“Preliminary Observations on Historiography in Thailand”
Charnvit Kasetsiri
Senior Adviser
Southeast Asian Studies Program
Thammasat University
Bangkok, Thailand
The following observations arise from a panel discussion on “Thai Studies” in Chiangmai,
Thailand, to which I was invited to speak by Dr. Thongchai Winijakul, Southeast Asia
Program, University of Wisconsin; and from my reading of his article on “The Changing
landscape of the past : new histories in Thailand since 1973” (Journal of Southeast Asian
Studies, 26:1, March, 1995). They are also the fruit of similar discussions with
distinguished scholars of Southeast Asia: Yoneo Ishii, Craig Reynolds, and Lisa Hong in
August, 1996.
Observation No. 1
My primary observation is that there is something rather unusual, even quite paradoxical, in
the study of Thai history today. On the one hand, as a “formal” subject firmly established in
school, college and university curriculums, it has become something of a bore, to be turned
away from if that is possible. It is now as hard to recruit good instructors as to find good
students. Those students who for some reason or other take history as their major do not
know what, it any, good the subject does to them, let alone in finding a good job. Thus the
number of the students at the first and second degree levels in various institutions has been
declining. It is true that Chulalongkorn University has recently opened a doctoral program
in history, but even this cannot change the existing situation
In this regard, if we applied the same “globalization” standards of benefit and cost to the
study of history as has been done with self-supporting and international projects (so dearly
loved by many educators and politicians) the Department of History in colleges and
universities throughout the Thai country would have to be closed.
On the other hand, history has also become an exciting, lively and dynamic force to be
reckoned with, when it is not “institutionalized”, when it is outside the “formal” framework
of educational institutions, committees, or associations. A case in point is that some history
books, written by a new generation of historians, have received public acclaim. They are
given a wide coverage on television and in the newspapers and magazines for their
approaches to topics like: the ‘origin’ of Thai people, the ‘golden age’ of Sukhothai
kingdom, great heroes and heroines, etc. Some have been adapted for plays, TV serials and
films. History has also become part and parcel of “cultural tourism,” and is central to this is
‘son et lumiere’ or “Sound and Light” presentation. It is used for publicity by government
agencies, as well as local and national politicians. Perhaps the most striking incident in this
regard is the history dissertation entitled “Politics in Thao Suranari Monument” (Thao
Suranari is a problematic heroine of the Khorat-Isan plateau, who, in 1830s, fought against
the Laotian army of King Anu of Vientiane. She is now seen as protecting Thailand against
Laos!). When it was let out from academia to society at large, it triggered off a series of
violent protests and conflicts in the early part of 1996.
2
Evidently, although history may seem dead in educational institutions, it is alive and kicking
outside. This is a common pattern. I think, we have to ask ourselves what is happening to
history, or to be more specific, what is happening to the writing of history today.
Observation No. 2
In a sense, the tradition of Thai historical writing has been seriously challenged.
In the old days, Thai learned and used the past orally through legends, sermons, songs, etc.
Modern ‘historical facts’ are something new, dating back a little more than 100 years.
History or historiography, as we know it today only began to take shape in the age of high
European imperialism, on the one hand, and the rise of Thai nationalism, on the other. Old
kingdoms, real or imaginary, are then merged into a new consciousness of a Thai nationstate. Thus kingdoms of Dvaravati/Sukhothai/Ayutthaya/Bangkok (Ratanakosin) have been
turned into and become Siam/Thailand
In short, the period from the latter half of the nineteenth century to the Second World War,
saw the emergence of the Thai Past in various guises, culminating in the written history of
the nation and the dynasty, with the Past seen as the direct predecessor of the present and
future.. It was the exodus-like story of the Thai people, led by great heroes (and by few
great heroines), from the Altai Mountain in Mongolia, to Nanchao Kingdom in Yunnan,
China, down to Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, and Bangkok (Ratanakosin), to the present-day
Thailand, with era of Sukhothai standing out as the ‘Golden (or classical) Age’.
This kind of history concerns itself with the ability to sustain Thaness, the word bearring the
political connotation of “freedom” and the cultural meaning of “being Thai” and “having a
Thai origin.” It is devoted in most part to political history and wars acted out by great
heroes and occasionally heroines. For other stories with economic, social and cultural
significance to be included, they must have something to do with the Nation and ruling
dynasties and follow the direct forward-marching narratives.
Thus, the mainstream and “formal” history came into being at the same time as the
emergence of the nation state of Siam/Thailand. They were inseparably linked. Similarly,
those who helped form the nation-state of Siam/Thailand were almost the same people who
“unearthed” the ancient past of Thailand and put it in writing. Three important people who
played the most crucial roles were King Vajiravuth (Rama VI, 1910-1925), Prince Damrong
and Luang Vichitwatakan.
Admittedly there were historical writings which fell outside this “formal” framework, for
instance, that by K. S. R. Kularb, as well as those which bore the “leftist” stamp during the
1950’s (and “unearthed” after the 14 October 1973 Thai Student Uprising). They are,
however, treated as secondary and not “formal”. They are seen also as “unruly”, more
“western” than “Thai”.
King Vajlravuth, Prince Damrong, and Luang Vichiwatakan were prolific writers who
together shaped the thinking of most Thai historians. Of course, they were different. King
Vajiravuth, for instance, was not even considered by some as a historian. However,
focussing on their concepts of the nation-state in relation to nationalism and, to a certain
extent, racism, I do not see much difference between them. They were contemporaries and
sharing the same ideal.
3
Observation No. 3
During the past three decades, especially during the 1980’s, a new phenomenon occurred.
The “formal” mainstream history came under close scrutiny. Questions were raised “truths”
were debunked and alternative approaches discussed.
In his important article, Dr. Thongchai Vinijjakul mentioned “the visual change of the past”
and “new approach to history”, citing such scholars as Nitthi Iaosriwongs, Chatthip
Natsupha, Srisak Vallibhodom, and Thida Saraya, as well as Silpa Wattanatham “school”
and its guru Sujit Wongtes (Silpa Wattanatham or Arts and Culture is the most popular
monthly magazine in Thailand published regularly since late 1970s). Scholars and the
popular media were, therefore, responsible for the raising questions, debunking ‘truths’ and
suggesting alternative approaches. We can divide their contributions into four groups:
a.
b.
c.
d.
The Thai people and their Origin
“Sukhothai-ism”
Great heroes (and occasional heroines)
“Community” and local history.
a. The Thai people and their Origin
In the old Thai historical-cum-nation-building writing, Thailand was painted as “the elder
brother” (!) of the Chinese, basking in the glory and love of freedom. The Thai had been
migrating for thousands of years (the usual suggested figure being 5 to 7 thousand years)
from far-away Altai on the Mongolian-Russian border into central China, to Nanchao (Dali)
in Yunnan Province. When Kublai Khan conquered Nanchao, the “freedom-loving” Thai
were believed to have moved into Southeast Asia and the present-day Thailand. They, the
Thai, have come to established the successive kingdoms of Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, and
Bangkok (Thonburi) along the way.
The “Altai Mountain and Nanchao Kingdom” narrative was already questioned in the
1960’s, especially at a Conference at Sinlapakorn University, Bangkok. An article was
published in an ‘intellectual’ Sankhomsat Parithat (Social Science Reviews) magazine
(October 1964 and February 1965 issues). The issues caught public attention when Silpa
Wattanatham Magazine, by its editor Sujit raised and negated them in such occasional
booklets as Khon Thai mai dai ma chak nai (Thai people do not come from anywhere) 1984,
Khon Thai yu thini (Thai people are here) 1986, etc.
Sujit is a writer, poet, essayist, commentators; he is not an academic, (and he has never
claimed to be one). Rather, he picked up where the academics left off. Drawing from his
personal experience as one of the first to have visited Communist China and Socialist Laos.
He had been to “Nanchao” (Dali area) in China and to places where people speak the ThaiTai tongue. He raised questions about, and then rejected the hitherto undisputed written
history. His unacademic approach and style of writing made it difficult for us to follow him
all the way. However, when the ‘Altai-Mountain and Nanchao-Kingdom’ were so publicly
questioned and rejected, the foundation of the Thai history was shaken and cracked.
It would not be fair to avoid mentioning some historians who had also raised the issue but
who for lack of adequate exposure did not receive publick attention. They are Chontira
Satyawattana, Kanchani La-ongsri, Wutthichai Munlasilp, and Praphrut Sukolratnamethi,
including various works supported by the Committee for Revising History (of the Office of
the Prime Minister) and those in collaboration with such Chinese scholars and Chen Li Fan,
4
Tuan Li Seng. Consequently, the excellence-conscious scholars had to re-think the opening
chapter of Thai history. The Ministry of Education, too, was forced to revise a number of
basic assumptions about the origin of the Thai people.
A random survey of existing Thai historical texts at the bookstalls will prove the point. For
instance, Saranukrom prawatsat Thai (Encyclopeadia of Thai hisrtory) by So Plainoi (first
edition 1974, revised and third edition 1989), the entry “Nanchao” gives “Nanchao was a
name for the Thai kingdom in Yunnan Province, China. The Chinese named the state after
the southern lord Nanchao.” So Plainoi ends the entry with this line: “However, modern
historians are divided. Some maintain that Nanchao was Thai, while others believe it was
not”.
In his book: Sueb Prawat Chatthai (Tracing history of the Thai nation), author Suchat
Bhumiborirak wrote that Nanchao was not a Thai kingdom. He claimed that the Pai (Bai)
people who are the mojority in the region of Dali (or Tali) use the term Nanchao to mean
differently from the Thai. To the Pai/Bai “Nan” means “South” and “chao” is equal to
group, tribe, or clan. Thus he believed that Nanchao means ‘southerners’, not the southern
lord as most people in Thailand claim. (pp. 106-107) Besides the Thai (Dai) are only a
minority in the area. They were not the ruling class in Dali and when Kublai Khan
conquered Yunnan there was no such thing as a mass migration/exodus of people into the
mainland of Southeast Asia.
Another two books have been chosen to elaborate my point: Prawatsat Thai (Thai history)
by Asst. Prof. Natya Inkanat and et.al., of Ramkhamhaeng University (first edition 1986)
and another by the same title Prawatsat Thai (Thai history) by Asst. Prof. Bangorn
Plyaphan, Ratchapat Nakhon Pathom Institute, (first edition 1994). The former gives the old
and new versions, while the latter points out that there are six theories explaining the origin
of the Thai people.
Yet, although the ‘Altai-Mountain and Nanchao-Kingdom’ narratives are now mostly
missing from Thai history text-books, historical writing still adheres to the old concepts and
a forward march in time. Academics and government agencies are still interested in finding
out “the origin of the Thai”. Thus research and national conferences on “Thai people
without “h” (or the Tai/Dai) outside Thailand” were given financial assistance for a number
of years. For example, the Seminar on “Status and Trends in the Studies of the Tai Culture”
held on 12 September 1993, was presided by the Princess Sister and over seven hundred
people of education circle attended. This led to a publication of a massive book entitled:
Studies on Tai Cultures (1995)
b. “Sukhothai-ism”
The second topics has been whether the evidence for the Kingdom of Sukhothai as the
golden age of the Thai is reliable or even believable. Again, it was Sujit Wongtes and his
Silpa Wattanatham that led the attack on “mainstream history.”A great number of articles
(by Sujit himself and by others academics he helps to publish) were presented: Sukhothai
mai chai ratchane raek khong thai (Sukhothai was not the first capital of the Thai) first
edition 1983), Pho Khun Ramkhamhaeng mai dai taeng phasit Phra Ruang (King
Ramkhamhaeng did not write Phra Ruang’s Proverbs) first edition 1985, Mai mi nang
nopphamat, mai mi loi krathong nai sukhothai (There was no Queen Noppamat, neither
there was loi krathong, in Sukhothai (first edition 1987). Titles of these books indicate
5
clearly enough that the unilinear concept of Thai history was rejected. Sukhothai was
regarded as just another “principality”, and not the first kingdom or the cradle of Thai
civilization.
Sujit is a writer as well as a publisher (he is part of an extremely successful publishing
company named Matichon Group). He collected and published a great variety of works by
Thai scholars (mainly by Srisak Vallibhotama, Nidhi Eaosriwongs, Phiset Chiachanphong,
and such senior scholars as M.C. Chantrachirayu Rajni and Prasert na Nagara). This was
done in a more provocative journalistic format, sprinkled with sharp, eye-catching
expressions, lending considerable popularity to his own work and other which he helped to
collect and compile.
Furthermore, the “Golden Sukhothai” was seriously challenged by other ‘international’
scholars such as Michael Vickery and Piriya Krairiks when the two started to question the
date, hence the “authenticity”, of King Ramkhamhaeng’s Stone Inscription. Ramkhamhaeng
Inscription is regared as the pillar of Thai civilization and a utopia of Thai soceity.
Although, there was nothing new about this challenge. A group of scholars known as “na
phra lan” (Silpakorn University’s non-mainstream teachers and students) had disputed the
authenticity for decades. They did not believe that the Inscription dated from the 13th
century and the author was King Ramkhamhaeng. There was whisper that it was a 19 th
century version and that the author was King Mongkut. However, they never succeeded, nor
dare to bring the issue to public attention.
Piriya Krairiks’s systematic presentation in his the King Ramkhamhaeng Inscription: An Art
History Analysis (1989) and Michael Vickery during the 1980’s caused unprecedented
heated debates in history. The issue was taken up again and again at all kinds of seminars
and conferences. It spilled over to the “Thai Studies” conference in Australia in 1987 and
later to U.S.A. with no resolution in sight. The Silpa Watthanatham began to publish books
on the issue with provoking titles such as ‘King Ramkhamhaeng’s Inscription: Who did it?
Authentic or Fake’ (1988) and ‘Who Fabricated King Ramkhamhaeng’s Stone Inscription’
(1991). The conservation Siam Society, with Piriya as its President then, also published The
Ramkhamhaeng Controversy which is a collection of related articles. Although there is no
clear-cut resolution to the argument, it has shaken the confidence in the unilinear ‘official’
approach to Thai history.
c. Great heroes (and occasional heroines)
As mentioned earlier, mainstream Thai history has been concerned mainly with the unilinear
history of nation and dynasties, led by great heroes and heroines. Today the notion of great
heroes too is questioned, debunked, and re-interpreted. We are familiar with the work of
Nidhi Eaosrivongs: Thai Politics in the Reign of King Narai. In this work Nidhi put the
emphasis on real individuals, an approach he clearly adopted in his later book: Thai Politics
in King of Thonburi’s Reign (King Taksin, 1986):
“The time taken to search evidence and do some serious thinking about the King’s reign was
more than five years, modifying my view about the King of Thonburi (Taksin), not in an
adverse fashion but in a more profound way. I can now see (or think I can see) his
weaknesses as well as his strengths. I can admire him as a great man, not as a divine being
who came to save humanity. The King of Thonburi was a man with earthly desires coupled
with grace and self-sacrifice, just like any other great human being. This clearer vision I
6
had of the King of Thonburi after careful study uplifts me to the heavenly abode of
historians. I can see a man as he really is. (underlined by the present auhor)
d. “Community” and local history.
The issue of community and local history means an alternative approach. It proposes to
make use of archaeological evidence, geographical location and distribution of human
settlements to search for the original “community” and in the final analysis its “local
history”. This is a tool for a new approach to history. I will not go into great detail here, as
the article by Dr. Thongchai and the works of Srisak Vallibhotama and Thida Saraya have
dealt with them extensively, causing change in the “landscape” of Thai history.
My observation is that there were attempts to turn away from “mainstream” history to local
history. During the 1970’s many conferences on “local history” were held by teacher
colleges providing forums for Bangkok and local historians. There were local history
seminars on many campus in Nakhon Sithammarat, Mahasarakham, Nakhon Sawan,
Kamphaengphet, and those in the Bangkok area, etc. This was a good sign and seemed to be
rather promising for the future of history study in Thailand. However by the late 1980s the
“local history” movement spearheaded by educational institutions, especially among the
teacher training colleges, came almost to a halt. Some suspect that as teacher colleges were
transformed into Ratchaphat institutes and then elevated to University level, their main
concern turned the other way round.
In general, I conclude that the mainstream of Thai hisorical writing was seriously challenged
in the 1980’s. It was not the same kind of challenge that we saw in the 1950s in Thailand
when socialism and Marxist-oriented frameworks were popular or during the brief period of
1973-1976 when the historical writing again adopted a “leftist” approach. But the varied
challenges of the 1980’s lead to another question. Why did they suddenly appear?
The obvious answer is that there was economic and social change in Thailand during the
1960’s. In particular, the student led-revolution of 14 October 1973 indelibly affected the
historians of this generation and their views of the past. Yet, I would like to think that this
change had already taken root since the 1950’s under Field Marshal Por Phibulsongkram’s
regimes. It was the “golden” period of capitalism with U.S.A. acting as the ‘Big Brother’
during 1945-1973. Thailand “clung” to the “golden” period of capitalism, perhaps giving
rise to a new class of people. The middle class, the nouveau riche. In a sense, there was
born a new generation of history “makers” and a new generation of “receivers”. (In other
words, we now have “new producers” and “new consumers”)
I will not have time to delve into social and economic changes here. Nor for the time being
will I get myself involved in the debate about “the new middleclass or the nouveau riche”.
Suffice it to say that there is now a “new consciousness” in the writing of Thai history, at
least in two aspects. This will be my last observation.
Observation No. 4
This new consciousness in Thai historical writing is connected to (1) the emergence of
“international” academics; and (2) the Sino-Thai character of Thai history.
7
For the first time since late 1950s or early 1960s, a new breed of free academics is born
(including historians, of course). They have become more confident of their disciplines and
are truly professional. They are unlike their predecessors who were bureaucrats and held
high positions in the ministries and departments and who taught as an extension of their
main jobs.
This breed of professional academics emerged towards the beginning of 1960’s. At
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, there were big names like Chomchai-Saihoo-Xuto
(Prachum Chomchai, Phattaya Saihoo, and Somsak Xuto of the Faculty of Political Science;
or at Thammasat University we have the so-called ‘three musketeers’ i.e. Saneh ChamarikKasem Sirisamphan-Neon Snidvongs, as well as a free-lance academic like Sulak Sivaraksa.
These people were full-time lecturers. They did not come from bureaucratic government
departments to take up teaching as a second job. Nor did they come to the university while
waiting for higher positions elsewhre. This generation strove for “academic excellence” and
“academic freedom”, in other words, freedom from “bureaucracy” or “formality” and
mainstream.
They were followed by a second generation of academics who are now playing a leading
role, for example, Nidhi Eaosrivongs, Chatthip Natsupha, Chai-anan Smudvanich, Rangsan
Thanaphonphan, and a third generation like Thongchai Winijjakul, Kasian Tejapira, and
Somkiat Wanthana.
These three generations are highly educated both in the Thai system and also in the
“foreign” system. Most went to pursue their master’s or doctoral degrees in the capitalist
free world and most were exposed to liberal traditions in North America and Europe. This,
coupled with economic and social change in Thailand, created a new awareness, a new
consciousness, of free academics (and free historians).
Aside from academic freedom, these scholar self-condifence was boosted when they became
“international”. A close relationship between Thai and foreign academics was fostered by
area studies programs or Thai studies institutes during the Cold War. In this regard, I think
Thai and “foreign” historians inspire one another. Historians: David Wyatt, Yoneo Ishii,
and Craig Reynolds (and including Benedict Anderson who even if he is not formally a
historian) are shining examples for other “foreign” historians while Nidhi, Rujya Aphakon,
Thongchai Winijakul, Kasian Tejapira should be emulated on the Thai side.
I believe that such works by foreign historians as Wyatt’s article on the Bunnag Family,
Ishii’s on Buddhism, Batson’s on King Rama VII, or Anderson’s often quoted “Imagined
Communities” are sources of inspration to other historians as well as examples of free
“foreign” historians to the Thai counterparts.
Finally, the Sino-Thai character in Thai historical writing. We all know that there are lots of
Chinese in Thai society. Several distinguished scholars and administrators like Puey
Ungpakorn referred to themselves as Thais of Chinese descent or Sino-Thai. They were
born in Thailand, work for Thailand, and love Thailand, just like any other Thai. While
Ajan Puey used the general term “Chinese” to refer to his origin, some academics prefer to
use “Chek” or Sino-Thai in a positive and proud way.
Nidhi wrote frankly in the Preface to his Thai Politics in King of Thonburi’s Reign that the
“chek” or Sino-Thai culture is not quite Chinese and also different from Thai culture. It has
its own character.
8
“As a ‘chek’, I cannot help feeling proud of the King of Thonburi,” ended Nidhi. Under his
signature he wrote “Moon Goddess Worship Day, B.E. 2529 (1986). Likewise, Sujit wrote
a booklet: Chek pon Lao (Chinese Mixed with Lao), 1987, which sounded humorous and
light-hearted on the surface. But both Nidhi and Sujit have created a new consciousness in
Thai history and historiography, reflecting socio-economic changes in Thai society.
Conclusion
With the new phenomena and new consciousness, the question we may want to ask
ourselves is “What will future historical writing be like?” I believe that the “formal” direct
unilinear of history will remain strong. Nationalism will still be a determining force in
writing about the Past of the Thai. Craig Reynolds once observed that Thai academics tried
to avoid using the word “nation”, preferring to use the word “society” instead. However,
Kasian Tejaphira argued that “society” is not as dynamic as “nation”.
During a talk on nationalism and his Imagined Communities at Thammasat University, B.
Anderson said that nationalsm is ingrained in our grammer, syntax, vocabulary, thought, and
writing. It is very difficult to change this. But Thai history is being “dismantled” and
“restored”. The writing of Thai history will never be the same. We can expect to see more
criticisms, more diversity of views, and more equity, as well as new issues (for instance, a
history of women, a history of labor).
I want to end my talk with a quotation from Prince Damrong, the so-called ‘Father of Thai
History’, who said in his lecture “Government of Ancient Siam” (1927) that “the Thai
people have 3 important virtues that sustain Siam to its present day: Love of National
Independence, Toleration, and Power of Assimilation.” Whether these virtues will still be
the guiding light for Thai historical writing in the future remains to be seen.