai aiu nai pendin sarason / iocio le vai tan pu nam tag fa le tag / pendin dai promahanacora chu Deus / which should be more correctly, in modern transcription: Manut thang lai yu nai phaendin sarasin / yön yo lë vai than phu nan thang fa le thang / phaendin doi pranamakorn khü Deus. In Thai, this reads:

¡πÿ…¬å∑—ÈßÀ≈“¬Õ¬Ÿà„π·ºàπ¥‘π √√‡ √‘≠‡¬‘π¬Õ·≈–‰À«â∑à“πºŸâπ—Èπ ∑—ÈßøÑ“·≈–∑—Èß·ºàπ¥‘π‚¥¬æ√–π“¡°√ §◊Õ æ√–‡®â“ (Deus)

9

The print is in A. Kircher, Ars Magna Lucis at Umbrae, ed. Ludovigo Grignani, Rome, 1646, 553. Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P240-244

243

9/8/05, 9:03

LUIGI BRESSAN

244

It is to be wondered who in Rome could help Kircher with a Siamese text. There is no doubt that the most likely person is Fr Antonio Francisco Cardim, who stayed in Siam between 1626 and 1629 and was in Rome between 1645 and 1649. There he published a book, in 1645, about the Jesuit Province in Japan, Relatione della Provincia del Giappone,10 which also included South-East Asia, with some pages on Siam. He could draw on personal experience, on letters coming from the Missionaries, on books published about Asia. He had some knowledge also about the Siamese history, which he probably obtained from the chronicles, for he commented positively on the veracity of Fernão Mendes Pinto’s pages on Siam as they appeared in the Peregrinaçam11 . Moreover, the Jesuits in Rome were in constant correspondence with their houses around the world and particularly with Macau, the house of reference for China, Japan and South-east Asia. In those years the Augustianian Father Sebastian Manrique was also staying in Rome; he had been active in several Asian countries between 1628 and 1642. In 1648 he published a book in the “Eternal City” on different Asian kingdoms, including Siam.12 Already Siam had a place in the world vision of Europe.

10

The full title is Relation della Provincia del Giappone, scritta dal Padre Antonio Francesco Cardim della Compagnia di Gesù, Procuratore di quella Provincia. Alla Santità di Nostro Signore Innocenzo X, Stamperia Fei, Roma 1645 (pp. 150–156 concern Siam). The Portuguese Cardim was not the first Missionary to publish about Siam, as the Franciscan Father Marcelo de Ribandeneira had devoted some pages to Siam in his Historia de las Islas de Archipelago y Reynos de la Gran China, Tartaria, Cuchincina, Malaca, Siam, Camboxa y Iappon, Barcelona 1601 (with the chapters 20–25 of the second part dedicated to Siam). Some references are present also in the Dominican Father Gabriel (Quiroga) de San Antonio, Breve y verdadera relacion de los sucesos del Reyno de Camboxa. Al rey Don Felipe, nuestro Señor, Valladolid 1604 (see part 2, chapter 2,5). More can be found in the book of the Italian Jesuit Cristoforo Borri, Relatione della nuova missione delli PP. della Compagnia di Giesu al Regno di Cocincina, Roma 1631 (see pp. 7, 9, 91, 201–209, 222–227). Cardim also published three other books in Rome between 1646 and 1648 as well as one in Lisbon in 1643 and another in 1650, all five dealing with the Christian martyrs in Japan. After returning to Asia and before his death in 1659 he prepared another major work Batalhas da Companhia de Jesus na sua Província de Japão, which remained unpublished until 1894 at Lisbon. In this he deals with Siam on pp. 286–290. 11 The Peregrinaçam was published firstly in Lisbon in 1614 and appeared in many successive editions. Cardim could also have consulted the Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires (who visited Siam in 1516), the Decadas da Asia of João Barros, and the Historia do descobrimento of Fernao Lopes de Castanheda, published in Venice in 1577, among other works. 12 Breve relatione dei Regno de Pegù, e Arracan,e Brama, e degli Imperij del Calaminan, Siamom, e Gran Mogor (Short report about the kingdoms of ... and empires of Calaminan, Siam...). Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P240-244

244

9/8/05, 9:03

REVIEWS

Michel Jacq-Hergoualc’h, The Malay Peninsula. Crossroads of the Maritime Silk Road (100 BC-1300 AD). Translated by Victoria Hobson. Leiden, Brill, 2002, pp.xxxv, 607, 70 plates, illls, maps. This large tome, 495 pages of text accompanied by substantial bibliography, chronological chart, index, documents (maps, plans, elevation of buildings) and 220 black and white illustrations, begins with a wry dedication: “to all those who have gone before me in approaching this impossible subject.” While there is still plenty of speculation and interpretation, Jacq-Hergoualc’h offers an extremely solid base with his documentation, both literary and archaeological. After lists of the documents, figures and abbreviations, a very brief introduction leads into what becomes a very thorough study of Malaysian and Southern Thai history with particular relation to the entrepôt ports of the region from the beginning of our era. Chinese texts and artefacts and Indian or Indianized archaeological remains, the great rhythms of history in the Middle East, India and China,‘Indianization’ in the South-East Asian region, and the concept of Srivijaya, are some themes that Jacq-Hergoualc’h notes at the outset. Relatively detailed accounts of the geology, hydrology, and local climate and wind patterns introduce the main text. Who were the early peoples of the peninsula, and was their land an obstacle

or a source of contacts and profit among Asian civilisations? The trans-peninsular routes are often cited to illustrate the vast saving of time and effort (not to mention safety in avoiding pirates and the like in the straits) that would have ensued if goods had been transported across the peninsula. The archaeological finds at both ends of these routes are very similar, and the idea seems logical enough: or it has to JacqHergoualc’h predecessors. But though Jacq-Hergoualc’h accepts that some solid goods like tin ingots or small goods may have gone by the trans-peninsular portage routes, by and large he rejects the land route in favour of sea-transport. Moving cumbersome, fragile goods, Chinese porcelain, the local kendi pots and the like, was ‘highly improbable’ on such routes, and Chinese reports offer enough instances of ships arriving at ports in both sides of the peninsula to confirm that a sea route was regularly employed. Shipping, circumpeninsular navigation, landing places, goods and mineral resources are all examined. Why did the east coast cities or small states prosper so much more than the west? Perhaps because of the coastal plains that developed there, giving access to richer agricultural potential. The polities formed could exploit the hornbill casques, sappanwood, tin etc that rendered the peninsula more than just an obstacle to shipping or a porterage route, but a rich commercial prospect in its own right.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Part 1 and 2

[47-03-067] P245-272

245

9/8/05, 9:03

245

246

Reviews

The chapters on Indianization describe what is known of inter-regional contact (with the interesting suggestion that Dongson drums might be a sort of legitimizing feature of the rule of local chiefs depending on some generally recognized religious centre), and of contact with India before Indianization. This is followed by discussion of Indianization, perhaps eagerly adopted by local rulers because of the potential for transforming them into “divinely constituted sovereign(s)”. JacqHergoualc’h points out (and also in his concluding chapter) that Indianization was not the key to state formation; the political, social and other factors on which Indianization later rested had already developed, and nascent states already existed, on the east coast at least. The roles of Brahmanism and Buddhism in social and commercial contexts is debated. The small amount of information about Funan and its influence on the peninsula is noted, followed by extensive study of the history and religious relics from the fifth to the eighth centuries in the peninsula states of Panpan, Langkasuka, Jiecha (South Kedah), and Srivijaya, and Chitu in the seventh century. As for Srivijaya, its five or more centuries claimed hegemony is reduced to something of dream: between its sovereigns’ boasts and the reality “there was certainly a great distance”. From the ninth century, archaeological remains of actual entrepôt ports exist. Jacq-Hergoualc’h introduces discussion of the significance of these sites, Laem Pho, Yarang, Ko Kho Khao, and Kampong Sungai Mas, with an ex-

tensive survey on international politics and trade, and follows it by describing contemporary architectural and sculptural remains on the peninsula. With commentary on the tenth and eleventh centuries comes a further outline of the current political setting, and analysis of the texts naming Tambralinga, with similar discussion of contemporary archaeological remains. The twelfth and thirteenth centuries are characterized as a “commercial boom” period in Tambralinga and Jiecha (Kedah), again with description of the international context, local history as far as it can be deciphered, and analysis of archaeological sites and material and topographical information. The study ends at this point, Jacq-Hergoualc’h apparently crediting the notion of an imperial Sukhothai taking over dominance of Tambralinga/Nakhon Sithammarat (see also my Nakhon Sri Thammarat. Archaeology, History and Legends of a Southern Thai Town, 2000, published while the book of JacqHergoualc’h was in press) followed by the same sort of relationship with Ayutthaya. All in all, the book is immensely informative, and very well prepared. The numerous plans and maps, and photos of objects, greatly assist the reader in all the sections in which local finds and architecture are described. By and large the translation runs easily and well, with occasional traces like “high period” or “presqu’île” remaining from the original French. Stuart Munro-Hay

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

246

9/8/05, 9:03

247

Reviews

Sao Saimong Mangrai The Padaeng Chronicle and the Jengtung State Chronicle Translated. Ann Arbor: Centers for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, 2002. xxiii, 301 pp. When we say that true historical work is based upon a careful reading of the original source materials, we do not mean that the original sources are to be preferred to all other materials we might use to establish names, dates, and basic events. We simply mean that writings cannot be taken seriously which do not evidence the use of the original sources. We prefer that the sources be read in their original language and script, but we accept the use of translations when we have good reason to believe that the translations are accurate and complete. The book reviewed here is a translation from Khün (a Shan or Tai language), prepared by a Khün-speaker. Sao Saimong’s book has been in print for more than twenty years, and is now reprinted with only minor emendations. It is a translation of the chronicle of one particular sect of Buddhism, and centers on Vat Padaeng in Keng Tung (Jengtung). The translation is prefixed by a long introduction. The introduction focuses mainly on Buddhism, but also has much to say about the Khün, their culture, and their state of Keng Tung. The centerpiece of the Padaeng section of this book is the photographic reproduction of the original manuscript (which is on so-called Shan paper, or sa paper, and not palm leaves as one of the

foreword writers alleges). Those few who have worked with the Northern Thai language and script will find that the manuscript is in a language and script they will recognize, which is also to be found in the Sipsongpanna and in Laos. It is important that this text is here, for there is no other way to check the translator’s work than to check his translations against the original. This is especially the case where the translator has encountered baffling passages which he in places has mangled, as with the horoscope passages around paragraph 200. Many years ago, I was advised that competent translations can best be done by native-speakers of the language in which the translation is written. A good example of the logic behind this rule is shown on page 116 (paragraph 78), where the translation twice refers to “lord of earth”. This usage recurs frequently. Check the original text on folio 27, and the source of the problem is clear. The original Khün text refers to the cao phaen din. We can see that the translation is literally correct, but the English sense would be better rendered by such a phrase as “earthly” or “worldly lord”. That is, the original Khün follows Buddhist definitions is distinguishing people who rule on earth (i.e. kings) from those who rule over super-terrestrial spheres (i.e. gods). This said, I hasten to add that the translation seems exact and consistent, though it would have been improved by tapping the knowledge which Chris Eade has added to our studies about chronology and astrology.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

247

9/8/05, 9:03

248

Reviews

Having said this, it is puzzling why the translator did not do the same with the Keng Tung chronicle. Here we have no reproduction of the original, which I am not sure has ever been published. (I have seen a xerographic copy of the original manuscript, in the possession of a friend but I cannot remember where it comes from.) These chronicles are extremely important, as A. B. Griswold notes in a letter of 1976. The sources given here are by no means the only reference to the events they cover. This translation refers to a few others, of which many have been published (in Chiang Mai and Bangkok) in the past twenty years. Some of the same material also is referred to in Scott and Hardiman’s Gazetteer of Upper Burma and the Shan States (Rangoon, 1900–1902). These seem, however, to be the key sources which should take precedence over all others. Sao Saimong Mangrai must be posthumously congratulated on a excellent piece of work, which already has won a place of value on the scholar’s bookshelf. It must be regretted that he does not seem ever to have finished his translation of the chronicle of Hsenwi, which Scott and Hardiman long ago indicated it a key source for the history of northeastern and eastern Burma, for Sao Saimong died some years ago. David K. Wyatt

Two Yankee Diplomats in 1830s Siam: Roberts and Ruschenberger, edited by Michael Smithies. Bangkok, Orchid Press, 2002, pp. 232, ills. This contribution to the Itineraria Asiatica series of Orchid Press, introduced and edited by Michael Smithies, presents the observations of an American diplomat and a doctor during their respective visits to Bangkok in 1833 and 1836. The two diplomatic missions—the first to obtain a treaty of commerce and friendship from the King of Siam for the United States of America and the second to return such a treaty for formal ratification by the king after it had been agreed to by the Senate of the United States—constituted some of the very earliest forays by Americans into the international politics of sovereign Asian nations. But the reports of Edmund Roberts on his mission of 1833 and of Dr W.S.W. Ruschenberger on the return mission of 1836 provide us with scant insight into the diplomatic arts on any level. The accounts were not written for the professional edification of others in diplomatic service or even those interested therein. Instead, Roberts and Ruschenberger wrote for a general American audience to acquaint them with the realities of a far-off land and culture. From this perspective, the two accounts are of considerable interest on a number of points. General readers today thus have reason to be grateful to Orchid Press for reprinting the observations of Roberts and Ruschenberger

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

248

9/8/05, 9:03

249

Reviews

and to Michael Smithies for editing this publication. One historical note of considerable importance is Ruschenberger’s description of his meetings with the royal prince he calls “Momfanoi”, also known as Chao Fa Noi. “Momfanoi”, to use Ruschenberger’s quaint nomenclature, was the younger brother of the future King Rama IV or, King Mongkut. In 1836, Rama III was on the throne and the future King Mongkut had withdrawn from an active life to fulfill the obligations of Buddhist monkhood. Prince “Momfanoi” was, however, a leading and well-known member of the Chakri royal family. According to Ruschenberger, Prince Momfanoi liked to use the English expression “Wow!” to give vent to a very non-traditional public burst of eagerness and enthusiasm in personal interactions. Ruschenberger reports “Momfanoi” as being flexible, open-minded, curious about western ways and instruments, and a student of English. We thus see Mongkut’s younger brother setting the very example of promoting westernization that his brother would champion after attaining the throne as King Rama IV. In short, Ruschenberger gives us an insight into the precedents upon which Mongkut built his policy of engagement with the industrializing west. Something of reform, an openness to change, was in the air among at least some of the leading Chakri princes even before Mongkut ascended the throne. Also of some relevance for future Thai foreign policy are the various com-

ments by Roberts and Ruschenberger as to how the Siamese seemed genuinely to like Americans and to prefer them over other Caucasian nations. Perhaps even as early as 1833 and 1836 the Thai instinct for seeking patrons less able to do harm to Siamese interests was directing their attention towards the United States. Roberts was able to obtain better terms of trade for American vessels should they ever enter the Siamese trade than the English had previously wrung from the Siamese court. And Ruschenberger delights in reporting comments from his hosts as to the honor and dignity bestowed upon representatives of the American president. After King Rama V, the sensitive position of advisor on foreign affairs would be given to Americans and not to either English or French nationals. Then, after World War II Thailand entered into a long period of alliance with the United States in order to protect itself from Communism. It would seem, then, that Roberts and Ruschenberger accurately sensed a bias in Thai orientations favorable to the United States. On a minor note, Ruschenberger reports that the two Siamese Twins— Sam and Eng—were widely known in Bangkok after their departure for the United States, but significantly for their failure to send home remittances to their mother. What I found to be of greatest merit in these accounts are the insights they provide into important determinants of politics: those arising from culture. First, descriptions of Thai social and

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

249

9/8/05, 9:03

250

Reviews

cultural practices of the 1830s found in Roberts and Ruschenberger would apply with equal force to conditions in Thailand within recent decades. Robert’s fixation on the Thai instinct for social hierarchy and for levels of personal subordination to patrons and superiors illuminates a psycho-cultural dynamic so powerful it drives much of Thai politics, corporate practice and government performance standards today. Roberts reports that the Thai “attach a ridiculous importance to mere form and ceremony” which observation, though expressed with the arrogance associated with the colonial era, will not surprise any contemporary sojourner in Thailand. Roberts describes Thai dance and music that one can see and hear today in Bangkok. The throne hall in which King Rama III received the Americans in 1833 and 1836 can be visited in the palace grounds today. It has not changed its appearance in any significant way. And we are told many times of the Thai custom of bathing daily. A review of these testimonies to Thai life in the 1830s will reveal just how much has not changed in 170 or so years—just what might be considered to be “really” Thai. An equally revealing comment on the durability of “Thai-ness”—for lack of a better word—comes in Ruschenber-ger’ s prediction that the coming conversion of the Thais to Christianity would alone promote the diffusion of knowledge and the advancement of virtue and the success of large scale commercial enterprise in Siam. The Thais never did

so convert to that religion but they modernized nevertheless. Reading Roberts and Ruschenberger reveals to us the central role played in Thai politics and decision-making of the leading personage, the man of baramee or wasanaa. Roberts accurately learned the conceptual justification for such a practice in the merit accumulated by that person in previous lives under tenets of Theravada Buddhism. We learn from these two accounts that, on a fundamental level of human behavior and motivation, change comes slowly, if at all. Roberts and Ruschenberger present a case for cultural determinism. Second, the distaste of both Roberts and Ruschenberger for much of what they saw in Siam reveals the power of Calvinism over their minds. Their religion had shaped their culture so profoundly that they saw the world through colored lenses of Christian manhood and righteousness. Roberts seemed personally affronted at how low the Thais would stoop or crawl in the presence of superiors and how the Portuguese living for generations in Siam and now serving as interpreters had accommodated themselves to this life-style of “unmanly and un-Christian” self-abasement. The power of our mental prisms to filter truth and render it comfortable to our minds should not be ignored as we consider the travails of diplomats, business persons, missionaries, and even simple tourists caught up in international experiences. The accounts of Roberts and

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

250

9/8/05, 9:03

251

Reviews

Ruschenberger are thus worth reading as a reminder of our potential for similarly seeing reality myopically. A brief reflection on recent American policy towards Iraq with the administration’s conviction that American military force could install democracy there shows the sustaining power of Calvinist perceptions among many Americans of political consequence. Those who do not study the past are condemned to repeat it. Roberts and Ruschenberger are worth study. Stephen B. Young

Tarmo Rajasaari, Vapour Trails, Tales from rural Thailand. Bangkok, Orchid Press, 2003, pp.148, no price given. The author is a Finnish freelance writer and photographer. He is fortythree and trained as a mental health nurse. For two years he lived in a hut in Isan near the Cambodian border and helped local farmers. His short pieces add up to a detailed account of life in this hot, parched, poor and mosquito-ridden part of Thailand. Some of the stories concern slight incidents that occur to villagers, others involve disruptive changes in their lives. Now and then the writer enters the minds of his characters and reveals their musings about the past. These attempts at empathy are on the whole credible. In ‘Alien Encounter’ Sawai, a grandmother, takes a train into the nearby town to withdraw money from the bank. That

morning on the TV news there had been a report about a new galaxy and that perhaps there was life on one of its stars. On arrival last the bank, Sawai finds it is shut, so she has to go back to the railway station. To her dismay, her purse is missing. Waiting there is a blond Westerner wearing shorts. She is fascinated by his hairy thighs and cannot resist pinching one of them. The strange foreigner does not mind this impertinence and shows her photographs of his homeland. He helps her into the train. She is anxious about not having any money for a ticket; fortunately the conductor neglects to ask her for one and so Sawai gets a free ride home. In ‘Decision’ Lai goes rat-hunting for his family’s supper. He catches a rat but lets it go. He has been a monk and enjoyed talking to the monks at the temple. He begins to feel that the Buddhist teaching he had was right. He spurns his wife’s advances, suggests she finds another husband, and in spite of her protestations he joins the monks. Daeng is a cowherd, and while watching his herd is bitten by a snake. The author gives a graphic description of Daeng, who is far away any help, dying in extreme agony. This is an example of the powerful use of empathy. Wichai, fond of the bottle but is tired of his wife’s nagging, decides to run away to Khon Kaen. He catches a bus which only takes him part of the way. He waits for another in vain. Finally he gets a lift home and is much relieved to be back. Nam goes to Bangkok and becomes

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

251

9/8/05, 9:03

252

Reviews

a prostitute. On a visit to her village she ignores her mother’s pleadings to her not to go back to the capital. Eventually after fifteen years she does return. She is nervous about the kind of reception she will get. When her mother, now aged, sees her they fall into each other’s arms. ‘Journeyman’ is about a Thai boxing match between Seri, a local boxer, whose ability is on the wane, and a star boxer from Bangkok, famous on TV. The Bangkok boxer’s fighting name is The Tormentor. He treats Seri with disdain. The punches and the kicks sustained by Seri are vividly described. The wretched local man is bleeding profusely and can hardly stand. His thoughts flash back to Puri, the girl who left him. Finally, when almost a complete wreck, Seri, making an enormous effort, manages to land a punch that knocks out The Tormentor and he wins. This account is disturbingly real and shows more than any of the other stories Mr Rajasaari’s writing strength. The mild events coupled with the violent ones give the ordinary reader a broad view of life in Isan. John Haylock

Ashley South, Mon Nationalism and Civil War in Burma: The Golden Sheldrake. London and New York, Routledge Curzon, 2003, pp. 419. In June 1995, one of Asia’s longestlasting insurgencies came to an end. The

New Mon State Party, NMSP, agreed a ceasefire with Burma’s military government, and its leaders moved from their old revolutionary base areas around Three Pagodas Pass on the Thai border down to the city of Moulmein, where many of them became engaged in various businesses. The political aspirations that drove members of Burma’s ethnic Mon minority to take up arms in early 1949 were not addressed, however. Although Burma has a “Mon State”, with Moulmein as its capital, it is not an autonomous entity. Burma is not the federal union it sometimes purports to be. Ashley South, a British aid worker, lived and worked among the Mon on the Thai-Burma border for nearly seven years. When he returned to the United Kingdom in 1997, he had married a Mon lady and learnt more about her people than most other Westerners. The outcome of his meticulous research, and personal experiences is this book which covers almost every aspect of Mon history and society: the ancient Mon kingdoms that once spanned over large tracts of southern Burma; the British colonial era; the insurgency in postindependent Burma; the refugee crisis of the 1990s; and the economic and political implications of the 1995 ceasefire. The historical part of the book describes how the Mon, a people related to the Khmer of Cambodia, once built their own kingdoms and empires. They introduced Buddhism to what now is Burma, and their script became the basis of the Burmese alphabet. But, unlike their Khmer empire-building

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

252

9/8/05, 9:03

253

Reviews

cousins, they did not survive as a separate nation. The Burmese kings were more powerful, and many Mon were driven out of what once was their country. The Mon population in Thailand are descendants of several waves of refugees, who fled Burma during the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. By 1757, the Burmese king Alaungpaya had subdued the Mon and conquered their last kingdom. In a contemporary context, South’s assessment of the ceasefire agreement between the Mon rebel movement and the Rangoon junta leads to an important question about the future of Burma as a whole. The fundamental issue, South writes, is whether ethnic rights and selfdetermination are equivalent to human rights and democracy. South appears to believe that is the case, arguing that alliance with Burma’s most important pro-democracy party, the National League for Democracy, would seem to offer the NMSP a better chance of progress than accommodation with what he terms “Burma’s deeply-tarnished military rulers.” But the dilemma for the NMSP—and the more than a dozen other ethnic rebel armies in Burma that have entered into similar agreements with the government —is that there would be no ceasefire if they allied themselves with the NLD. Neutralizing the country’s border insurgencies by offering them business opportunities and the right to retain their arms has been the strategy of Burma’s military rulers since a nation-wide uprising for democracy swept the Bur-

mese heartland in 1988 and gave birth to the NLD. What Burma’s military rulers feared was an alliance between the ethnic rebels—who had their own armed forces—and the urban-based prodemocracy movement. One by one, the rebel groups were reigned in, and, in early 2004, even the Karen National Union, KNU, agreed to hold peace talks with the generals in Rangoon. The KNU resorted to armed struggle at the same time as the Mon, but its army has always been much stronger and more powerful, and therefore able to resist pressures from both the Burmese and the Thai authorities to stop fighting. Until the 1990s, the Mon and Karen rebel armies were seen by the Thai authorities as useful border buffers, which kept the Burmese— historical archenemies of the Thais— at bay. They were allowed, in fact encouraged, to control the border areas, including border passes through which contraband were moved across the frontier in both directions: consumer goods to Burma from Thailand, and cattle, precious stones and timber to Thailand from Burma. Tax on this crossborder traffic provided the Mon and Karen rebel armies—and other smaller groups as well—with an income with which they were able to buy arms on the not always so black arms market in Thailand. All that changed in the 1990s, when Thailand began to improve relations with Burma. “Normal” trade was encouraged, and the concept of border buffers was becoming obsolete. South

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

253

9/8/05, 9:03

254

Reviews

was a witness to these changes, and the effects they had on, for instance, the tens of thousands of Mon and other refugees, who had sought shelter in Thailand. During the year before the ceasefire, the Burmese launched several attacks on the Mon military positions near the Thai border to force the NMSP to the negotiating table. On the other side, the Thai authorities began to pressure the Mon refugees to return home. In the end, the NMSP gave in, and many of the refugees were indeed repatriated. While this has led to economic gains for both Thailand and Burma, it has broken the back of the Mon’s long struggle for autonomy. On the other hand, however, decades of fighting in the jungle had turned Burma’s ethnic rebel movement to institutionalized, selfperpetuating phenomena. According to South: “As the government and rebel leader- ships ossified in the 1960s and ’70s, the revolution became a way of life for many, and the idealism and commitment of the early years often succumbed to incipient ‘warlordism’.” These old warlords may not be in a position to form a united front with the NLD, but the issue at stake now is whether the Mon will be able to preserve their ethnic identity in an entirely new environment. An intricate balance exists between the regime in power in Rangoon and its new allies, the ethnic rebels who have given up their armed struggles. Power is in the hand of the generals— Burma’s new warrior-kings—and ageold networks of power are the essence of modern Burmese politics, South argues. Rooted in the precolonial past,

these patterns of kinship—and kingship —derive from Buddhist (and ultimately Hindu-Brahmin) paradigms. Seen in that perspective, the dream of a future, federal Burma now seems more remote than ever. Burma’s generals are determined to create a unitary, centrallycontrolled state, and to achieve this goal, they have launched an entirely new concept: “Myanmar.” They argued that “Burma” meant only the parts of the country where the “Burmans” lived, while “Myanmar”, supposedly, “embraces all the nationalities” of the country. Burma, the argument went, was a British colonial term that the government had to do away with. But the once-British colony has always been called Burma in English and bama or myanma in Burmese. Both names have been used interchangeably throughout history, with Burma being the more colloquial name and Myanmar a more formal designation (like Muang Thai and Prathet Thai in Thai). Burma and Myanmar (and Burmese and Myanmar) mean exactly the same thing, and it cannot be argued that the term “Myanmar” includes any more people than the name “Burma” does. The sad truth is that there is no term in Burmese or in any other language which covers both the bama/myanma and the ethnic minorities since no such entity existed before the arrival of the British. Burma with its present boundaries is a creation of the British, and successive governments of independent Burma have inherited a chaotic entity which is still struggling to find a common identity.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

254

9/8/05, 9:03

255

Reviews

The “name changes” in Burma are part of a development that Gustaaf Houtman, a Dutch scholar of the country, calls “the Myanmafication of Burma.” He describes this as the final rejection of the idea of a federation agreed by Aung San—the founder of modern Burma—and the leaders of the ethnic minorities at the time of independence. “They’re replacing the legacy of Aung San—unity in diversity—with a new idea of national unity based on ‘Myanmar’ culture,” Houtman argues. Somewhat contradictorily, the Burmese language is now officially called the Myanmar language; no one has explained why a term that is supposed to include dozens of diverse ethnic groups can also mean the language of the majority Burmese. But whether “Myanmafication” is the result of cultural myopia or not, is it working? South does not really address this crucial issue in his otherwise excellent study. Are the Mon going to be “Myanmaficated” and, in effect, disappear as a separate nationality, or will their culture and language survive? The future does not look bright for the Mon and other ethnic minorities in Burma, but South has done them a great favour by compiling this fascinating account of a people who are almost unknown outside the region, and who are struggling to preserve their identity in a rapidly changing world. Bertil Lintner

Benedict Anderson, ed., Violence and the State in Suharto’s Indonesia. Ithaca, Cornell Southeast Asia Program, 2001, pp. 247. This collection of seven studies by different authors deals with differing aspects of what the title startlingly says, violence and the state in Indonesia. Unfortunately it would appear to be more often than not a study of violence by the state, and current news reports give the impression that entrenched fiefs remain powerful under the third president since Suharto’s unlamented departure, in a situation complication by international terrorism. The whole comes with an excellent overview by Benedict Anderson, who starts by illustrating all the changes a person aged seventy would have witnessed in the country since the authoritarian Dutch rule before the Japanese invasion; he counts seven regime changes in all, before coming to the brief tenure of office by Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, and now Maga wati Sukarnoputri. The colonial regime, he rightly points out resolutely refused “to permit any form of legal, mass democratic politics, let alone to entertain any idea of ultimate independence”, with the inevitable result that when independence came, the country was quite unprepared for it. The turbulent period of the war, of so-called liberal democracy, then Sukarno’s chaotic guided democracy, crumbing in the 1965 coup and the dreadful massacres in its wake, meant that Suharto’s New Order was a relief

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

255

9/8/05, 9:03

256

Reviews

in some respects. We see here that this was obtained, as many well knew at the time, at the expense of basic human rights and with the aid of government controlled and sponsored bully-boys, in or out of uniform. Joshua Barker, in the first chapter entitled ‘State of Fear: Controlling the criminal contagion in Suharto’s New Order’ indicates how the national police tried to organize criminals, often identified by tatoos. Secret immutable lists of undesirables were drawn up, and the gangs of street hoodlums (preman) allowed for greater involvement of the police in local protection rackets. This analysis is followed by Jun Honna’s study, ‘Military ideology in response to democratic pressure during the late Suharto era: political and institutional concerns’ and traces “the changing doctrines of national security” as propagated by the regime. Communists were found under every bed by the army, which stressed the need for vigilance—this attitude was exemplified by the shameful treatment meted out to the novelist Pramoedya Ananta Toer, one of 105 considered a threat to national security (Honna rightly questions how 105 persons could undermine the state). Suharto later shifted from total support of ABRI (the armed forces) and the military was held to be responsible for some (but only some) of its actions. Foreign ideologies, from Communism to democracy to globalization, had to be “extirpated”. The two chapters give a wealth of acronyms which baffle any reader unfamiliar with the Indonesian scene.

‘Latent Communist danger’ becomes balatkom, and we even have ipoleksosbudmil, a contraction for ‘ideologicalpolitical-economic-socioculturalmilitary’ areas of public life. There is fortunately a glossary, though not all these barbaric terms make it. James Siegel examines the pinhead of the Jakarta riots in ‘Thoughts on the violence of May 13 and 14, 1998, in Jakarta’. There had been pogroms against the Chinese before, but this time the looting by the massa, the mob, was much worse, accompanied by arson, murder and rape, the last being a new element in public disorder. Siegel reflects on the meaning of cina in Indonesia today and comments that the country’s power to absorb different ethnic groups has singularly failed in respect of the Chinese. Loren Ryter, in ‘Pemuda Pancasila: the last loyalist free men of Suharto’s order?’ studies the Pancasila youth organization, initially formed in the 1950s, which, based on the chimeric philosophy of pancasila cooked up by Sukarno, became an organization of ex-convicts and local toughs, referred to disparagingly by one of a multitude of generals as a “zoo”. The author notes thatPP’s influence has diminished since Suharto’s fall. The last three chapters deal with hot spots in the sprawling archipelago. Douglas Kammen, in ‘Trouble with Normal: the Indonesian military, paramilitaries, and the final solution in East Timor’ gives a very detailed study of military organization (and atrocities)

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

256

9/8/05, 9:03

257

Reviews

in the province which was Indonesian in name for only 24 years. Unfortunately the generals ignored history at their peril (they were not alone; this reviewer remembers one Western ambassador saying privately at the time of the invasion in 1975 that one only had to look at the map to see the inevitability of the Indonesian takeover). They were at odds with Suharto who wanted international respectability, and supported hooded youngsters who terrorized Dili at night. Kammen notes that the combat mission became a reign of terror. That particular trouble spot is at least now in the past, at the cost of enormous human suffering and material damage. The chapter dealing with Papua (Irian Jaya, West Irian etc—it has had several name changes), ‘Waiting for the end in Biak: violence, order, and a flag-raising’ by Danilyn Rutherford, suffers from taking Biak as representative of the province as a whole, which it is not. Indeed, Papua lacks not only most forms of communication, but any real centre: Jayapura is stuck in the northeast corner against the PNG border, Sentani is close by; Sorong, with its airport squeezed on an island just big enough for a runway, is equally distant from any epicentre, and so is Manokwari. The ‘act of free choice’ that ended Dutch suzerainty in the late 1960s was totally flawed and is at the root of current problems. Many of the disfranchised youth who took part in the Morning Star flag waving in 1998 in Biak ended up as bodies washed ashore in the following days, having been dealt with by the army

which countered no opposition to national integrity. The problem of course remains. As does that at the other end of the archipelago, in Aceh. Again, history is important here; many Acehnese look back to the days of glory under Sultan Iskandar Muda (r.1607–36), not to speak of the more recent bitter thirtyyear war against the Dutch at the end of the nineteenth century. Rebellion has been taking place on and off since the great purges of 1965–6, and has turned into, according to Geoffrey Robinson, who deals with ‘The origins of disorder in New Order Aceh’, a war between the army and the people. One major-general, not perhaps au fait in hearts-and-minds operations, is quoted as saying “If you find a terrorist, kill him. There’s no need to investigate him”. The chapter ends on a note of hope, but events since it was written indicate that this was ill-founded. The situation in Aceh may have lessons for Thailand. There is very little here about events of 1965–6, not much about the Petrus gangs, nothing on the more recent Moluccan conflict, as Anderson admits. Violence too is seen not a state monopoly, but spread through various groups which the state apparatus tried to manipulate and control. With the departure of Suharto, human rights groups have certainly had their hopes raised; whether they will be fulfilled remains to be seen. Michael Smithies

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

257

9/8/05, 9:03

258

Reviews

Earthenware in Southeast Asia: Proceedings of the Singapore Symposium on Premodern Southeast Asian Earthenwares, edited by John N. Miksic. Southeast Asian Ceramic Society, Singapore University Press, National University of Singapore, 2003, pp. 370. 180 ills, line drawings, maps. This publication is the outcome of a symposium on ‘Premodern Southeast Asian Earthenware’ held in Singapore on 9–11 July 1998 and sponsored by the Southeast Asian Ceramic Society, the Asian Civilisations Museum and the Southeast Asian Studies Programme of the National University of Singapore. The twenty-two chapters in the book include most of the papers presented at the symposium plus a few other essays that were added to present a balanced and up-to-date account of the state of research on Southeast Asian earthenware. John Miksic, the editor, is an archaeologist and Associate Professor in the Southeast Asian Studies Programme and Senior Research Fellow at the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore. He is a highly respected scholar, an expert on Indonesia and the author of several books on Southeast Asian art and culture. The goal of the symposium, which the book reflects, was to spread an “awareness of the various directions in which research on premodern Southeast Asian earthenware is proceeding in various countries”. Most of the countries in modern Southeast Asia plus northeast India are represented in this book, which brings together an international group of

scholars as contributors. The chapters are arranged by country and the topics vary from summaries of research on earthenware in an individual country to reports on specific archaeological sites, methodology and particular earthenware forms. Wilhelm G. Solheim II (Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines), a leading and long-standing expert in the field, contributes the first two chapters. He has studied and written about Southeast Asian earthenware since the mid-1950s when he was a graduate student at University of California-Berkeley. In Chapter Two, Solheim gives a personal account of his growing interest in the subject. One of his many contributions to the field is a terminology that he devised for cataloging and describing earthenware based on surface treatment. Further refinement produced four different typologies used to build a chronological sequence for earthenware in the study of cultural history. Six chapters focus on earthenware of the prehistoric period. Although scholars differ on the exact dates of this period, it extends from circa 2,500 BC to AD 500 in this volume. Wilfredo Ronquillo (Archaeology Division, National Museum, Philippines) discusses earthenware found in important habitation and burial sites that are located in the Philippine archipelago extending from northern Luzon to southern Mindanao. Eusebio Z. Dizon (Curator, Archaeology Division, National Museum, Philippines) writes

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

258

9/8/05, 9:03

259

Reviews

about a discovery in the early 1990s of anthropomorphic pottery found in secondary burial caves in the Philippines at Maitum, Saranggani Province, Mindanao, with a suggested date that ranges between 500 BC and AD 500. Santoso Soegondho (Prehistory Division, National Archaeological Research Centre, Indonesia) presents the origins and dating of prehistoric earthenware in the Indonesian archipelago within a cultural context. Results from controlled stratigraphic excavations and scientific testing ascertained that earthenware was used in burial practices at sites dating from 500 BC. Leong Sau Heng (History Department, University of Malaysia) reports on prehistoric pottery vessels with tripod supports, which have been found at some twenty sites in mainland Southeast Asia in an area extending from west central Thailand to peninsular Malaysia. Prior to this discovery, the form was unknown outside of China. Brian Vincent (Archaeologist, New Zealand) gives an overview of the stylistic and technical development of prehistoric earthenware in Thailand. Stephen Chia (Centre for Archaeological Research Malaysia, University of Malaysia) discusses the production and technology of prehistoric pottery that was locally made at Bukit Tengkorah, a site in Sabah, peninsular Malaysia. Five chapters cover earthenware dating from the late prehistoric to the early historic (or protohistoric) period (circa 500 BC to AD 800). Elizabeth A. Bacus (Institute of Archaeology,

University College London) examines the stylistic features on decorated earthenware found in the Philippines to determine distribution and socio-cultural patterns and the possibility of trade both within the region and with China. Nik Hassan Shuhaimi, Nik Abd. Rahman and Asyaari bin Muhamad (Institut Alam Tamadun Melayu, National University, Malaysia) review recent archaeological fieldwork at the Kuala Selinsing sites in Perak, Malaysia. Scientific testing confirms that the decorated earthenware was locally made and dates from approximately 200 BC. Miriam T. Stark (Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii) presents a chronological summary of the known information on premodern earthenware in Cambodia, discusses the earthenware in economic and social contexts, and presents preliminary findings on earthenware from Angkor Borei, an early and important site in southern Cambodia. Amara Srisuchat (Fine Arts Department, Bangkok, Thailand) presented results of classification and scientific testing conducted on earthenware found at eight archaeological sites of the early historic period in southern Thailand. Ruth Prior (Institute of Archaeology, University College London) and Ian C. Glover (Institute of Archaeology, retired, University College London) report on earthenware from archaeological excavations at Tra Kieu, a site in Quang Nam Province, Central Vietnam. Although vessel forms and other aspects reveal influences from China and India, petrographic analyses

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

259

9/8/05, 9:03

260

Reviews

showed that the wares were locally made, probably at several production centers in the area, over a long time and included a range of vessel forms for household use. Six chapters are devoted to earthenware of the Historic Period (circa AD 500–1900). David Bulbeck (Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University) and Genevieve Clune (Centre for Archaeology, University of Western Australia) report on decorated earthenware from Makassar and environs, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. They devised a tentative chronology of the motifs found on decorated earthenware through a survey of burial sites dating circa the thirteenth to the seventeenth century. D. Kyle Latinis (Southeast Asian Studies Programme, National University of Singpore) and Ken Stark (Department of Anthropology, Kwantlen University College) describe earthenware in pre-sixteenth century sites found in Central Maluku and the surrounding area in Indonesia and consider it in a broader context of production, use, and interaction and exchange within the region. Mundardjito (Research Centre for Humanities Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Universitas Indonesia), Ingrid H.E. Pojoh and Wiwin Djuwita Ramelan (Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Universitas Indonesia) describe typical earthenware of the early historic period in Central Java that was found mainly at Hindu and Buddhist temples dated to circa eighth to tenth century

and was probably made for religious purposes. Hilda Soemantri (deceased) examines the potting methods, forms and decoration of terracotta figurines from the island of Java in east Indonesia made during the Majapahit dynasty (AD 1293 – circa 1520). E. Edwards McKinnon (Visiting Fellow, Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore) summarizes the known information on earthenware of the historic period from the island of Sumatra in Indonesia but the lack of controlled archaeological excavations and further research preclude assigning a date to the various sites. Myo Thant Tyn (Khattiya Institute of Technical Services Co, Yangon, Myanmar) and U Thaw Kaung (Director, retired, University Libraries, Yangon University, Myanmar) give an overview of historic earthenware found in Myanmar, primarily from the first and second centuries AD to the end of the nineteenth century and report on the current state of archaeology and research published in Myanmar. Three chapters on ethnographic studies of contemporary earthenware potters and potting techniques are included in the book and demonstrate how research from multiple disciplines can complement each other and contribute to the same goal. Leedom Lefferts (Professor of Anthropology, retired, Drew University) and Louise Allison Cort (Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution) report on earthenware production in villages spread over

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

260

9/8/05, 9:03

261

Reviews

a vast area of mainland Southeast Asia, encompassing much of north and northeast Thailand, Laos, southern Cambodia, central and southern Vietnam and peninsular Malaysia. Their findings reveal an unexpected diversity and variation in production, technique, form and use. Charlotte Reith (Studio potter, Alexandria, Virginia) describes ground firing techniques in contemporary Myanmar villages. Dilip K. Medhi (Department of Anthropology, Gauhati University, Assam, India) discusses potters and their craft in Assam, northeast India, which serves as an example of cultural interaction between South and Southeast Asia. Despite the different nationalities, countries and disciplines involved in this book, when reading the chapters collectively and looking at them as a cohesive unit, some pertinent points can be discerned, The study of earthenware has clearly grown in the past two decades through a greater number of controlled excavations carried out by trained archaeologists and the accessibility of available scientific tests. As Wilhelm Solheim writes “I have discovered that research on earthenware in Southeast Asia has come into its own since the early 1980s.” (p. 31). Yet, the study of earthenware in this region lags behind exploration and surveys of archaeological sites in general. The state of archaeology is not at the same stage of development in all Southeast Asian countries. The Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand for example, have developed fully-fledged archaeology and carried

out scientific work over large areas of their respective countries; whereas earthenware in Sumatra is just beginning to be identified and archaeological research on ceramics in Myanmar is relatively new. The increased use of sophisticated laboratory testing in addition to stylistic analysis and archaeological fieldwork to obtain results is a dominant trend. It is now possible to begin to recognize a regional pattern of development and trade. A reassessment of the dating that was put forth earlier for earthenware is required. The foremost plea from the contributors to this book is the urgent need throughout the region for more systematic surveys, stratigraphic excavations and ceramic typologies. A consensus of opinion among the contributors is that future work should focus on cultural interpretations derived from pottery in an effort to close the gap between excavated finds and the societies that produced and used them. This book is a major contribution towards the awareness of this need and presents for the first time in a single volume the latest research in the field. Dawn F. Rooney

Founders’ Cults in Southeast Asia. Ancestors, Polity, and Identity. Edited by Nicola Tannenbaum and Cornelia Ann Kammerer. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, 2003, pp. xi + 373. Monograph 52: Yale Southeast Asia Studies.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

261

9/8/05, 9:03

262

Reviews

Resourcefulness is probably the vital requirement for sustainable development. How significant it has been as the enabling factor in human resource development, and how decisive its impact on facilitating natural resource management, are made transparent in this collection of ethnographic case studies and ethnological essays. The composite gist is one of fundamental pertinence to current affairs, as summarized by the editors: founders’ cults are “part of the Southeast Asian matrix of cultural possibilities that reflects widespread beliefs in spirit ownership of territory and control of fertility and prosperity…”. While it is purportedly unknown who “coined the term founders’ cult”, though one may “attribute it to Paul Mus [1933]”, the concept is diagnosed “as a governing idea for a variety of ethnic and political orders in mainland Southeast Asia”. Spirit lords are deemed the owners of the land with whom the first settlers had to make a contract. Maintaining continuity requires mediators. Performing their role is passed to hereditary successors. “This is the very essence of founders’ cult”. By way of introduction, a note of caution is given “because there is a wide range of variation in these cults …[for each contributor] to decide what phrasing was ethnographically most appropriate (e.g., founder’s cults)” - sic! This underlines the necessity, indeed, to unravel the compendium of facets, as suggested hereunder. The “relationship between the spirit

or spirits of the land and the human founders of settlements and their descendants” becomes evident through the founders’ cult at the “intersection of religion and polity, especially ways that ritual responds and contributes to changes in the political landscape”, such as “relations between uplanders and lowlanders”, between “hill tribes and state societies”, and through the “construction and transformation of identity”. This is perhaps best comprehended by reading, or studying rather, this collection in the sequence recommended by the reviewer here, for this volume is not a conventional reader. One should, therefore, not take ones’ pick at random. The editors’ Introduction (chapter 1) is very well focused. It invites the reader to follow the authors in their explorations. To gain access to the select topics of the founders’ cult, however, it is strongly recommended to follow up by reading, or re-reading, as it were, the candid appraisal of the “culture-en-vironment interface” by Richard A. O’Connor, first published 1989, in a Siam Society Symposium proceedings. It is entitled “From ‘Fertility’ to ‘Order’, Paternalism to Profits: The Thai City’s Impact on the Culture - Environment Interface” (chapter 12). Its gist is enveloped in two statements. Its opening statement stresses the point that “modernity merely builds upon the great enduring bulk of tradition ... In culture ... the change is minuscule, the continuing monumental.” The treatise of the ‘local model’ under

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

262

9/8/05, 9:03

263

Reviews

threat is wound up with strong emphasis on the vigour of tradition, in that “modernity is nearly devoid of content save opposition to the old.” With awareness heightened, the synopsis of this volume sets the stage. O’Connor’s lucid analysis of “Founders’ Cults in Regional and Historical Perspective” (chapter 13) is a scholarly powerful and scientifically rewarding discourse. Its gist is of outright pertinence to the ‘education’ of professionals, decision-makers and policymakers, at large, for the sake of ‘best practice’. Stressing the “actual interconnectedness that constitutes regions”, the author characterizes the founders’ cult as “one of a variety of initially agricultural and eventually political adaptations that came to function as a lingua franca of localism. That ‘language’ is a widely shared inheritance—a tradition—that joins the region and makes it(s) peoples variations on a theme”. Benefits of the founders’ cult include ‘cooperation’ within a rigid framework of norms and sanctions, acceptance of an ‘agricultural calendar’, and ‘amelioration’ through “stabilizing property rights and inflating the value of local land”, “labour exchange”, and safeguarding against “dispersion”. Such adaptation has been at work throughout history, resulting in “competing traditions” that are distinguished as “the monist state”, “world religion”, and “the nation”. Impacts of interfacing are recognized in the process of ethnogenesis. By their tradition, peoples are distinguished as “autopotent”, “autonomous”, “ascetic”, or postmodern”.

In the process, “autopotent, autonomous, and ascetic groupings ... adapted to a specifically historical succession of institutional traditions ... from localism to the state and then world religion ...”. As for “postmodern peoples and guises”, the author’s “concern...is the closer ‘other’ within [i.e. within a state, a nation] that engages emotion”. Hence, the author concludes that “any group that becomes its part [ i.e. a state’s, a nation’s part] thereby becomes a postmodern people”. Building on that solid foundation, it is suggested to read the reflections of the nestor of this group of ethnologists, F. K. Lehman (F. K. L. Chit Hlaing), who stresses “The Relevance of the Founders’ Cult for Understanding the Political Systems of the Peoples of Northern Southeast Asia and its Chinese Borderlands” (chapter 2). Familiar with the people who call themselves Bawm Zo, this reviewer is fascinated by Lehman’s tracing of deeper and wider ramifications, highly appreciated trouvailles both in the main text and its rich annotations. It is in the latter where Lehman defines the Southeast Asian region as “a quasi-continuous field of local communities, customs and languages ... that correspond over greater or lesser periods of time to clusterings of attributed ethnic identities”. As for the founders’ cult, Lehman encapsulates its essence as follows: “In a demographic regime of relative underpopulation, manpower, not land, is the scarce means of production.” “... one must somehow create what amounts to an

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

263

9/8/05, 9:03

264

Reviews

artificial scarcity of land ... and grant to aspiring chiefs or rulers a monopolistic control of access to this scarce resource.” “It is done on the ideological basis of the founders’ cult.” “If one believes ... that one may safely clear and use land ... only with the acquiescence of the ultimate spirit lords of the land, then one will be ... loath to open up lands without that permission”. Adhering to the rationale of the collection of nine case studies, i.e. elucidating facets of the founders’ cult in the region, Southeast Asia, references to modern states are omitted below, as they merely serve as topographical hints. Cornelia Ann Kammerer analyses the “Spirit Cults among Akha Highlanders” (chapter 3) and appraises the role of “ ‘Thigh-eating Chiefs’ in an Egalitarian Society: The Case of Akha Highlanders” (chapter 4). Elizabeth Coville reports on “Mothers of the Land: Vitality and Order in the Toraja Highlands” (chapter 5). Lorraine V. Aragon addresses “Expanding Spiritual Territories: Owners of the Land, Missionization, and Migration” (chapter 6). Yoko Hayami investigates “The Decline of Founders’ Cults and Changing Configuration of Power: Village and Forest among Karen” (chapter 7). Minaro Sakai scrutinizes “Publicizing Rituals and Privatizing Meanings: Negotiating an Identity of the Gumai” (chapter 8). Yukio Hayashi studies “Reconfiguration of Village Guardian Spirits among the ThaiLao” (chapter 9). Nicola Tannenbaum traces “Phaya Sihanatraja and the Founding of Maehongson” (chapter

10). Hjorleifur Jonsson emphasizes “Pedestrian Politics: The Social Focus of Founders, Migration, and Rituals” (chapter 11). A somewhat different version of this contribution was published in the JSS, vol. 87, parts 1 and 2, 99–118, 1999. These nine ethnographic case studies are presented “in order of increasing emphasis on the role of Founders’ Cults”. They cover “maintenance of egalitarianism”, a “compact between the community of living people and the spirits”, a constellation to “test power rather than simply confer leadership”, a “struggle between internal and external definitions and sources of power”, a dichotomy of “public and private elements”, dynamics of “contemporary transformations”, the creation of a “regional identity within the modern state”, and spheres signified by the “king’s spirit”. This multi-faceted tapestry does not alone give evidence of the tradition of founders’ cults but will invariably trigger reflection on observations of a similar nature that might be explained in the same vein. While this is a likely gain for ethnologists and other scholars committed to the noble cause of taking sustainable steps toward the ultimate goal of sustained development, the perspective on founders’ cults opened through this coherent research publication is enriching for all. Those who advocate a critical stance re progress and modernization, especially the cultural, environmental and social impacts of activities labelled “development”, will

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

264

9/8/05, 9:03

265

Reviews

find their concerns substantiated through the truly fascinating evidence from and of a vital sphere within the regional context of Southeast Asia. Rare errors and misprints do not detract from the neat presentation. There remain only two matters of doubt. The references are listed under the heading of “Bibliography”, which seems a misnomer given the much larger volume of pertinent publications. Moreover, the inclusion of seven travel guide books seems hardly appropriate as such are typically neither the result of any seminal, scientific work nor the medium of its dissemination. To sum up, regional variants of the Founders’ Cults are elucidated with the effect of leaving the reader convinced of their significance for a full appreciation of diversity in the human resource. Evidence and analytical rigor make one concur with O’Connor’s seemingly provocative inference that “today’s minorities may be a bit ahead of the times but that hardly matters when they are living in nations whose faith in the story of progress is a bit behind the times.” Karl E. Weber

Southeast Asia over Three Generations, Essays Presented to Benedict R. O’G. Anderson. Edited by James T. Siegel and Audrey R. Kahin. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program, 2003, pp. 398. Studies on Southeast Asia No. 30.

Space allowed for this book review does not permit the in-depth rendition that each of the 17 essays deserves, given their rich diversity of facets viewed through “an inverted telescope”, to quote from that part of the Introduction by James A. Siegel which presents an eulogy to celebrate, at retirement, the achievement of Professor Anderson. Therein, it is clarified that “generation”, in this context “implies modifications of subject matter and of method as younger scholars modify what they have learned from their seniors.” With regard to the “younger scholars”, a virtual apology is offered through expressing regrets about not having involved all those who might have wished to contribute. The introductory section by Audrey R. Kahin outlines the content of this volume. Five broad topics are distinguished, including (a) the creation of national heroes / heroines; (b) four facets of life under colonial rule; (c) emerging nationalism; (d) marginalization; and (e) “movements”. This being a collection of essays on mainland and insular Southeast Asia, readers may appreciate an overview of contributions by countries covered, exceeding 17, namely Indonesia (nine), Philippines (five), Thailand (three), and Burma / Myanmar, Malaysia as well as Vietnam (one each). Of the 17 essays, 13 are original contributions. Of the remaining four, one had been presented at a workshop in 1999, and three are revised versions of conference / seminar / workshop papers presented between 1998 and 2002. In his essay on “The Construction of

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

265

9/8/05, 9:03

266

Reviews

National Heroes and / or Heroines”, Charnvit Kasetsiri unravels the process by which an Indonesian “national hero is constructed”, reporting on procedure in the case of Tengku Sulong, a feudal lord of the Sultanate of Riau in the mid-ninteenth century. Throughout, the author draws parallels between Indonesia and Thailand, thus offering at least as much insight into this aspect of nation-building in both countries. The first essay of a set of four that features facets of life under colonial rule is by Danilyn Rutherford, entitled “Laughing at Leviathan: John Furnivall, Dutch New Guinea, and the Ridiculousness of Colonial Rule”. Against the background of Furnivall’s ‘comic masterpiece’ exposing colonial charades acted out in a pseudo-perfectionist manner, the author draws on episodes documented for the colonial rule of what, upon incorporation into Indonesia, became known as Irian Jaya, now Papua. This leads to the conclusion that “the ridiculous is the consequence of colonial intervention in settings where a systematic lack of shared understanding prevails”. Likewise in insular Southeast Asia and during the colonial era, Takashi Shiraiishi’s essay traces “A New Regime of Order: The Origin of Modern Surveillance Politics in Indonesia”. “The Coming of Modern Policing”, upon the rise of the pergerakan [movement], is recounted in detail, supplemented by a description of the mechanics of political policing. Based on analyses of the role of the Indonesian Communist Party and

the impact of the “New Regime Order”, some of the inferences stress the point that “political policing, with its special way of watching the population, also shaped the way in which the government saw native society”. As one consequence, it is concluded, “the government was as much a hostage of its own political policing as the population”. Gruesome evidence of haunting, or proof that ghosts do exist, has horrified all those who have witnessed ‘sugar running red’ in the mill where John Pemberton’s essay on “The Specter of Coincidence” is situated. On reading the author’s vivid account, “the ghost in the machine” takes shape, given it a “spectral presence that appears sometimes as a detached head within the cogwheels of the machinery, sometimes as a welldressed figure”. As convincingly concluded, “her sudden appearance threatens to induce distraction that turns fatal”. Through analyzing one novel each written by six authors and published between 1919 and 1933, Tsuyoshi Kato, in his essay on “Images of Colonial Cities in Early Indonesian Novels”, seeks answers to local people’s perception, vicissitudes of life, and mentality. Features highlighted include the physical setting of kota as colonial cities, their setting as loci of love and freedom, the literary device of soliloquy (saja contrasting with ‘I’), the influence of modern education and administration as evidenced by the charting of the space of the colonial state, and the impact of clock time and Western calendrical dates paraphrased as ‘punctuating the time

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

266

9/8/05, 9:03

267

Reviews

of the colonial state’. The synopsis of findings as well as the outlook of the novels’ protagonists are encapsulated in reflections on the shifting world, expressed through “radical imaging, rather than radical activism”. The theme of emerging nationalism is presented through four essays, one each on its evolution in Vietnam and Thailand, and two highlighting its history in the Philippines. The essay on “Hai Van, The Storm, and the Vietnamese Communism in the Inter-war Imagination” by Peter Zinoman highlights how a piece of literary work has remained controversial to this day. Vu Trong Phung’s novel The Storm [Giong To] was first serialized during 1936. Its protagonist is Hai Van, a fictitious communist, whose conduct “sheds light on popular Vietnamese attitudes of the day towards communism and local communist activists”. It has triggered ongoing controversies about the author, the effect of his protagonist Hai Van on the ideology of inter-war Vietnamese communism and the character of its cadres, and kept debates alive in literary and political circles of the Popular Front. The author concludes that “the striking discrepancies between Vu Trong Phung’s contemporaneous portrayal of Hai Van and the official view of early Vietnamese communists indicate, at least, that many of the most basic issues within the history of Vietnamese communism have yet to be adequately settled”. ‘Designer nationalism’ is the topic of Thak Chaloemtiarana’s essay entitled

“Move over, Madonna: Luang Wichit Wathakan’s Huang Rak Haew Luk”. The analysis is focused on three major themes of the novel Sea of Love, Chasm of Death, i.e. modernity, nationalism, and gender. Luang Wichit Wathakan is introduced as the “ideological architect of modern Thai Nationalism”, “a dramatist who popularized militant feminism”. The voluminous novel (originally 3, 229 pages) consists of three parts, distinguished by phases in the life of its protagonist, a Thai lady named Praphimphan playing the role of an international actor who sets an outstanding example for women actively to cope with adversity. Along with the role of Thai women, Luang Wichit promoted the modern concept of culture, watthanatham, in the context of modernity, khwam thansamai, both deemed required for building a civilized nation, prathet siwilai. Luang Wichit, who chaired a committee that drafted the State Convention proclamations known as Ratthaniyom, was convinced that literature was a powerful weapon for social engineering, the alternative term used by Japanese academe for social sciences, as germane to Inazo Nitobe’s Bushido, code of warriors, from which Luang Wichit had borrowed certain characteristics. The first of the two essays dealing with nationalism in the Philippines elucidates the poorly comprehended and, hence, lesser known of two novels by Jose Rizal. Under the title of “Foreignness and Vengeance : On Rizals El Filibusterismo”, Vicente L. Rafael presents a coherent analysis of the

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

267

9/8/05, 9:03

268

Reviews

‘strange’ conditions under which this novel, like the earlier novel Noli me Tangere (1887), was written and published in 1891. Spanish colonial authorities referred to nationalists as filibusteros, irritated by their wish to propagate Castilian as the medium of communication and instruction so as to promote economic and social reform, thus challenging the friar-sanctioned practice of dissuading the majority of natives from learning the colonial rulers’ language. The Spaniards abhorred the prospect of having to recognize educated natives, illustrados, as equals, particularly because the filibusteros’ foreignness was perceived as the force of transmission, given their “power of translation in the service of something outside of colonial society”. In the end, vengeance was taken to communicate something about Castilian by remembering that “Spain is a foreign presence that came as a result of an invasion”. The second essay, addressing yet another aspect of foreignness in the course of nation building, by Caroline S. Hau, is entitled “The Question of Foreigners: Bai Ren’s Nanyang Piaoliuji and the Remaking of Chinese and Philippine Nationness”. Under the nom de plume of Bai [White] Ren [Knife’s edge], the novelist, dramatist, and poet Wang Jisheng writes, in his novel Nanyang Piaoliuji [Adrift in the Southern Ocean] about the fate of overseas Chinese who, upon returning to their ‘Motherland’, found themselves identified as ‘sinister people’ during the Cultural Revolution. The novel is the

“semi-autobiographical account of a young boy’s sojourn and adventures in the Philippines in the mid-1930s”. It is a “realistic, rare description of life among the huaqiao [overseas Chinese] in the Philippines. ‘Chineseness’, national identification, and belonging are salient and equally fraught features of the huaqiuao’s experience”. The analysis of this novel, a huaqiao Bildungsroman, highlights work as pedagogy and testing the limits of Chinese-Philippine nationalism. As emphasized by Hau, “the arguments presented attempt to broaden the discussion of identity politics which favor the assertion of an unnecessarily monolithic and exclusionary national identity”. Cause and effect of marginalization are the gist of case studies from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. In his essay on “The Marginalization of the Indians in Malaysia: Contesting Explanations and the Search for Alternatives”, Francis Loh Kok Wah looks into what ignited the Kampong Rawa temple-mosque dispute in Penang of 1998. Probing into the conflict, the author presents a critique of the roles of the Malaysian Indian Congress, the National Union of Plantation Workers, and the ‘middle-class’ NGOs as well as their search for alternatives. It is in this vein that Hindu revivalism, coinciding with Islamic revivalism, was contested by disadvantaged groups of Indians advocating a different direction of Hindu revival. The author arrives at the conclusion that “marginalization is a class, not an ethnic, issue, (for) most Indians who were displaced ended up in

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

268

9/8/05, 9:03

269

Reviews

squatter settlements; their problems in securing employment and housing in the new urban environment constitute the new dimension in Indian marginalization”. The case study from Thailand is by Kasian Tejapira on the “De-Othering Jek Communists: Rewriting Thai History from the Viewpoint of the Ethno-Ideological Other”. Underpinned by an indepth analysis of Thai nation building, with emphasis on “unequal power relations” and “clientelists’ beliefs and behavior”, the experiential deficiency of not being Thai, felt by the likes of Chinese immigrants and their descendants affected by the “racializing and ethnicizing discourse”, is characterized as an “inbred Thainess Deficiency Syndrome”. The vision of “a dynamic and open-ended reimagination and reconstruction of a new Thai nation” over the recent three decades requires to “trace analytically and critically the genealogy of a key signifier in modern Thai cultural politics, namely Thainess”. In this context, the author “painstakingly reconstructed (the jek communists’ and radicals’) attempts to simultaneously break into and out of ‘Thainess’ at the margins of the Thai polity from 1927 to 1958”. In the end, the “Thaification of radical discourse and movement was not in vain”. As evidenced through detailed analysis, “translation and rhyming held the key”, in the Siamese tradition of “composing poetry to convey political ideas since the late nineteenth century”, over which any single authority could exert neither monopolistic nor monopsonistic control.

Narrowing freedom of action is the subject matter of the third case study on “Pag-ibig, Pagtatalik at Pakikibaka: Love and Sex inside the Communist Party of the Philippines” by Patricio N. Abinales. Exploring the language and context of the 1986 revision of the guideline ‘On Marriage’, drafted first before 1977 and finalized in 1997, the author pinpoints three ‘contradictions’. Rather than pioneering a liberative praxis of sexuality, the Party law “steers discussion of female sexuality to directions that contain rather than liberate it”. It has, in fact, upheld norms of what the Party has identified as “reflecting the decadent bourgeois and feudal cultures”. Moreover, women’s issues are subordinate and secondary to the “more fundamental issues of class”. These contradictions have provoked much debate, reflected in literary works that fuel the controversy. “Sex, in the Party law, is not a mutual act of both partners. This makes the leftist CPP a Filipino conservative movement.” Most of all, as the author’s content analysis shows, the paradox of women’s liberation is evident from the Party’s programmatic perception of women’s oppression by both the political system and men, in the face of the Party’s patronizing attitude toward women. The fifth and final set of five essays presents a variety of contemporary issues, mostly of immediate political significance. Eva-Lotta E. Hedman subjects the second round of “People Power” to a spatial analysis and offers a topography of street protest in Manila. In “The

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

269

9/8/05, 9:03

270

Reviews

Dialectics of ‘EDSA Dos’: Urban Space, Collective Memory, and the Spectacle of Compromise, the author presents her findings of “systematic interrogations into the kinds of structures of power shaping the nature and direction of ‘the people’ as it emerges to lay claim to the nation-state in the parliament of the streets”. EDSA Dos, the second (dos) round of decisive protest rallies on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, named after a historian of the Philippine revolution against Spain, in January 2001, added to the “dots on a larger map of prior rounds of struggle in and by the city of collective memory”. She highlights how ESDA Dos “did signal a peculiar departure from constitutionally anchored and otherwise established institutions and processes of political representation in the Philippines”. With a focus on protest, likewise, Douglas Kammen raises five questions in his essay “Pilkades: Democracy, Village Elections, and Protest in Indonesia”. To the question in how far villagers’ protest is triggered by elections proper, the answer is ‘no’, in that protest is related to control over private as well as collective village resources. As for the rise of protests late in 1997, the reason was the scheduling of Pilkades [pemilihan kepala desa - village head elections] separately from Pemilu [pemilihan umum - national legislative elections]. The concentration of protests in Central Java is explained by its peculiar customary right to temporary land tenure [tanah bengkok - salary land], by which village heads are granted

usufruct rights to land during their eightyear term of office. On the relationship between village elections and urban protests triggered by the same cause, the author stresses the fact that “the vast majority of the Indonesian population still lives in village administrative units, and an examination of village elections under the late New Order may provide insight into the democratic process”. Regarding the question of how the rural population would participate in an open electoral process, the author assumes that there “appears to be less interest in the democratic process in areas where communal resources are not assigned to the village head”. For a “particular political pathology that is uniquely endemic in Burma”, Mary P. Callahan provides an analysis in “When Soldiers Kill Civilians: Burma’s Crackdown in 1988 in Comparative Perspective”. Her essay is a comparative study in that it offers answers as to why the soldiers in one country, Burma, kill civilians, while the soldiers in another country, Indonesia, do not. Three questions are raised, apparently addressed to the military in Burma. There is an answer to the question “why do armies turn their guns on unarmed citizens?”: “The army high-command injected the norms and tactics of combat into the strategic interaction that accompanies the collapse of authoritarian regimes”. As for training guns on fellow citizens, the question is “how do soldiers hear enemy threats in cries for democratic reform?”. The author refers to decades of warfare that have

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

270

9/8/05, 9:03

271

Reviews

had a devastating effect on civilian society. “By the time of the 1988 uprising, this military was a force organized for a defense not against hypothetical external enemies but instead against very concrete threats from citizens”. Specifically, “under what conditions does popular mobilization constitute a paramount threat to an army?” is the third question. The author reaches a twopronged conclusion. First, “civilians had universally become targets of counterinsurgency”. Secondly,“the logic that animated the military’s response to popular mobilization was the same logic that had animated its culture for thirty years —that of a particular counterinsurgency strategy.” Seen against the background of the political upheaval in Indonesia, where the military exercised restraint, the question remains: what justifies the “extraordinary degree of army dominance over Burma’s national affairs”? Tracing the origins of beliefs, ideas and dreams led John T. Sidel to entitle his essay “Other Schools, Other Pilgrimages, Other Dreams: The Making and Unmaking of Jihad in Southeast Asia”. The complexity of the matter hinges on two questions: firstly “What circumstances have enabled—and constrained—association and mobilization under the sign of ‘Islam’ in Southeast Asia?” and secondly “Why has ‘terrorism’—or, in the narrow, but now widely popular sense of the term, jihad—waged under the banner of Islam in Southeast Asia assumed certain forms at certain times in certain places, but not others?” He says the essay situates such groups as Abu

Sayyaf, Laskar Jihad, and Jemaah Islamiyah “within the historical context of the institutions, practices, and identities associated with Islam in the Philippines and Indonesia.”. The Abu Sayyaf are seen in a historical process of marginalization of the Filipinos, or Moros proper, who were disadvantaged by influential stakeholders of modernization and subordinated in the course of internal colonization by non-Muslim interests. Taking advantage of the region’s physical geography, the “Sulu Zone” with its loosely structured port polity, close connections existed notably with Sabah and North Sulawesi. Networks facilitated educational pilgrimages. Dispersed slave raiders re-emerged who had supplied laborers for the extraction of natural resources traded by colonial companies. Nowadays, they operate as bandits, pirates, and smugglers—among them the Abu Sayyaf. Widespread resistance against the incorporation of Muslim Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago into the Philippines has been mounted under the rubric of jihad by the Muslim Independence Movement and the Moro National Liberation Front. As for Indonesia, the author traces the origins of Laskar Jihad and Jemaah Islamiyah back to the colonial era. Important is the year 1912 when an association was founded to develop modern schools, known as madrasah. Dutch fear of Pan-Islamic movements influenced “the New Order regime that crystallized under Suharto in which ‘Islam’ was profoundly marginalized”. In the name of high-tech economic nationalism,

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

271

9/8/05, 9:03

272

Reviews

the Ikatan Cendekiawan Muslim SeIndonesia [Association of Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals] was founded early in the 1990s. “The elitist pretensions of middle-class modernist Muslims to represent Islam ran up against the reality of the millions of unschooled and underemployed ordinary Indonesians of the faith”. “Those most vehemently opposed were associated with a group formed in January 2000 and known as Laskar Jihad”. Its members have “tried to rally Muslims divided by partisan and parochial interests against those wielding power in the nation-state”. The author arrives at the conclusion that “the purveyors of jihad in both the Philippines and Indonesia are in fact waging a rearguard, losing battle”. A veritable grass-roots network, paraphrased as ‘rhizomatic evolution’ by Joshua Barker, author of the essay on “Interkom in Indonesia: Not Quite an Imagined Community” attests to the ingenuity of people desirous to reach out without violating rigid social norms. As pointed out, “interkom is a technology that is completely indigenous to Indonesia; it evolved without any regulation or official recognition, and exists outside the networks controlled by the state”. Interkom is described as “a network of cables linking together participating food stalls, ramshackle city homes, migrant workers’ rooms, and farms along alleyways, roads and river courses.” People operate the interkom to chat, pass on messages, exchange information, or listen to music. Two types are distinguished, the local web

(jalur lokalan) of high density and the long-distance lines (jalur lintas) extending up to seven kilometers, as evident from Bandung and its surroundings. “What is most fascinating about interkom is the way it allows for the creation of a different kind of world that stands in opposition to everyday life. This opposition is characterized by a sharp distinction between interkom society and face-to-face society, between the ‘on-air’ (di udara) or ‘on-line’ (di jalur) and ‘on-land’ (di darat) world.” Diversity in all spheres of nature, as well as in culture, society, economy and science is a precious property and vital quality. Diversity is increasingly recognized as a repository of resources for development in that it offers alternatives that show the direction out of the deadend alley of linear progress and unsustainable modernization that benefit their promoters, first and most of all. The well researched and painstakingly documented studies assembled in this felicitation volume of scholarly essays convey diversity that is outright enriching. Either selective or comprehensive readings are highly recommended. Karl E. Weber

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P245-272

272

9/8/05, 9:03

OBITUARY

It was with deep regret that the Council of the Siam Society Under Royal Patronage announced the passing away of the Society’s Honorary VicePresident, His Serene Highness Prince Subhadradis Diskul on 6 November 2003. His Serene Highness was associated with the Siam Society for 42 years and served as President of the Siam Society from 1979 to 1981. Under his presidency the Society redefined its role in contemporary Thai society, a vision that greatly influenced subsequent Councils. His Serene Highness continued the Society’s campaign to conserve the fragile legacy of the temple murals of Bangkok. A tireless teacher, Prince Subhadradis is fondly remembered for the many fascinating study trips he led over four decades, particularly to the Grand Palace complex and to various Khmer sites in the kingdom and in Cambodia. In this capacity Prince Subhadradis was to serve the Society as Chairman of the Travel Committee for many years.

In the intellectual tradition of His Serene Highness’s late father, His Royal Highness Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, the “Father of Thai history”, Prince Subhadradis was recognized as one of the Kingdom’s most eminent art historians. His knowledge of Thai and Khmer art was unparalleled, resulting in many important academic papers on the subject. Prince Subhadradis was a much-loved figure at Silpakorn University, where he served as professor of art and archeology, and later as rector. His work in preservation of the cultural heritage of the region was also furthered in his role as director of SPAFA. Widely honoured and decorated for his contributions to Thai culture and world heritage, His Serene Highness was awarded the Knight Grand Cross (First Class) of the Most Illustrious Order of Chula Chom Klao by His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, and was recognized by the French Government as a Chevalier de la Legion d’Honneur.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P273-276

273

9/8/05, 9:03

273

NOTES ABOUT CONTRIBUTORS ARTICLES, NOTES, AND REVIEWS

Luigi BRESSAN Born in Italy in 1940 and ordained priest in 1974. He was appointed archbishop in 1989. From 1971 he worked in the Vatican diplomatic service, with posts in Korea, Pakistan, and South-East Asia. From 1993 to 1999 he was Papal Nuncio to the Kingdom of Siam. Mgr Bressan is currently Archbishop of Trent in Italy.

Bertil LINTNER Is a Swedish journalist and author based in Chiang Mai. His articles have appeared in the Far Eastern Economic Review, the Wall Street Journal, Jane’s Intelligence Review, Current History, and more than 80 other international publications. He is also the author of five books on Burma and one on organized crime in the Asia-Pacific region.

John HAYLOCK Is a Cambridge graduate who has lived in Baghdad, Tokyo, Cyprus, Cairo, and Tangiers, and now, in his eighties, gravitates between Hove, Chiang Mai and Japan according to the season. He has published more than six novels, numerous short stores, an autobiography, and translated two works from French. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1995.

Stuart MUNRO-HAY Holds a PhD from the Africa department of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and has lived in Thailand for many years. He is the author of many books, including Nakhon Sri Thammarat. Archaeology, History, and Legends of a Southern Thai Town, Bangkok, 2000.

Helen JAMES Is a visiting fellow with the Centre of International Studies, Cambridge University. She is also a visiting fellow with the Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. She was previously Executive Director of the Asia Research and Development Institute and Director of the Thai/ Myanmar Studies Centre, University of Canberra. She has held academic posts in Thai universities and spent fourteen years teaching in Thailand, and spent 14 years teaching and living in Thailand.

Hans PENTH Born Berlin, 1937; studied languages and history of Southeast Asia at Frankfurtam-Main, Paris, and Lisbon; Dr.Phil. Frankfurt/M, 1964. German Academic Exchange Service, Chulalongkorn University 1964-5, Chiang Mai University, 1965-7. German Research Council scholarship to study northern manuscripts in monasteries, 1967-9. Since then lecturer and researcher on Lan Na history. Founded the Archive of Lan Na Inscriptions in 1977 and still active with the Archive at the Social Research Institute.

274

[47-03-067] P273-276

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

274

9/8/05, 9:03

Notes about Contributors

Marco RONCARATI Born London 1967, studied at LSE and SOAS (PhD 2001); taught at Thammasat, Assumption and Rangsit universities for eight years. He is now based in London practicing complementary medicine. In 2002 he published a book in Thai and English entitled Home is in the Heart dealing with contemporary issues in Thai society. Dawn F. ROONEY An art historian specializing in Southeast Asia, Dawn Rooney is a Fellow of the Royal Geographical and the Royal Asiatic Societies in London and an advisor to the Society for Asian Art at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco. Dr. Rooney, who has lived in Thailand for the past three decades, is the author of eight books on the culture of the region including a definitive guide to Angkor. She was a scholar in residence for one month at the Rockefeller Foundation Study Center in Bellagio, Italy in 2002 where she completed her most recent book, Thai Buddhas (Bangkok, 2003). Michael SMITHIES Born London, 1932, and educated at Oxford, Berkeley, and Paris. After teaching in France, California, and Gibraltar, he joined the British Council, serving in Thailand, Cambodia, and Indonesia. He has also worked in universities in Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, and Singapore. He retired from the United Nations in Bangkok in 1992 and has since written about Siamese

275

history. A former Hon. Editor of JSS, he is a Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society, a Chevalier de l’Ordre des Palmes Académiques, and an Honorary Member of the Siam Society. David SMYTH Is senior lecturer in Thai at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. His published works include Teach Yourself Thai (1995, revised 2003), Thai: an essential grammar (2002), and Colloquial Cambodian (1995). He has also translated a number of Thai novels and short stories into English, including Siburapha’s Behind the Painting (1990), K. Surangkhanang’s The Prostitute (1994) and Chart Kortbjiti’s No Way Out (2003). Susan TALBOT Recently completed her PhD in anthropology at the University of Otago in New Zealand. Her thesis examined the transition from the Iron Age to Angkor in northeast Thailand. She now lives in London and is currently working on a project financed by the Evans Fund of the University of Cambridge, concerning the small Angkorean hospital chapel and resthouse sites of northeast Thailand. Karl E. WEBER graduated from Heidelberg University, Germany, in ethnology (M.A., 1965) and sociology (Ph.D., 1966). Formerly with the South Asia Institute, Heidelberg University, he was professor at the Asian

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P273-276

275

9/8/05, 9:03

275

Notes about Contributors

276

Institute of Technology, Pathum Thani, Thailand, 1978-2002. His work in Asia over more than 40 years includes research in countries of South and Southeast Asia, notably in Bangladesh, Thailand, Nepal, and Pakistan. David K. WYATT Is the John Stambaugh Professor of History Emeritus, of Cornell University. He recently retired. His most recent books are Thailand: A Short History (2nd ed., 2003), Siam in Mind (2002), Reading Thai Murals (2004), and an

276

[47-03-067] P273-276

edition of G. J. Younghusband’s travels to Keng Tung (forthcoming). Stephen B. YOUNG Is the Global Executive Director of the Caux Round Table, an international network of senior business leaders. He graduated valedictorian of the 1963 class at International School, Bangkok, when his father Kenneth T. Young was American Ambassador to Thailand. In July 1966 Mr Young discovered the Bronze Age site of Ban Chiang by tripping over a tree root.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

276

9/8/05, 9:03

NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

The Journal of Siam Society welcomes original articles and reviews of a scholarly nature in conformity with the principles and objectives of the Siam Society, investigating the arts and sciences of Thailand and neighbouring countries. Articles Articles should be primarily in English, and must be accompanied by a ten-line abstract in English and a fiveline biographical note about the author (s). The word length of the contribution must be given in a covering letter, supplying full postal and e-mail addresses, and the author (s) must confirm that the article has not been published elsewhere in any form, nor is currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Articles submitted to JSS are subject to review by external referees. Typescripts should not normally exceed 7,000 words, and must be typed on single sides of A4 paper with double line spacing, preferably using 12 point Times New Roman font. Two copies of the typescript should be submitted together with the text on a computer disk or by e-mail. The use of up-to-date word-processing programs that are readily convertible into other formats is appreciated. Contributors using special fonts, such as for various Asian languages, should consult the editor in advance.

References and bibliographical entries should follow modern academic practices appropriate to the field in which the article is written. Bibliographical entries must be complete and include the full name of the author(s), title, and publication data including the place of publication, publisher, and date of publication (with the original date of publication if the item used is a reprint). References to articles written in Thai should include the title in Romanized Thai followed by a translation into English in parentheses. Romanization in general follows the system of the Royal Institute. If in doubt concerning form or how to reference non-standard sources, please consult the Chicago Manual of Style (most recent edition), or Hart’s rules for compositors and readers at OUP (most recent edition). If in doubt over spelling, use, as with the United Nations, the Concise Oxford Dictionary (most recent edition), taking the first entry where variants are allowed. Style Each paper should follow a consistent form of dating, capitalization (to be kept to a minimum) and other aspects. The style adapted should be appropriate for scholarly journals with an audience of specialists in a diversity of fields and nationalities; this said, jargon is to be avoided and articles should be

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P277-279

277

9/8/05, 9:04

277

Notes for Contributors

278

readily comprehensible by non-specialists. Measurements should be metric, not imperial. Non-native speakers of English are strongly advised to have their contributions checked by a native speaker before submission. Both British and American English variants are admitted, but an article must be internally consistent in the use of whichever is selected. Figures Figures, site plans, maps, etc., should be drawn on strong paper, white card, or good quality tracing film, and suitably lettered for printing. They should measure approximately twice the intended final size which should be indicated where possible. If these have been scanned or are computer-generated then the appropriate disks should be sent indicating format, together with hard copy. Do not ‘embed’ any scanned graphics in the text on the disk. A published full-page illustration may not exceed 210mm x 140mm. Photographs should be printed on glossy paper and mounted on thin card. Figures, maps, and plates should be titled and numbered; originals should be numbered lightly on the back in pencil only. A list of captions to figures and plates must be provided on separate sheets. Authors must obtain approval, before submission, for reproduction of illustrations or other material not their own. Redrawing or lettering of maps or

figures cannot be undertaken by the Siam Society or the editor, who may omit or return sub-standard work for representation. Proofs and offprints Page proofs will be sent to authors if time allows. Authors are reminded that these are intended for checking, not rewriting: substantial changes to the text at this stage will result in the contribution being rejected. Failure to return proofs by the required date may lead to substitution of the editor’s corrected proofs. One copy of the Journal and thirty offprints will be supplied free to authors on publication of the issue in which their contribution is included. Reviews Unsolicited book reviews are not normally accepted. Offers to write reviews should be directed to the Editor, Journal of the Siam Society. Reviews should normally be 1,0002,000 words in length, written in English and supplied as a print-out and on disk as for articles. Full bibliographic details about the book under review must be supplied, including number of pages and price, if known. Disclaimer and resolution of conflict The opinions expressed in the JSS are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Siam Society. The editor’s decision is final.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P277-279

278

9/8/05, 9:04

Notes for Contributors

Correspondence Typescripts, books for review, and all correspondence should be sent to The Editor, The Journal of The Siam Society 131 Sukhumvit Soi 21 (Asoke) Bangkok 10110, Thailand. Tel. (662) 661 6470-7 Fax. (662) 258 3491 E-mail: [email protected]

279

Subscription, membership enquiries and orders for publications should be addressed to Membership Services, at the Society’s address. Information about exchange copies of Siam Society periodicals may be obtained from the Honorary Librarian, at the Society’s address.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P277-279

279

9/8/05, 9:04

279

280

RECENT SIAM SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS Dedications to H.R.H. Princess Galyani Vadhana Krom Luang Naradhiwas Rajanagarinda on her 80th birthday Bangkok, Siam Society, 2003 This handsome volume of 255 pages, containing 14 articles by well-known scholars of Thai culture, is introduced by the President, Bilaibhan Sampatisiri, who thanks H.R.H. Princess Galayani for her devotion to the work of the Siam Society, of which she is its Honorary President. The articles found there range from prehistoric excavation to sets for a Thai opera first performed in Bangkok in 2003: Thailand: A monarchy in a globalized world Churuksuksa (A study of inscriptions) in Thai Reflections on thirty-three years of archaeological research in Thailand Dvaravati: Recent revelations and research Inscription I: from pious fable to historical fact The Chedi Sri Suriyothai reconsidered L’inscription thaïe du Vatt Buddhaghosacary de Phnom-Penh (K.1213) in French The Thasai Prince’s rebellion of 1641: a forgotten event in Ayutthayan history An anonymous pamphlet of 1690 concerning events in Siam in 1688 A Buddha image sponsored by Jao Laung Noi In of Lampang in 1841 Photographs as cultural documentation Thung Bangkapi in the mid-1930s: a personal recollection In search of indigenous theories Mae Naak opera stage sets

H.E. General Prem Tinsulanonda Term Meetem C.F.W. Higham Peter Skilling Michael Wright Piriya Krairiksh Olivier de Bernon Dhiravat na Pombejra Michael Smithies Hans Penth M.C. Chakrarot Chitrabongs Sirichai Narumitrekagarn Chetana Nagavajara Sumet Jumsai

There are numerous illustrations in colour and black-and-white. The hard cover volume bound in artificial snakeskin and embossed in gold is available to Society members for Bt.699 (US$ 30).

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P280-284

280

9/8/05, 9:05

281

Zhou Daguan (Chou Ta-kuan) The Customs of Cambodia new and totally revised edition edited and newly translated by Michael Smithies with an additional text on The Temple of Angkor Wat by Louis Finot (1929) Bangkok, Siam Society, 2001 This handsome volume comes to 147 pages and includes not only introductions to the famous text, but also Finot’s comprehensive text on Angkor Wat, published in Mémoires Archéologiques vol II, brought up to date with a note by Jacques Dumarçay of the E.F.E.O. The text was translated from Chinese into French by Paul Pelliot and published in 1902. As Pelliot pointed out, Zhou Daguan’s is the only account to come down to us describing daily life in the Khmer empire. True, the empire had passed its zenith, and a fundamental shift to Theravada Buddhism was occurring, but that does not diminish its value. Seen in conjunction with the bas-reliefs at Angkor, particularly at the Bapuon, the Bayon and Angkor Wat, the texts tells us a good deal about how people lived then and how society was organized. Although it is undoubtedly occasionally inaccurate or incomplete – Zhou seems to have depended on members of the Chinese community in Angkor for some of his information, and many of his views were typical of those of a Chinese male chauvinist – it is, as a record of daily life, considerably more informative than the numerous stele erected in temples by kings pompously proclaiming their greatness. There are 62 colour illustrations, many full or even double page pull-outs, and five multi-page black-and-white photographs illustrating the carvings on the lower gallery of Angkor Wat. John Cadet, reviewing this in Guidelines (vol. 9, no.6: Chiang Mai, June, 2002), wrote: “... What distinguishes this latest edition, apart from the incorporation of another text on Angkor by Louis Finot, is the lavishness with which it has been produced: splendidly printed, abundantly illustrated with photographs of Angkor Wat and its superb reliefs, sumptuously incorporating four-page fold-outs of Delaporte’s nineteenth century drawings of the temple... This is a treasure in its own right, a credit to the Siam Society, and all involved with its production, and no one who has visited this greatest of the ancient architectural marvels – no on who has not yet been there – will want to be without it. From his own little niche in eternity, Zhou must be looking down admiringly.” The soft-cover volume costs Bt.980 (US$ 25) to members (Bt.1,295 (US$ 35) to non-members) Please note that very few copies of this edition now remain.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P280-284

281

9/8/05, 9:05

281

282

The Society of Siam: Selected articles for the Siam Society’s centenary Edited by Chris Baker Bangkok, Siam Society, 2004

These articles from the last 50 years of the Journal of the Siam Society show why Thailand is such a fun place to live and to study. The pregnancy of the rice goddess. Cremating an abbot with a tug-or-war. Sexy scenes on wat walls. How to court a northern girl. Karen riddles. Spirit doctors who remove calamity. The varieties of hell. The beauty of rice. Spirit cults. The structure of the monkhood. The marquis de Sade and Bangkok traffic. The guardians of the city. The cult of the King’s Spirit. The door to the underworld. How to sing in Isan. Shadow puppets. Love poetry. Political novels. Historical movies. All this in 409 pages. Alec Gordon Anan Ganjanapan Andrew Turton Benjamin A. Batson Charles F. Keyes Euayporn Kerdchouay Frank E. Reynolds Gehan Wijeyewardene Grant A. Olson Hjorleifur Jonsson Jane Bunnag Jarernchai Chonpairot Jeremy H. Kemp

John P. Ferguson K.I. Matics Kraisri Nimmanhaeminda Manas Chitakasem Michael Smithies Napat Sirisambhand Phya Anuman Rajadhon Puey Ungphakorn Richard A. O’Connor Shalardehai Ramitanondh Sunait Chutintharanon Suriya Ratanakul Terry B. Miller

The soft-cover volume costs Bt.800 (US$ 25) to members; Bt.950 (US$ 30) to non-members.

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P280-284

282

9/8/05, 9:05

283

Journal of the Siam Society 2003 Vol. 91

[47-03-067] P280-284

283

9/8/05, 9:05

283

[47-03-067] P280-284

284

9/8/05, 9:05