Volker Grabowsky

FORCED RESETTLEMENT CAMPAIGNS IN NORTHERN THAILAND DURING THE EARLY BANGKOK PERIOD*

1. Introduction the resurgent Mon kingdom ofPegu. Numerous Mon were resettled in Upper Burma, others fled In pre-colonial indianized Southeast Asia the across the Salween into Tenasserim province control of manpower, not the conquest of land, (Martaban) or even sought shelter in Siamese was the crucial factor for establishing, territory. Fifteen years later, Burmese mal­ consolidating and strengthening state power. treatment of the Mon provoked a new exodus to Thai, Burmese and Cambodian chronicles provide ample evidence of how Southeast Asian • This article is a revised version of my paper rulers launched successful attacks against weaker presented at the "5th International Conference on Thai neighbours in order to seize large parts of the Studies-SOAS, London, July 1993." In a different population and to resettle the war captives in form, the article was first published in Oriens Extremus their own realm. At the same time, the victorious I (1994). I am indebted to Saraswadee Ongsakul side was very often content to establish a loose (Chiang Mai) and Aroonrut Wichienkeeo (Chiang Mai) tributary relationship with the former enemy who shared generously their profound knowledge and whose resources of manpower had been reduced. expertise in discussions of the contents of some The victors derived many benefits from this important sources. I am further obliged to Harald kind of traditional warfare in demographic, Hundius (Passau), Hermann Kulke (Kiel), Ronald political, economical and cultural terms. The Renard (Chiang Mai), and Baas Terwiel (Hamburg) losers, on the other hand, suffered severely from for making valuable suggestions on earlier drafts of massive depopulations resulting in the devas­ this article. However, the responsibilities for the tation of cities and rural areas and, in statements contained in it remain with the author. Jeff consequence, a decrease in agricultural Boone (Chiang Mai) took great pains in polishing the production. Sometimes it took centuries until English, at the same time adding valuable suggestions. population losses and its concomitants, such as The maps were skilfully drawn to my specifications the devastation of rural areas and the decrease by Gunther Moosbauer (Passau), Walther Kaspar­ in agricultural production, could be overcome. Sickermann and Wolgang Diichting (Hamburg). The rulers of the Burmese Konbaung dynasty, Finally, I wish to express my deep gratitude to the for example, used systematically large-scale German Research Association (DFG) for financially deportations of war captives as an underlying supporting my research in Thailand and the U.K. in means of strengthening and expanding state 1992, and to the National Research Council ofThailand power. In 1757, King Alaunghpaya defeated (NRCT), which supported my research in Thailand.

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 46 Volker Grabowsky

Siam. Lower Burma began to recover from the Cambodia by Hue (1834-4 7) considerable ravages caused by warfare, forced resettlements numbers of Vietnamese settlers were sent into and voluntary emigration only in the second the new province of Tran Tay Thanh, as quarter of the 19th century. 1 Cambodia was renamed by Emperor Minh The structural backwardness of Laos can at Mang. This attitude was in sharp contrast to the least partially be explained by the drastic Siamese strategy of raiding Cambodia to measures taken by the Siamese in suppressing assemble manpower. the rebellion ofKing (cao, L{ll) Anu ofVientiane. The esteem in which a strong population The ruthless victors not only destroyed the Lao base ("manpower") was held and the relatively captial completely; in numerous mopping-up minor importance of land, with the notable operations Siamese troops depopulated Vien­ exception ofVietnam, can certainly be explained tiane and its hinterland. Furthermore, they raided by the chronic underpopulation of Southeast Central Laos between the Kading river and Asian river basins since ancient times. The Savannakhet. The massive resettlements of Lao control of land was apparently not the decisive populations across the Mekong to the Khorat factor for state power. The political status of a Plateau and even to the Central Plain (e.g., Thai miiang ( b31eJ~) depended on the patrimonial Lopburi, Suphanburi, Chachoengsao, Prachin­ ties of the population living in that territory. For buri) continued until the early 1850s.2 Within a example, the district of Phan, now a part of few decades after the suppression of the Cao Chiang Rai province, was until the beginning of Anu rebellion the demographic centre of gravity the 20th century an enclave ofLamphun. Settlers of the Lao country had moved from the trans­ from that miiang founded Miiang Phan in the Mekong territories (i.e. present-day Laos) to 1840s but maintained their allegiance to their the Khorat Plateau. "In the 30 years after the old overlord, the cao muang (L{llb!leJ~) of Cao Anu rebellion more than 100,000 people Lamphun. Old patrimonial bonds clearly proved were deported from the left bank. The present to be stronger than geographic or economic fivefold disparity between the populations of considerations, which would have favoured Laos and Thailand's lsan region is a result of political relations to Chiang Mai rather than to the deportations in the aftermath of the Cao Lamphun.5 Anu rebellion."3 The primacy of manpower can be best The Siamese campaigns in Laos, as well as exemplified by the following conflict between in neighbouring Cambodia, during the 1830s Nan, a Northern Thai tributary state of Siam, and 1840s were primarily directed against and Chiang Khaeng, a small miiang in Sipsong Vietnamese political expansion. As Kennon Panna, which became a part of French Laos in Breazeale has pointed out, "Thai notions behind 1896. In 1866, the ruler of the small Lii the restructuring of human resettlement to suit principality of Chiang Khaeng sent some of his political ends rather than local geography were subjects to neighbouring Miiang Sing, at that based in the time of Rama III on the idea that a time virtually unpopulated and covered with depopulated region would serve as a physical deep forests. Nan regarded Miiang Sing as a barrier against enemy attack." However, the dependency, because it had once deported the Vietnamese did not engage in the same sort of inhabitants of Miiang Sing. When the ruler of depopulation efforts as the Thai did. Hue was Chiang Khaeng claimed his exclusive rights to primarily concerned with acknowledgements of exploit Sing's rich natural resources, the ruler suzerainty by Lao rulers and did not envisage a ofNan threatened his rival that he would launch depopulation campaign either practical or a punitive campaign and deport the illegal desirable. Generally speaking, "there was never settlers to Nan. 6 Chiang Khaeng complied with any question of rounding up villagers and Nan's demand, at least temporarily. Two decades resettling them in Annam."4 Conditions in the later, in 1884, Cao Fa Sali No, the then ruler of densely populated Red River basin and the Chiang Khaeng, made a second, this time central Vietnamese coastal zones did not favour successful, attempt. More than 1,000 settlers an eastward flow of people from the Mekong were moved from Miiang Yu, the provisional basin. During the short-lived conquest of capital of Chiang Khaeng situated northeast of

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 47

Miiang Y ong on the right bank of the Mekong, conceptual clarity: First, can we detennine the to settle pennanently in the fertile plain ofMiiang geographical and ethnic background of the war Sing that was situated on the east bank. 7 captives? Second, is it possible to quantifY the Forced resettlement campaigns were an extent of the forced resettlements? Third, where important aspect or even the main rationale of were the deportees resettled in their new wars in traditional Thailand and Laos and have homesteads? Lastly, what were the political, considerably shaped the linguistic and ethno­ demographic and economic implications on Lan graphic map of these countries. Khmer villages Na society as the whole? in Ratchaburi, Phuan settlements in Lopburi and Lao enclaves in Saraburi originate from 2. Sources deportations of war captives during the Thonburi and early Bangkok periods. Suffice is to say To reconstruct the history ofLan Na, especially that the existence in the Siamese heartland of the period of its restoration under Kawila, the large non-Siamese ethnic groups, though historian has to make use of a wide range of partially assimilated today, are of relevance for different source materials. They can be classified political scientists and social anthropologist into four categories: doing fieldwork in those areas. In this paper I 1. Local chronicles (tamnan, \illm-u) written examine the impacts of forced resettlements on in Dhanna script (tua tham, Lan Na 4. interviews with knowledgable infonn­ rebellions and short periods of autonomy. Large ants in communities of Lii, Khiin or parts of the Ping-Kuang basin, the agricultural Tai Yai (Shan) background. heartland of the country, were laid waste. The Among the different sorts of source population had either been deported to Bunna materials, the research into the local chronicles or had fled into the jungles to escape the seems to be the most promising and useful. hardships of war. The liberator of Chiang Mai, However, in cases of direct Siamese involvement Phaya (King) Kawila (r. 1782-1816) launched Siamese sources are often more precise and numerous campaigns against various petty Shan reliable.9 During recent decades when public states to the North deporting large parts of their and scholarly interest in Thai local history has populations and resettling them in Chiang Mai, grown dramatically, many of the most important Lamphun, and Lampang. Kawila's policy of tamnan have been transliterated into modem kep phak sai sa kep kha sai miiang contributed Thai script. to the political, economic and cultural revival The Chiang Mai Chronicle ( CMC) is of these three Northern Thai principalities. Each regarded as one of the key sources ofNorthem was a tributary state (miiang prathetsarat b$1D~ Thai history. The surviving copies of that th::m~~l'l5) of Siam, but Chiang Mai played the chronicle, in general, comprise seven or eight leading role. Nan and Phrae, two other Northern fascicles of palm-leaves. In 1971, one copy Thai tributary states, were ruled by their own consisting of eight fasciles was published by dynasties and launched resettlement campaigns the Prime Minister's Office (samnak nayok likewise, partially in coordination with Chiang ratthamontri, r:hun-uum~j3-l"U\11~) in Siamese Mai, partially on their own account. In this study transliteration under the title Tamnan phiin I will use the following questions for the sake of miiang chiang mai (\ill"Ul"U~-ub$1D~b;m1mJ TPCM).

Journal of the Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 48 Volker Grabowsky

Thereafter, this version (TPCM-SN) became the The authorship of the CMC is unknown. most widely-used original source of Lan Na Wyatt believes that the eight-fascicle versions history among Thai historians. Before that, non­ derive from a manuscript written not long after readers of Dharma script had to consult Camille the last recorded event (1828). Northern Thai Notton's French translation, published in 1932, experts, however, are convinced that more than which is rather reliable but based on a copy of one author was involved in the composition of only seven fascicles carrying the record up to the chronicle, which may have been revised and 1805/06. rewritten several times over the centuries. Well aware of the fact that the TPCM-SN Saraswadee Ongsakul suggests that the first part version contained many transliteration and other of the chronicle was composed not long after errors, the Social Research Institute, Chiang the reign ofPhaya Tilok (r. 1441142-1487), for Mai University, began publishing another starting with the reign of Tilok's predecessor, version of the CMC based on a seven-fascicle Sam Fang Kaen (r. 1402-1441), TPCM contains manuscript from W at Methangkharawat in an increasing amount of detailed material on Phrae. This manuscript had the title Tamnan political events. Unlike the religious tamnan of sip ha ratchawong ( 'iiTu1uiilu~1~1'lf1~fi TSHR). the early 16th century, such as the Jinakiiamiilf­ Finally, on the occasion of the 700-year pararaiJarh (=hi.mfi3J1~l.Jmru) and Ciimadevfvam­ celebrations of Chiang Mai ( 1996}, two further sa ('J13JL'r'l11-:~fi}, the author of the CMC might not verions of the CMC were brought to the public. have been a monk but a member of the king's First, David K. Wyatt and Aroonrut entourage. Starting with events in the mid-1550s, Wichienkeeo translated into English a manu­ the chronicle changes style and scope. The two script of eight fascicles that was provided to centuries of Burmese rule are dealt with only in them by Hans Penth ( CMC-HP). The manu­ a cursory manner. There are large gaps, script is said to have come from Chiang Saen especially for the first quarter of the 17th century. and probably dates from 1926. Wyatt regards it The condensed style of writing resembles that as "more complete, more legible, and [having] of an astrological calendar emphasizing the exact fewer mistakes than the others. 1o The second years of events.I2 As for the late 18th century, version is an eight-fascicles manuscript from when the anti-Burmese struggle gained Wat Phra Ngam (Chiang Mai) that is now kept momentum, the style changes again. The in the Thai National Library. Udom liberation of LanNa and its restoration under Rungruangsri used this manuscript, dated C.S. Kawila and his brothers is described in 1216 [A.D. 1854/55], to reconstructthe "arche­ remarkable detail. It seems that this final part of type" of the CMC by comparing it with nine the CMC was written by a person who was in other versions including CMC-HP.II the service either of Kawila himself or of his The Yonok Chronicle [Phongsawadan younger brother Thammalangka, and became, yonok, ~-:~fl11fl1~t~un - PY], written in 1898/99 as uparat, directly involved in the resettlement by Phraya Prachakitkoracak, a high-ranking campaigns. We may assume that this knowl­ Siamese official in Monthon Phayap, makes edgeable person compiled the Chiang Mai extensive use of various Northern Thai Chronicle by using a wide range of older texts chronicles including the CMC. Since PY was and adding the record of those events he himself first published in 1907, long before any Northern had witnessed. Thai chronicle had been transliterated into The various versions of the CMC glorify modern Thai, many Thai scholars used it as an Kawila's policies and give no space for the authoritative source on Northern Thai history. victims' point of view. Therefore, I will make Although PY's account of developments in much use of the Yong Chronicle [Tamnan Chiang Mai during the eigtheenth and early miiang yong, 'ii1u1u~eJ-:~~eJ-:~- TMY], which Thawi nineteenth centuries follows TPCM very closely, Sawangpanyangkun transliterated into modern there are several errors or misunderstandings of Thai script. The version of TMYused by Thawi the Chiang Mai Chronicle. PY is, however, a describes the resettlements of people from useful secondary source, though one which Miiang Yong and Chiang Tung during the early should be taken with caution. 19th century. The name of the chronicle is a

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 49

little misleading, for TMY deals more with events gather additional information and for concep­ in Chiang Tung than in Miiang Y ong itself; it is tualizing purposes rather than to fill gaps in the thus also a good supplement to the Jengtung chronicular evidence. State Chronicle. Obviously written by survivors of the deportations, it describes with empathy 3. Anti-Burmese Resistance Efforts in Lan events from the victims' perspective. Thus, I Na was able to use TMY and the CMC for obtaining both corroborating and complementary evidence. In 1558, Chiang Mai capitulated to Burmese Apart from transliterated editions ofNorthem troops without offering any serious resistance. Thai chronicles, there are numerous manuscripts King Bayinnaung of Burma regarded LanNa as still unpublished and awaiting scholarly a rear-base where manpower and provisions of attention. So far I have made only limited use of food and ammunition could be assembled for this rich and promising material. Thus, in some the approaching attack on Ayutthaya. Although instances, my conclusions might be revised after the Burmese eventually had to retreat from a thoroughgoing analysis of all materials Ayutthaya and the Siamese heartland which they available. In 1826, after the first Anglo-Burmese dominated for about 15 years (1569-1584), they war, Tenasserim fell under British rule. Three were determined to integrate Lan Na into an years later, the British colonial office in outer belt of vassal states. According Dr Aye Moulmein sent Dr. David Richardson, a high­ Gyaw (formerly Rangoon University), the ranking official, to explore the state of politics, Burmese kings thought Chiang Mai was society and economics in LanNa and the Shan strategically more essential to their survival than states further to the north. The main intention of Ayutthaya because it gave them access to all the British was to establish cattle trade with those Tai peoples north and east of the Ping Chiang Mai and, further, to explore trade routes valley. 14 leading to southern China. Two years later, W.C. The Burmese pursued a policy of "divide McLeod, assistant to the governor of Tenas­ and rule" in LanNa. After the death ofPhranang serim, made another tour to Chiang Mai and (Queen) Witsutthathewi in 1578, Chiang Mai other parts of Lan Na. The reports of the two and other important miiang were mostly ruled Englishmen provide much insight into the by Burmese noblemen. The rulers of former society ofLan Na during the early 19th century. 13 dependencies of Chiang Mai, such as Nan and Moreover, Richardson and McLeod make Chiang Rai, were directly appointed by the interesting obervations about the size and ethnic Burmese kings. The Northern Thai (Yuan) elite origin of the population in various miiang, were strictly controlled by Burmese or Mon observations that are missing elsewhere. civilian and military officials. By rotating the The use of oral history as a further category high state positions in Lan Na frequently, the of source materials needs a brief explanation. political power of the old nobility was further As the events I am dealing with occurred reduced. This aggravated rivalries among the 150-200 years ago, it was not surprising that Yuan elite along regional lines, eventually even old villagers of Lii or Khiin origin could resulting in the political fragmentation of Lan seldom give any clear account of resettlements Na.ts None of the Burmese-dominated and that had taken place five to seven generations mutually suspicious Yuan miiang was able to ago, all the more so since no village records regain independence for long. Some miiang, have been kept from that early period. However, such as Chiang Rai, in 1600, succeeded in as an additional source to improve my general throwing off the Burmese yoke for a couple of understanding of the geographic and social years when Burma, facing a challenge by a environment the interviews were helpful. In a resurgent Siam under King Naresuan, had fallen few monasteries, such as Wat Phraphutthabat into chaos. But Anauk-hpet-lun (r. 1606-1628) Tak Pha (Pa Sang district, Lamphun), the abbots not only restored Burmese rule over Lan Na, he were able to provide valuable details on the and his immediate successor, Talun-min (r. history of communities founded by former war 1628-1648), easily suppressed further revolts captives. On the whole, interviews were used to in Nan (1625), Chiang Mai (1631) and Fang

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 50 Volker Grabowsky

(1632), for the rebels were inferior in arms and by Burmese troops.21 The chronicle, which did not coordinate their actions.16 discusses events of the 17th century only Burmese retaliatory measures had always cursorily, fails to mention the large-scale been decisive and harsh. Campaigns were deportions of Northern Thai (Yuan) populations followed by mass deportations to Burma. In to Burma, but Burmese sources confirm the 1615, after having won a military victory against resettlement ofTai-speaking peoples, including Chiang Mai the year before, Burmese king Yuan, in Lower Burma between 1616 and 1632 Anauk-hpet-lun (Yuan: "Mangthara") deported and in Upper Burma after 1635.22 In 1635, King numerous inhabitants of Chiang Mai to Lower Tha-lun transferred the royal capital from Pegu Burma. We know details of this event from the to Ava. Preparations for this transfer had begun "Poem on Mangthara's War against Chiang in 1627/29, as Victor Lieberman convincingly Mai" (Khlong riiang mangthara rop chiang mai, demonstrates.23 In 1628, the Burmese centre of tm'l~ir~ml'l"1JL:a~~ t'VI3-i - KMCM).I7 power in Lan Na shifted from Chiang Mai to The large-scale deportations of Yuan to Chiang Saen. I believe that the growing Pegu were obviously a response to heavy importance of Chiang Saen has to be seen in population losses in Lower Burma during the connection with the transfer of the Burmese late 16th century. According to Victor capital. Communication between Pegu and Lieberman. "Anauk-hpet-lun may have settled Chiang Mai was comparatively easy when the Tai prisoners around Pegu between 1616 and route described in KMCM was taken. Seen from 1624, but these deportations could hardly Ava, situated in the heartland of Upper Burma, compensate for the losses of the late sixteenth routes of communication to LanNa were shortest century."IS However, deportations were not via the eastern Shan states and Chiang Saen. always the lot of the entire population. It Moreover, the transfer of the Burmese capital appears that some groups of people, such as was motivated by a shift from maritime to commoners who were already attached to overland trade in Burma and neighbouring monasteries for life (phrai wat, L'V'l~1\PI), were regions. The new trade-routes favoured not only able to escape forced resettlement. This seems Ava, but also Chiang Saen, which controlled to be evident from two documents found at the trans-Mekong trade deep into present-day Wat Ratchawisuttharam in the village of Ban Laos. During the second half of the 17th century Pae (Com Thong district, Chiang Mai Pro­ Burmese rule in Chiang Mai and other parts vince). The first document is engraved on two appeared to have been relatively stable, although thin silver-plates bearing the seal of Phranang the Siamese under. King Narai managed to Wisutthathewi. The queen vested to the conquer Chiang Mai for a short period villagers of three hamlets, which make up (1661-1663). Occasional Siamese raids, such present-day Ban Pae, the right to stay perma­ as the assault on Tak in 1677, which resulted in nently in their settlements. They had to pay an the deportation of some of its inhabitants,24 do annual ground-rent of 500 baht; in exchange, not alter this assessment. the villagers were exempted from corvee labour In 1701, Chiang Saen was separated and military service. 19 When some 60 years administratively from Chiang Mai and put under later the Burmese king, Tha-lun ordered a the direct control of Ava. Twenty-six years later, campaign against recalcitrant Chiang Mai, he a popular uprising in Chiang Mai under Thep tried to deport the inhabitants of Ban Pae to Sing, a "man possessing magical powers" (phu Ava. The villagers, already rounded up, wiset, 0L~'I!I), occurred. The Burmese garrison submitted, but when the Burmese generals were was expelled, and Chiang Mai regained its shown the silver-plates, the villagers were independence for three decades. Because they finally allowed to stay.2o had lost Chiang Mai, the Burmese decided to Tha-lun's campaign against Chiang Mai is tum Chiang Saen into their military, political briefly mentioned by the Chiang Mai Chronicle. and economic base in Lan Na. In 1733/34, all TPCM states that the Burmese took prisoner the the important miiang in the north and east of cao miiang of Chiang Mai, bringing him to LanNa were placed under the direct supervision Pegu in 1631. One year later, Fang was retaken of Chiang Saen: Phayao, Chiang Rai, Chiang

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 51

Khong, Fang, Thoeng, Phrae, Nan and Sat. Thus, ruler ofLampang. He did so with broad popular by the mid-18th century Lan Na had split into support, including the moral encouragement of two contending spheres of influence: a Burmese the local Sangha. Thip Chang who ascended the controlled zone with Chiang Saen as its centre throne under the title Phraya Sulawaliichai (r. and a "Free Lan Na" around Chiang Mai and 1732-1759) tried to maintain good relations to Lamphun.2s Ava by accepting Burmese suzerainty. His policy The temporary Burmese withdrawal from of maintaining relations with the superior the Ping-Kuang basin resulted from a severe regional power was supported by his son Chai power crisis in Burma during the second quarter Kaeo (r. 1759-1774). Lampang seemed to have of the 18th century. To the north the state of been spared the devastations and mass Mogaung had gained independence with help deportations Chiang Mai suffered in 1763. Chai from Manipur in 1734/35. Some years later, the Kaeo's eldest son, Kawila (*1742/43), helped Mon in Lower Burma revived their own state his father in the day-to-day administration and and dared to challenge even the Burmese also proved to be an able military commander. 29 heartland around Ava. The Burmese Kon-ba­ The conciliatory attitude towards Burma ung-zet Chronicle explains the precarious began to change when the Burmese were taking situation of that time as follows: "Day by day drastic measures to assimilate the Yuan and month by month, the great tributary states culturally. PY reports that in 1770, "the Burmese that made up the empire-the crowned swa­ issued an order that in all parts [of Lan Na] bwas and [Thai] myo-zas-broke away and males had to tattoo their legs black and females deserted the king. Each withdrew and fortified to pierce their ears and insert a rolled palm leaf, himself within his own principality."26 according to Burmese fashion."30 It seems After his decisive victory against Pegu in probable that, as Saraswadee and Penth suggest, 1757, Alaung-hpaya, the founder of the Kon­ this change in Burmese cultural policy was due baung dynasty, tried to win back Chiang Mai to the gruff and uncompromising character of and other former vassals. In 17 62, nine Burmese (Po) Moyakhamani, the new Burmese governor armies laid siege to Chiang Mai. After one year in Chiang Mai.3I Moyakhamani, also called the city fell, together with Lamphun, into "General Whitehead" (po hua khao, 1uVf'l'll11)32 Burmese hands. The victors did not only deport by the Yuan, had succeeded the relatively the urban elite, but also large parts of the rural humane general Aphaikhamani a year before. population to Ava. 27 PY puts the situation in the A few years later, Kawila secretly plotted following words: "The Burmese controlled all with Ca Ban, the Yuan ruler of Chiang Mai, communes of Lan Na. The oppression of the against the Burmese occupiers. Ca Ban was population caused much suffering all over the appointed by the Burmese king and had as his country. Some people fled into the jungle. Others trusted attendant organized stiff resistance flocked together and formed gangs killing each against the troops of Tak Sin (in 1770/71 ). But other. The country had no ruler."28 However, evidently in direct response to the arbitrariness like two centuries before, Chiang Mai was once of the Burmese forces, which was becoming again not the ultimate target of Burmese war increasingly unbearable, Kawila and Ca Ban strategy. The seizure of Chiang Mai paved the secretly plotted against the Burmese. Realizing way for encircling Ayutthaya from the north. their own forces were too weak to launch a When, after the victories ofTak Sin in 1767 I successful war of liberation, they changed their 68, the fortunes of war turned in favour of the loyalty to the Siamese side. By a ruse, Ca Ban Siamese again, troops of the Siamese king escaped with his followers from Chiang Mai hurried northwards. The signal for a general and finally joined Siamese troops south of uprising against the Burmese was given. But in Thoen.33 Kawila, for his part, attacked the poorly the forthcoming struggle the surviving members guarded Burmese garrison in Lampang causing ofLan Na' sold elite no longer played the leading carnage among the Burmese and Tai Yai troops role. The initiative was taken by the ruling family stationed there. 34 of Lam pang. In 1732, a hunter (phran pa, Yf~l'H. The events that led to the defeat of the u1) called Thip Chang expelled the despotic Burmese troops and their withdrawal from

Journal of the Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 52 Volker Grabowsky

Chiang Mai within three years are described by counter-attack on Chiang Mai later in 1775,39 TPCM in detail. The Chiang Mai Chronicle Ca Ban had finally retreated with most of the emphasizes the prominent role ofKawila in the city's inhabitants to areas in the present-day liberation of the city. According to TPCM, province ofLamphun. There he probably placed Kawila commanded a small, but audacious, himself and his followers under Kawila's army. Possessing great tactical skills, Kawila protection. 40 contributed decisively to the victory of the main Siamese army under the command of Phraya 4. The Restoration of Lan Na: Forced Chakri, later King Rama I. 35 Siamese sources Resettlements and Kawila's Population Policy do not agree. In his pioneering work on the wars between Siam and Burma [Thai rop phama, Though in 1782 King Rama I had bestowed on l"Yl!.m.i'l'l3.h] Prince Damrong Rachanuphap portrays Kawila the honorific title of "Phraya Mangra the liberation of Chiang Mai as the work of Wachiraprakan Cao Miiang Chiang Mai", Phraya Chakri with the support of Ca Ban and Kawila's effective sphere of power barely 5,000 volunteers from the Chiang Mai region.36 reached beyond Lampang. Chiang Saen and the Damrong's appraisal of events is corroborated miiang in the northern and eastern areas of Lan by a palm-leaf manuscript from Wat Phumin in Na were still under Burmese rule. Chiang Mai, Nan which reports on "Historical Events in [Lan the symbolic importance of which as LanNa's Na], A.D. 1728-1854." The text written in the political and cultural centre had survived the form of a cotmaihet states: "On the 14th day of vicissitudes of the preceding two centuries, was the waxing moon in the fourth month of C.S. in complete desolation, as is described by TSHR: 1136 [Sunday, 15 January 1775] the 'people "At that time Chiang Mai was depopulated and from the South' [chao tai, ~ ...tl~, i.e. the Siamese] had become a jungle overgrown by climbing conquered Chiang Mai. The Burmese under plants, it turned into a place where rhinoceroses, General (Po) Hua Khao fled. [Later] General elephants, tigers and bears were living. There To Maeng Khi raised troops and laid siege to were few people living in groups. Everything Chiang Mai from the fifth until the eleventh or was overgrown leaving out the eaves of the twelfth month [February-August/ September]. houses and the roads to facilitate communication Many people died of famine. But Phraya Ca with each other, as there were no opportunities Ban resisted the Burmese and with the support for clearing [the jungle]."41 of the people of Chiang Mai he repulsed Under these circumstances an early return them."37 The major role of Kawila is not to Chiang Mai, a virtually uninhabited city mentioned in this Northern Thai source. By surrounded by a devastated countryside without contrast TPCMtends to eulogize Kawila's later any viable rural infrastructure, could hardly have achievements in the restoration of Lan Na; it been realized. Kawila therefore decided to does not seem to reflect adequately his establish his headquarters at Pa Sang, a com­ subordinate role in 1774/75. munity situated at the confluence of the Ping The marriage between Kawila's younger and Li rivers and roughly 40 km to the South of sister, Si Anocha, and Phraya Surasi, younger Chiang Mai. Together with 300 soldiers and brother of Phraya Chakri paved the way for other able-bodied men from Lampang, Kawila Kawila's career. When in 1782 Phraya Chakri made Pa Sang into a fortified and moated ascended to the Siamese throne, Phraya Surasi settlement (wiang, bl~~). 700 other able-bodied became vice-king (uparat, flU~l'll'), and Kawila men from the vicinity of Pa Sang settled in was appointed to the high-ranking position of Kawila's new headquarters.42 The choice for Pa cao phraya (b~l'l'l~~m) ruling Chiang Mai as a Sang as provisional capital may have been vassal of Bangkok. The decisive role of Si motivated by the following considerations: Anocha in suppressing the so-called Phraya 1. Pa Sang was situated halfway between San rebellion, which had led to Tak Sin's assas­ Lampang and Chiang Mai. In the event sination,38 should have smoothed Kawila's rise of a Burmese attack from Chiang Saen, to power. Moreover, there was no real prompt support from Lampang could alternative to Kawila, since after a Burmese be brought. If Kawila was menaced by

Journal Of the Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 53

a large-scale invasion, he could devise in early 1785 natives of Rahaeng (Tak) and an orderly retreat to Lampang. Thoen, who had sought shelter in Siam some 2. Pa Sang was situated in the centre of twenty years before, were given permission by the Ping-Kuang river basin, a potentially the King to return to their places of origin.46 fertile rice-land. The surrounding King Rama I made Tak and Thoen dependencies countryside could support a large (miiang khiin, L!lrn~u) of Chiang Mai.47 However, population. the severe losses of population caused by war, 3. Unlike nearby Lamphun, which had famine and epidemics could hardly be com­ been destroyed after 1763,43 Pa Sang pensated for by voluntary immigration and had direct access to the Ping River that natural increases. linked LanNa with Siam. Between 1782 (foundation of Pa Sang) and The favourable geostrategic situation of Pa 1816 (Kawila' s death) the ruler of Chiang Mai Sang may also have inclined Kawila to make led a number of small and large raids and this wiang, not just the temporary, but the resettled war captives in his realm. There were permanent political centre of the Chiang Mai­ at least three important waves of resettlement Lampang region. But this theoretical option was campaigns. The first wave began shortly after not taken into consideration, for the complete the building of Pa Sang and was designed to liberation ofLan Na had not yet been achieved, increase the manpower at Kawila's disposal for and Chiang Mai was, in the long run, a better the reestablishment of Chiang Mai. The second, base for controlling the areas futher to the north. in which more people were captured than in the But the decisive argument in favour of Pa Sang first wave, started in 1798 and culminated in the as only a temporary administrative centre was conquest of Chiang Saen in 1804. The last wave, probably a question of legitimacy. Kawila and around 1808-1 0, finally secured Kawila' s goals. his family (trakun cao cet ton, '1l7tfJfiL~1L~'1l'1l'!-l.) 1. Even before the founding of Pa Sang, a were commoners, they could not trace their campaign was carried out that resulted in a origin back to any line of the Mangrai dynasty significant number of war captives. When in that had ruled Chiang Mai and LanNa until May 1780 troops from Lampang won a victory 1578. The chronicles do not tell us whether against the Burmese near the confluence of the members of the old ruling house of Chiang Mai Kok and Mekong rivers (sop kok, el'l.mn) a had survived. As Kawila obviously had in mind decision was made not to advance further in a revitalization of the pre-Burmese state what would have been a futile attack against tradition, he decided to rebuilt Chiang Mai, its Chiang Saen. Instead, the victorious troops monasteries, city walls and compartments. The retreated to Lampang carrying with them 1,767 official ceremony marking the reestablishment inhabitants of the surrounding countryside.48 of the reconstructed capital took place on an In 1783, Kawila sent Sam Lan, his trusted auspicious day of the year 1796/97. On assistant, to several Red Karen villages (Yuan: Thursday, 9 March 1797, 500 years after its Nyang Daeng) in the territory of the present­ founding by Mangrai, Kawila ceremoniously day Burmese Kayah State. The Karen were given re-entered the city.44 as presents various consumer goods, left their At the beginning ofKawila's reign, the weak homes and settled in Pa Sang.49 In the same population base was the biggest obstacle to the year, Kawila raided villages on the western bank final expulsion of the Burmese from LanNa of the Salween. The chronicles designate the and the reconstruction of Chiang Mai as the attacked settlements as miiang, but it seems that country's political and cultural centre. However, most of them were rather small and unimportant. little by little people were returning from their Their inhabitants were forced to march to Pa jungle hideouts to their former villages in the Sang. so deserted basins of the Ping, Kuang and Wang In 1784, a Burmese army 40,000 men strong rivers. Kawila also persuaded a group of former approached Lampang. This was the last large­ Chiang Mai residents who had fled to Miiang scale Burmese invasion ofLan Na. Kawila was Yuam (Mae Sariang) in the early 1760s to come only able to repel the invaders with Siamese back. 45 Furthermore, the chronicle reports that military support. 51 On the Burmese side auxiliary

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 54 Volker Grabowsky troops from several Shan states, including did Kawila dare to move from Pa Sang to Chiang Miiang Cuat, were involved in the fighting. Mai. Before the ruler ofMiiang Cuat and his defeated 2. After the transfer of his capital to Chiang soldiers arrived home, Thammalangka, the Mai, Kawila engaged in several resettlement uparat of Chiang Mai, was able to launch a campaigns against various Tai Yai miiang, most lightning attack against the defenceless miiang of them situated on the western bank of the of Cuat and Naen. When the ruler of Miiang Salween. In 1798, troops from Chiang Mai Cuat saw his county depopulated, he hurried to attacked Miiang Sat. Over the following two join his family and people in Pa Sang, where he years several other settlements in the Salween submitted himself to Kawila.52 region were raided, too. 59 The continuous influx A further influx of immigrants into the areas of war captives strengthened Kawila's resources around Pa Sang and Lampang occurred in 1786/ of manpower so that by 1802 he could begin to 87. Encouraged by Kawila, the rulers of Chiang organize his campaign to expel the Burmese Rai, Miiang Y ong, Miiang Sat, Fang and Phrao from Chiang Saen. It should be noted, however, raised an insurrection against the weakened that Kawila did so not solely on his own account, Burmese garrison of Chiang Saen. After initial but with the encouragement and active support successes and the capture of the Burmese of his Siamese overlord.60 The campaign was governor, Arprakarmani [Aphaikhamani], who carried out in two stages. was sent to Lampang and from there to Stage 1 [1802]. Thammalangka, the uparat of Bangkok53 the insurrection crumbled, and its Chiang Mai, campaigned against Miiang Sat, leaders fled with their followers to the south, Chiang Tung (Kengtung), Miiang Pan and finally reaching Lampang. 54 In the same year Miiang Pu in the western and northwestern also the rulers ofNan and Phrae who had joined hinterland of Chiang Saen. Miiang Sat and . the insurrection, placed themselves under Chiang Tung were of vital importance for the Siamese protection. 55 survival of Chiang Saen, for two main supply In 1788 Kawila launched an attack against routes to this Burmese stronghold passed through Chiang Saen in retaliation for a Burmese attack Miiang Sat and Chiang Tung respectively. on Lampang the previous year. In both Moreover, the Burmese had fortified Miiang campaigns there was evidently only a small Sat into a military base for attacking Chiang number of troops involved. Kawila, for his part, Mai via Fang. In 1798 or 1799, shortly after the tried to raid areas to the northwest of Chiang raid of Miiang Sat by troops from Chiang Mai, Saen to cut Burmese supply lines to their last the Burmese king had sent Com Hong, a former base in LanNa. The ruler of Chiang Mai attacked high official in Chiang Saen, to assemble man­ the Shan state ofMiiang Pan and its dependency power in order to rebuild the devastated miiang.61 Tong Kai, where many prisoners of war were As Miiang Sat was situated in a fertile valley, taken. 56 Kawila 's desire for manpower, however, the Burmese expected that two or three good was not yet quenched. Two years later, troops harvests would suffice to stockpile enough from Chiang Mai under the uparat's command provisions to launch a full-scale attack on Chiang again raided areas west of the Salween. The Mai and Lampang.62 Bodaw-hpaya, the king of chronicles mention "numerous war captives" Ava, obviously intended to regain the lost miiang from the villages (ban, u1u.) of Om Chit, Satoi, ofLan Na very soon and regarded Com Hong Soi Rai, Wang Lung and Wang Kat. 57 as a key figure in that struggle. The Northern After these initial successes in applying his Thai chronicles report that in September 180 I forced resettlement policy, in 1791, Kawila tried Bodaw-hpaya appointed Com Hong ruler of to rebuild Chiang Mai. The king of Siam had "the 57 miiang of Lan Na."63 More explicitly, urged him to do so in order to strengthen the Com Hong was seen as a "rival king", ready to city's defences against Burma. After only one replace Kawila on the throne in Chiang Mai. 64 month Kawila returned to Pa Sang, because he Siamese overlordship of Lan Na would also, of controlled "too small a number of people. They course, be replaced by Burmese overlordship, were not enough to build a large city."58 Only in with Com Hong as Ava's figurehead. In 1801/ 1796, after two years of intensive preparations, 02, Com Hong ("Phaya Sat") underscored his

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 55 claim to full power. He raided Nan and took his capital in time. Thammalangka thus seized prisoners of war to Miiang Sat.65 a virtually empty cityJO The split between However, if we follow TMY, Bodaw-hpaya Mahakhanan and the rest of the Chiang Tung did not make a good decision when he chose royalty is pointed out by the CMC, but put into Com Hong as Ava's representative for LanNa, the context of the second, more successful for when, in 1802, Kawila's younger brother attack on Chiang Tung that was undertaken in Thammalangka launched a preemptive strike 1804/05, after Chiang Saen had been liber­ and took Com Hong prisoner, the ruler ofMiiang ated.?' Sat was eager to join the Chiang Mai camp and, It is difficult to decide which of the two in expectation of a high position in Chiang Mai, different accounts one should follow. Kawila's to help Kawila fight the Burmese. "If Chiang military campaigns in 1802 were, on the whole, Mai wants to become a great and prosperous a success, both with regard to the number of miiang, it needs a large population. But it has people captured for resettlement (6,000)72 and [still] a very small population, not enough to be the geo-strategic goals achieved. In recognition a powerful force in the future."66 Aware that the of these achievements Rama I gave Kawila the lack of manpower might cause Chiang Mai much title of cao phraya, the highest rank for a ruler trouble in the long run, Com Hong urged Kawila of a Siamese vassal state. Nevertheless, I am to resettle yet more people in the Chiang Mai­ inclined to follow the Chiang Mai Chronicle for Lampang core area. He recommended Chiang contextual reasons. Why should a chronicle of Tung as an ideal target for a raid, because the Chiang Mai, written in praise of its ruling house, population there was suffering under Burmese conceal the victory against Chiang Tung, or oppression and would readily surrender to why should it mention the failure to capture the Chiang Mai.67 ruler and the people of Chiang Tung, an According to the Jengtung State Chronicle inglorious end to an otherwise successful (JSC), "in the year Tausec;l Sakkaraja 1164, campaign, if this was not the truth? Furthermore, Month Seven waxing 3rd night, citizens of JSC and TMY indicate that, at the time ofKawila' s Jenghmai brought up an army and attacked campaigns against Miiang Sat and Chiang Jengtung and captured the person of the prince, Tung the Burmese had already been forced out members of the royal family, and subjects of of Chiang Saen. 73 That is not possible, for all the prince and took them all down to Jenghmai, sources agree that Chiang Saen fell two years with the exception of Prince Dongsaeng, the later, in 1804. younger brother, that is, Prince Mahakhanan, Stage 2 [1804]. After one year of preparations, who escaped to stay with his subjects at Sip-ec;l the united armies of Chiang Mai/Lampang, Sip-ha Ban where, with his family, he took Vientiane, Nan, and Bangkok marched on refuge at Pang-keng. Having collected together Chiang Saen and laid siege to the city. Chiang his followers and subjects who had not been Saen fell following a four-pronged attack. Its taken away, he [Mahakhanan] led them to fortifications were tom down and its population establish themselves at Monghl6y and Mong­ deported. yang."68 TPY gives a very detailed, but slightly Thiphakorawong's PPRJ describes the "fall" different account, agreeing that the date of the of Chiang Saen, the beleaguered city's will to conquest and depopulation of Chiang Tung was resist being broken after seven months of siege: in "the seventh month in the year tau set [May 1802]." However, there are doubts whether "The Lao [Yuan] in Chiang Saen suffered from Kawila's victory against Chiang Tung was that hunger. They killed buffaloes, elephants and decisive. PPRJ emphasizes the complete horses until they were consumed, too. The Lao success of the campaign against Sat, whereas inhabitants [of Chiang Saen] left the city and Chiang Tung is only incidentally mentioned. 69 surrendered to the troops from Miiang Lao [i.e. The CMC is even more distinct and says that Chiang Mai, Nan, Vientiane]. When the army of the ruler of Chiang Tung, Sirichai, anticipating Krommaluang Thep Harirak had already an attack by the Chiang Mai troops via Miiang withdrawn, the Burmese commander-in-chief, Po Sat and fearful of Burmese reprisals, evacuated Mayu-nguan, saw the citizens hurrying in the

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87 .I & 2 ( 1999) 56 Volker Grabowsky

direction of the Lao troops. They were too large which had surrendered in 1805 to in numbers than to be stopped. Thereupon, Po Thammalangka' s troops without notable Mayu-nguan fled with his army. The Lao troops resistance. Kawila persuaded the ruler ofMiiang pursued the fleeing Burmese army, and Po Mayu­ Y ong to resettle in Lamp hun with "more than nguan was fatally hit on the battlefield. The Na l 0,000 people."77 Chiang Tung was also raided, Khwa, whom the Burmese had installed as ruler and the bulk of its population was deported to (cao miiang) of Chiang Saen, fled with his family Chiang Mai as well. But the other campaigns of across the Mekong into Burmese territory. pacification, directed against numerous smaller The armies [of Bangkok and its "Lao" allies] miiang in Sipsong Panna and areas east of the captured 23,000 people, destroyed the city wall Mekong (in present-day Laos), were obviously and burnt down the whole city of Chiang Saen. not a success for Kawila as far as assembling a Then they divided the families into five groups. large number of war captives was concerned. One group was deported to Chiang Mai, another PPRJ reports that the campaign against "eleven one to Lampang, others to Nan and Vientiane. or twelve small and large miiang" in Sipsong The last group was handed over to Bangkok and Panna was carried out by troops from Nan and resettled in Saraburi and Ratchaburi."74 Chiang Mai: "40,000--50,000 men and women, old and young people" were captured. Attacks The conquest of Chiang Saen was followed on the "40 small and large miiang" east of the by military campaigns against Burmese vassals Mekong resulted in 60,000--70,000 captured in the regions to the north and northwest of people. 78 One should not be puzzled by these Chiang Saen, the so-called miiangfai niia (~€1~ large numbers of war captives. The figures 1-ll~LVI'U€1), which, like Chiang Khaeng, Chiang probably represent the total population then Khong and Miiang Y ong had supported the living in the subjugated territories, and thus Burmese in the battle of Chiang Saen. 75 indicate the potential, rather than the actual However, the war of 1804 was very different number, of prisoners of war. King Rama I, the from previous resettlement campaigns. It is royal chronicle goes on, demonstrated his mercy revealing that the Chiang Mai Chronicle fails to and broad-mindedness when the rulers of these mention any participation of troops from Nan, miiang came personally to Bangkok bringing Vientiane and Bangkok, but instead portrays with them the golden and silver trees as tokens the seizure of Chiang Saen and the military of their submission. Rama I recognized that it operations in its aftermath as the work ofKawila. was not possible to defend the subjugated However, the Nan Chronicle (NC) corroborates territories with military support from Siam, the description of the royal chronicle. According because of their proximity to China and Burma to these sources, 20,000 troops from Siam, and their relative distance from the Siamese Vientiane and Chiang Mai, including also l ,000 heartland. He suggested a strategy of self­ soldiers from Nan, besieged Chiang Saen, but defence and concluded that it would be neither failed to take the city. The Burmese stronghold reasonable nor just to depopulate these areas could only be taken when Nan, Chiang Mai and and resettle the population in Siamese territory, Lampang sent additional troops of 1,000 men for "they have not committed any crime, but each.76 It seems that the surrender of the Yuan surrendered without resistance. Therefore, [to inhabitants of Chiang Saen to these (Yuan) resettle them] would be a serious crime and not troops from Lan Na was at least as decisive as justifiable. "79 Had the choice been left to Kawila, the purely military operations. On the whole, one may speculate, as to whether he would have we can draw the conclusion that Bangkok made a similar decision. But, Siamese archival masterminded the war, mobilizing its own troops evidence suggests that Rama I ordered Kawila and those of various "Lao" vassals. Therefore, to send 300 soldiers to persuade "displaced Rama I was able to put restraints on Kawila's persons" (phu khan rasam rasai, ~~u'l"::~l'l"::~l~) population policy of kep phak sai sa kep kha sai in Sipsong Panna "to return to their original miiang. homes."80 However, in 1807/08, troops from The largest influx of manpower to Lan Na Lampang led by the Cao Wang Na attacked resulted from the conquest of Miiang Y ong Sipsong Panna again and deported a number of

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 57

Lii families from that region to Lampang and forces from Chiang Mai came to "rescue" a Chiang Mai. 81 large number of inhabitants of Miiang Yong 3. After the fall of Chiang Saen there were no and Chiang Tung who had decided to leave longer any problems regarding security. The their deserted homesteads. In 1809110, with the Burmese had lost their ability to regain even consent of King Rama II, they were resettled in partially their lost positions in Lan Na. Burma Chiang Mai and Lamphun, where many of their at that time was in a state of social disruption fellow countrymen, including the rulers of both and, moreover, was affected by a great famine miiang, had already been living since 1805.85 which began in 1802, reached its peak by 1809/ After 1810, there is no chronicular evidence I 0 and gradually subsided after 1812.82 The of any further resettlement campaign initiated by eastern and southern Shan states had lost large Phaya Kawila. By the time ofhis death in January parts of their population owing to Kawila's 1816,86 the policy of kep phak sai sa kep kha sai ruthless resettlement campaigns. They were not miiang had come to an end. This does not mean completely depopulated, but the people who that Kawila's immediate successors completely took refuge in forest areas were too unorganized abstained from raiding neighbouring territories to maintain important irrigation networks in the in search of manpower. Small-scale raids against valleys. Although the local chronicles do not Karen territories west of Mae Hong Son occurred explicitly mention widespread famine in the occasionally during the 1820s and 1830s. A early years of the 19th century, there are some Northern Thai source reports such a raid that clear hints indicating disruption of agricultural probably occured not long after Thammalangka production. TMY reports that the reservoir in ascended to the throne in Chiang Mai: Chiang Tung (nang tung, 'VIlleh'l"l~) had fallen into disrepair by 1804/05; its water could not be "The uparat [Thammalangka] became the new used any longer. 83 The desolation of the town, ruler of Chiang Mai. He ordered Phaya Phan, similar to that of Chiang Mai before 1796, is who had the highest rank, and Thao Sili to gather mystically portrayed by TMY: "In all the more than I 00 troops in order to attack the village monasteries tears . were running down from of Chiang Koe on the west bank of the Salween Buddha statues, and the Phrabat Mai Si Mahapho (Khong River). They won and carried away relic was emitting smoke. Wild animals-pigs, families and weapons. The king [of Bangkok] bears, rhinoceroses, elephants and deer-were was asked to hand them over to Miiang [Chiang entering the miiang. Barking deer (fan, •rhu) Mai]. came barking in the outskirts of the town. Forest­ One day the ruler of Chiang Mai ordered Nai chickens were living in the ruler's palace (ho Kham Mun and [Nai] Kaeo Miiang to gather 200 kham, 'VIWang river basins. In 1809, In 1823, a raid was launched even into Mon Kawila used the discontent in the Shan states, areas north of Martaban.89 However, more caused by intolerably high Burmese tax important with regard to captured manpower collections, to launch another expedition. The was an assault on Miiang Tuan, Miiang Pu, and

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87 .I & 2 (1999) 58 Volker Grabowsky

Miiang Sat in 1838/39. Nearly 2,000 persons war captives. Written by those who escaped went to Chiang Mai as captives.90 Of the 1,868 deportation, TMY does not report details on how prisoners Chiang Mai reported to Bangkok 1,000 the deportations were planned and executed. were distributed among troop commanders. The One can imagine that the displacement of people Siamese king who was offered the remaining over large distances caused physical hardships 868 captives thanked Chiang Mai but allowed it and psychological traumata, especially if no to use the people to strengthen its population proper preparations were made to provide the base. K.W. Melchers convincingly argues that deportees with sufficient food and decent shelter the successful raid against Miiang Sat not only on the way. There is a unique report of a British bolstered the courage and self-confidence of witness of deportations of Phuan from Chiang the Chiang Mai leaders but also made them and Khwang (Plain of Jars) to Central Thailand. their superiors in Bangkok believe "that a more The report is cited in the private correspondence formal invasion into the heartland of Kengtung of a British official in Chiang Mai in 1876: [Chiang Tung] state would result in many more captives. "91 "The captives were hurried mercilessly along, In fact, during the first war against Chiang many weighted by burdens strapped to their backs, Tung in 1850, the Yuan invaders were mainly the men, who had no wives or children with them occupied to gather war captives in Miiang and were therefore capable of attempting escape, Phayak, Miiang Len, Miiang Yang and-once were tied together by a rope pursed through a again-in Miiang Miiang Sat to resettle the sort of wooden collar. Those men who had their captured population in the Ping-Kuang basin. families with them were allowed the free use of Up to 5,000 captives were forced to march to their limbs. Great numbers died from sickness, Chiang Mai. As all these miiang combined had, starvation and exhaustion on the road. The sick, in 1853, a total population of probably less than when they became too weak to struggle on, were 15,000 inhabitants (or 2,100 households), left behind. If a house happened to be near, the according to contemporary Siamese sources, the sick man or woman was left with the people in deportations caused a serious drain on manpower the house. If no house was at hand which must for the affected region.92 have been oftener the case in the wild country The last deportation to Chiang Mai I have they were traversing, the sufferer was flung down been able to trace so far occurred in 1869 under to die miserably in the jungle. Any of his or her Kawilorot (r. 1856-1870). Mok Mai was companions attempting to stop to assist the poor attacked after its ruler, Fa Kolan, refused to creatures were driven on with blows ... Fever resettle his miiangvoluntarily in Phrao in Chiang and dysentery were still at work among them and Mai territory.93 These "post-Kawila" raids were many more will probably die. Already, I was motivated by considerations of security along told, more than half of the original 5,700 so the country's western border, not by a search treacherously seized are dead."95 for manpower. However, one speaks easily of Chiang Mai as pars pro toto for the whole of Perhaps, the conditions of those captured by LanNa, overlooking the principalities ofPhrae Kawila were relatively more "tolerable." and Nan which were not ruled by members of However, the choice of "resistance or submis­ the Kawila clan. Of these two miiang, Nan was sion" was not an easy one for those being raided. the larger and was able to conceive its own TMY describes discussions among members of population policy.94 the ruling house of Chiang Tung and other high­ ranking noblemen about how to negotiate with 5. The View of the Victim Thammalangka, who had laid siege to the city in 1805. Should they surrender to the uparat of The hardships concomitant with forced Chiang Mai or fight the enemy until the end? resettlement campaigns remain unmentioned in The arguments ran as follows: the Northern Thai chronicles. The CMC eulogizes Kawila's political and military skills, "Cao Mom Luang and his three [younger brothers], but fails to record the pain and suffering of the being altogether four brothers, were the leaders of

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 59

the nobility. They all came together. [Cao Mom own country. We could stay in our homeland Luang] said: As soon as we side with the Burmese, and continue a normal life. We did not lose our the 'southern people' [chao tai; here: Yuan] will homesteads, our monasteries, and our religion. come and defeat us. As soon as we side with the So long as we do not enter their camp, the 'southern people', the Burmese will come and Burmese will be displeased and will attack us defeat us. The 'southern people' are now again and again, every year. Thus, there is no approaching. If we stay in the Burmese camp, we chance left to restore our country. Water [peace] will be destroyed very soon. If we go over to the is distant, fire [danger] is near. Therefore, we 'southern people', they will seize and carry us should be ready to surrender to them, and the away. What shall we do?' The younger brothers future will certainly be bright."99 (cao nong, L

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 60 Volker Grabowsky persuaded them that by the deportation of its of occupation. In 1805, when shortly after the ruler Chiang Saen had become an ill-fated place fall of Chiang Saen the army of Thammalangka in which to live. Thus the returnees decided to approached Chiang Tung and Miiang Y ong, the give up Chiang Saen and to follow their ruler to population and ruling classes of these towns Chiang Mai. 103 probably now hoped to break the vicious circle of uprisings, conquest and suppression. *** Therefore, the alternative of resettling in Lan Na appeared to them to be not a bad one. In conclusion, the influx of immigrants from 2. Search for land. Compared to the relatively the Shan states and Sipsong Panna to Lan Na small valleys of the Khiin and Yong rivers, the during the late 18th and early 19th centuries Ping-Kuang river basin was very fertile and resulted from forced deportations as well as comprised large tracts of arable rice-land. from more or less voluntary migrations of those Whereas the areas under rice cultivation who had managed to escape. Even some of the expanded in Chiang Mai after 1796, the Shan forced resettlements could only be carried out states and the Burmese heartland around Ava with the consent of the captives who sometimes faced a severe drought from 1802/03. The year accepted deportation as the lesser evil. The 1805 marked the beginning of a great famine in willingness of the Lii and Khiin to cooperate those areas. "The problem was further aggra­ constructively with the invading forces from vated by starving tigers who made it unsafe to Chiang Mai and Lampang may be explained in work in the fields. The general lack of food at least two ways: caused growing outbreaks of banditry and 1. Escape from continuous warfare. Throughout disorder, as villages fought each other for what the second half of the 18th century political little was still available. Tens of thousands turmoil caused by Burmese attacks, Yuan raids starved to death, others fell prey to the tigers or and civil war was endemic in all the major bandits, and the remainder sought refuge in the eastern Shan states, including Chiang Tung and larger towns and cities."106 Thus one can MiiangYong. In 1748-50, when Ava's influence understand that the prospect of resettlement in over the Shan states had been reduced, Chiang the comparatively fertile and politically stable Tung experienced a murderous civil war. Several region of Chiang Mai, Lamphun and Lampang years later, a Chinese invasion shocked the Khiin looked promising. It helped break the fighting state. In 1765/66 Chiang Tung "could not spirit of the Lii and Khiin people to resist cultivate rice. The following year ... there was Thammalangka's troops. a great famine." 104 Around 1769/70 Chinese (Ho) troops raided 6. The War Captives and Their New first the principalities ofNan, then Chiang Tung Homelands and Upper Burma. Political uncertainty remained even after the Burmese restored their rule over The chronicles give hardly any information Chiang Tung, Miiang Y ong and Chiang Rung, concerning the ethnic and social background of the capital of Sipsong Panna. In 1775 the the war captives. We can guess from modem Burmese raised an army of roughly 40,000 ethnographic data that most of the deportees soldiers from Burma proper and various Tai were Lii (Miiang Yong, Sipsong Panna), Khiin Yai, Khiin and Lii miiang (such as Chiang (Chiang Tung) and Tai Yai (Miiang Sat, Miiang Khaeng, Miiang Sat, Miiang Len and Miiang Pan, Miiang Pu). However, those who were Y ong) to attack Phitsanulok. I ,500 soldiers from deported from Chiang Saen and surrounding Miiang Y ong participated in this attack, but it areas or who fled from Miiang Yuam (Mae failed and they retreated with severe losses via Sariang), are likely to have been ofYuan origin. Chiang Saen. The people of Chiang Tung and That there was a massive exodus of Yuan from Miiang Yong increasingly felt Burmese rule to Mae Sariang is indirectly confirmed by palm­ be oppressive. 105 But unlike their brethren further leaf manuscripts discovered some twenty years south, in Chiang Mai, Lampang and Nan, they ago in the famous Red Cliff Cave (Tham Pha did not succeed in expelling the Burmese troops Daeng, Jl~lLL\il~) near Mae Sariang. The most

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 61 recent of the Red Cliff manuscripts written in comprised in the early 19th century a larger the Yuan language are dated 1792/93. After area than the present-day province of Chiang that year there is no trace in the area of any Mai.III More important than the geographic Yuan settlement. In the second half of the 19th extension of a miiang was, however, its century Tai Y ai and Karen began settling in the population. 112 depopulated valley of the Yuam River, where to this day they constitute the dominant 6.1. Areas of Resettlement population.I07 The Khiin and Lii resettled by Kawila in In which areas of Northern Thailand had the territories within the present borders of Thailand captive populations settled down immediately were seen by the Yuan not at all as foreigners after their arrvial, and how did their settlements but as people belonging to a greater Lan Na spread in the course of the 19th century? To cultural zone. Yuan, Khiin and Lii speak give convincing answers to these challenging mutually understandable dialects, and they use, questions is not easy and presents serious with minor regional variations, the same obstacles. First, unlike neighbouring Burma, the "Dharma script." Moreover, the majority of the Siamese and Yuan have not kept reliable cis-Salween miiang raided by the Yuan forces, censuses which distinguish between social and such as Chiang Tung, Miiang Y ong and Miiang ethnic backgrounds of a counted population. Sat, were vassals ofLan Na (Chiang Mai) during Second, source materials which might provide most of the pre-Burmese period. As Kawila important clues have not been subjected to close placed himself in the tradition of the great kings examination by Thai scholars. As far as I know, of independent Lan Na, he likely saw the local (Tai) dialects of Northern Thailand have relocation of people from those miiang as a not yet been systematically mapped, nor have legitimate internal affair within the Yuan-Khun­ village names been analyzed in depth with regard Lii cultural zone.tos to any geographical or ethnic link with the Shan There were also no small numbers of Karen, states or Sipsong Panna. The research needed especially Kayah (Nyang Daeng, m-lLL~-l), and would involve cooperation among specialists of Lawa among the war captives. The chronicles various disciplines; linguists, historians, mention Kha ('ih, "slaves") captured in the geographers and anthropologists. campaign of 1804/05.109 These Kha living in As a non-linguist, I will refrain from the uplands of the Shan states, Sipsong Panna "creating" my own empirical data; but at this and Laos were obviously various hilltribes juncture I want to make an observation from a speaking Mon-Khmer related languages. They historian's point of view. Persons dislocated in were called Kha in Laos, W a in Burma and large groups very often give their new dwelling­ Lawa or Lua in Thailand. Perhaps, some Karen places names that remind them of their native were also among these Kha, for it is reported country. This is a well-known phenomenon in that, around 1804, Kawila established several the European world.Il3 villages settled by (Pwo) Karen war captives We can hunt up these phenomena in Northern from the "Zwei Kabin Hills."IIO Thailand, too. In the districts of San Sai and Doi As to the areas of resettlement, the chronicles Saket (Chiang Mai) there are Khiin villages rarely mention any place-names. Specifications (ban), such as Miiang Wa, Miiang Luang, Miiang like "Miiang Lamphun", "Miiang Chiang Mai" Phayak and Miiang KhOn, all named after or "Miiang Nan" are very vague, for the complex communities in the Chiang Tung region.II 4 The term miiang, in the Western literature often Lii of Miiang Y ong settled mostly in present­ wrongly translated as "city", not only referred day Lamphun Province where they founded to the walled administrative centre-the wiang­ villages such as Wiang Yong, Thi, Yu, and but the outlying dependencies as well. Some­ Luai, likewise bearing the names of larger times a large miiang could comprise dozens of settlements in the Miiang Yong region.tts satellite miiang (miiang khiin, Lije:J-l~"U, or miiang According to oral tradition, in 1805 the ruler of boriwan, Lijil-lu~·;n'l") and hundreds of villages. Miiang Y ong was promised fertile land around Miiang Chiang Mai, seen in this wider sense, Chiang Mai in which to resettle when he

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87 .l & 2 (1999) 62 Volker Grabowsky surrendered-without fighting-to Kawila's than 80% of the population in present-day forces. Since areas in the vicinity of Chiang Lamphun Province are of Lii-Y ong origin.12o Mai had already been occupied by other groups Most of them still speak the language of their of war captives, the people of Miiang Y ong ancestors, are in fact trilingual (Lii, Yuan, were asked to clear the paddy fields around Siamese), although in the last twenty years Lamphun which were still laid waste at that assimilation has accelerated. My own obser­ time. After a first survey the ruler of Miiang vations confirm these rough estimates. Apart y ong and his advisors expressed their delight at from the city of Lamphun, which had been the prospective areas of resettlement. Soil in resettled by people from Lampang and Chiang Lamp hun was of good quality, but more Mai (in 1806 or 1814), 12 1 some villages along importantly, the geographical environment the main road linking Lamphun with Saraphi resembled that ofMiiang Y ong in many aspects. (Chiang Mai) and the district of Li in the The course of the rivers and the location of the south, 122 which was regarded as a relatively nearby mountain slopes was very much the same "safe area" during the 18th century, the whole in Miiang Yong as in Lamphun. Thus the ruler province seems to be inhabited by people of of Miiang Y ong decided to settle with his Lii-Y ong descent. subjects on the eastern banks of the Kuang River, Lampang was another area which had been just opposite the still deserted city ( wiang) of spared the worst of the destructions caused by Lamphun. He named his chief village "Wiang war, pillage and mass deportations. Burmese Y ong", whereas smaller settlements nearby were influence was obviously much weaker than in named after former satellite miiang of Miiang the Chiang Mai-Lamphun area. During the last Y ong. The villages of (Ban) Yu and (Ban) Luai quarter of the 18th century numerous Yuan from were built on opposite sides of the Kuang River, other miiang of Lan Na fled from the Burmese corresponding exactly to the original locations troops to unoccupied Lampang. When the anti­ ofMiiang Yu and Miiang Luai.116 Burmese uprising of 1787 ended in failure, the When the people from Miiang Y ong (ethnic rulers and inhabitants of Chiang Rai, Ngao and Lii) founded their first communites in present­ Phayao feared retaliation and sought refuge in day Lamphun, the areas occupied were not Lampang. The refugees from Phayao settled, completely unpopulated as the chronicles according to oral tradition, on the right (western) suggest. However, the Yuan hamlets around bank of the Wang River, while Wat Chiang Rai Wiang Y ong were small and isolated. The Lii (in Lampang city) was built by former residents settlers formed the large majority of the of Chiang Rai. Although these resettlements population and very soon assimilated the old were related to Kawila's policy of kep phak sai inhabitants of Wiang Y ong. As very few Lii sa khep kha sai miiang, the ethnic Yuan from from areas other than Miiang Y ong settled in Chiang Rai or Phayao did not come to Lampang Lamphun, the people still called themselves chao as war captives, but as people seeking temporary yang, "people of Miiang Yong." Starting from refuge. In fact, they stayed until 1843/44, when Wiang Yong, Lii settlements spread to Pa King Rama III ordered them to rebuild their Sang, 117 only 12 km further to the southwest of deserted home towns. Most refugees obeyed Lamp hun city, and later, to the districts of Ban the royal decree and returned, others stayed.123 Hong and Mae Tha. 118 New waves ofLii settlers With regard to the resettlement of war from Miiang Y ong arrived in Lamphun in 1810, captives in the present-day provinces of Chiang after Kawila's last expedition against Maha­ Mai and Lampang, I have collected only a small khaniin of Chiang Tung, and contributed to the amount of data from oral history, barely rapid extension of Lii settlements in Lamphun. sufficient to draw any definite conclusion as to The largest Lii speaking area of Lamphun not where the war captives were resettled. A recent settled by Y ong people was Ban Thi. It seems anthropological field-report, however, indicates that the Lii villages in the semi-district of Ban a large concentration of Lii from Miiang Y ong Thi are of the same origin as the Lii settlements in the southern section of the miiang district of in neighbouring San Kamphaeng (Chiang Lampang. These communities (Ban Phae, Ban Mai).119 Local informants estimate that more Kluai Klang etc.) were founded by a group of

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 63

Lii-Y ong war captives who did not go to detailed report on the organization of the Chiang Lamphun in 1805/06, but separated from the Mai Sangha written by Cao Nan Unmiiang, a main group in Chiang Rai. From there they high clerical official in Chiang Mai. ''Cao Nan marched to Lampang where Duang Thip, the Unmiiang ... invited the five members of the ruler of the miiang, settled them on wasteland Sangha council and all monks were praying for near the capital after ascertaining their loyalty.124 three days ... because His Royal Highness, the One would expect some more resettlement areas king of Bangkok, will visit Miiang [Chiang in Lampang, for at least a part of the some Mai]." It seems that the reason for writing this 6,000 (ethnic Tai Yai) war captives from the "List of Monasteries" was an official visit of Miiang Sat, Miiang Pu and Miiang Pan were King Chulalongkom to Chiang Mai. Perhaps, resettled in Lampang. 125 But unlike the Lii-Y ong on that occasion the highest Sangha authorities in Lamp hun, there seems to have been no single in Bangkok asked their counterparts in Chiang non-Yuan ethnic group in Lampang and Chiang Mai for data on the size and organizational Mai which settled in a large coherent territory. structure of the Buddhist order in the Upper Their closeness to Yuan villages, both spatially North, a region which had only recently been and culturally, helps explain why they were integrated into the kingdom of Siam. The copy assimilated more rapidly than the Lii-Yong in of the report by Cao Nan Unmiiang was Lamphun. This makes it difficult to reconstruct presumably sent to the Supreme Patriarch resettlement areas in these provinces mainly by (sangkharat, il'~!J.J'll'll') in Bangkok. Name, location, using methods of oral history. and number of monks and novices of each At this juncture I would like to point to a monastery are listed. rather rare phapsa (~urfl) manuscript written in The analysis of the document that follows Yuan script and language with the title "List of here is a joint effort by Aroonrut and myself. Monasteries and Religious Groups in Chiang The document lists the names of340 monasteries Mai" (Rai chii wat lae nikai song boran nai (hua wat, VITi'~) belonging to 23 clerical districts miiang chiang mai, 'll~:ie:r'l~••<~:::iimt:Jrf~IJ.J'1uru;uhu!i£J~ (muat ubosot, Vlm~~Lur!n). Of these, four clerical ,:a~~LV1a.l).l26 In his study on "Ethnic Pluralism in districts (nos. 1-4; 55 monasteries) were situated the Northern Thai City ofChiangmai", Michael inside the inner, rectangular, city wall, two others Vatikiotis used this document to locate (nos. 5+6; 23 monasteries) covered the space settlements of non-Yuan origin within the city between the inner and the outer (circular) city walls.l27 One has to acknowledge his efforts to walls. The clerical district of Wat Kao Tii (no. bring to scholarly attention the importance of 7: region ofWiang Suan Dok; 13 monasteries) an ostensibly "religious" document as an extended from the Wat Suan Dok Gate as far as historical source with regard to ethnicity and Doi Suthep to the west of Chiang Mai. There population in traditional Lan Na society. are 15 clerical districts (nos. 8-22; 235 However, Vatikiotis did not make full use of monasteries) covering fertile rice-growing areas the document, as he overlooked its important outside the present-day municipality of Chiang statistical aspects. Furthermore, he did not Mai. The last clerical district mentioned in the investigate areas outside the city of Chiang Mai document (no. 23; 14 monasteries) comprised that was beyond the scope of his study. monasteries of both rural and municipal The original manuscript found in W at Cedi communities. Altogether 97 monasteries were Luang was first transliterated by Aroonrut situated in urban areas, i.e. inside or very close Wichienkeeo and edited by Sommai Premchit to the city walls, whereas 243 monasteries in 1975.128 Twenty years later, Sanan Tham­ covered areas outside the town (nokwiang, -..wn mathi presented a revised and more readable bl~-:1). transliteration that differs slightly from the As in Thailand each monastery marks either previous one. 129 The phapsa manuscript is dated one compartment (in urban areas) or one village/ the "tenth day of the waxing moon in the fourth large hamlet (in rural areas), the number of month, year of the cock, the ninth year of the monasteries should represent roughly the number decade, cunlasakkarat 1259 [1 January of major settlements in the city of Chiang Mai 1898]."130 According to the colophon, it is a and the surrounding countryside by the end of

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 64 Volker Grabowsky the nineteenth century. For various reasons it is Mai Sangha was well established in the city difficult to determine the exact location of each and the surrounding countryside. As to the monastery, especially in rural areas. Firstly, in intermediate districts such as Com Thong, Mae Lan N a as in other parts of Thailand, names of Rim and Mae Taeng, which belonged neither monasteries and villages have frequently been to the core area nor to the frontier zone, only changed over the last 100 years. Sometimes the the largest and most important monasteries, like old and the new names are completely different. Wat Miiang Win (no. 338; western, moun­ Secondly, in times of famine villages were tainous part of San Pa Tong) and Wat Miiang occasionally abandoned by their · inhabitants, Khong (no. 340; southwest comer of Com moving from rice-deficient to more fertile ThOng), were part of the Sangha organization. regions. However, we were able to locate with The "List of Monasteries" mentions them as certainty the centres of all clerical districts, most monasteries under the supervision of Wat Si of the urban monasteries and at least 77 rural Phummin (muat ubosot no. 23) which is situated monasteries, or almost one third of the total. As in the fertile rice-growing region of Mae Taeng the monasteries under the supervision ofa certain (Miiang Kaen) where large tracts of rice-land clerical district cover contiguous areas, we were had been reclaimed during the Fifth Reign. able to map major settlements in Chiang Mai The manuscript mentions not only the names based on the "List of Monasteries" under of monasteries, but also the affiliation of their discussion (see maps 2 and 3). abbots (cao athikan, L~1Eliim-:~) and vice-abbots The monasteries covered the present-day (rang athikan, ":!El.:!Ellim-:~) to a certain nikai. districts (amphoe, ei11.11el) of Miiang, Saraphi, However, the common translation of nikai Hang Dong, San Pa Tong, San Kamphaeng, (ii.mE.J, Skt./Pii.li: nikiiya) as "religious sect" is San Sai and Doi Saket. These districts are fertile, misleading in the context of this particular densely populated rice-growing zones situated document, for "Nikai Chiang Mai", "Nikai within a radius of 40 km from the city of Chiang Khiin", "Nikai Lua", "Nikai Yong" or "Nikai Mai. As to the more distant districts of Com Chiang Saen" hardly reflects any sectarian ThOng, Mae Rim and Mae Taeng, only very disputes on religious issues. The names of the few monasteries are included. Outlying districts various nikai rather indicate different ethnic such as Hot (southwest), Samoeng (west) as and descent groups. As the monks and novices well as Chiang Dao, Phrao and Fang (north), it had always to be supported by the local seems, were completely left out. population, one would expect them to perform I believe that the reasons for this default were Buddhist ceremonies in accordance with local demographic as well as administrative. It is true traditions that might have varied slightly in the that by the end of the nineteenth century the different regions of Lan Na. Therefore, the "new frontier zones" to the the north and west religious affiliation (nikai) of the abbot of a were still sparsely populated. Phrao and Fang, monastery can be transferred to the geographic/ for example, were resettled in 1870 and 1880 ethnic origin (chua sai, L~m'f1E.J, "descent") of respectively.m The majority of people in the the respective village. "Nikai Khiin", for frontier zones apparently lived in small dispersed example, would mean that the village or hamlets comprising, perhaps, not more than a compartment to which the monastery belonged few houses each. Communities of that size lacked was founded by people from Chiang Tung. the economic resources necessary to sustain However, the meaning of the label "Nikai monasteries and to support monks or novices. Chiang Mai" is still unclear. I suggest that it Apart from geographical remoteness and probably indicates have settlements either of low population density, the outlying districts of ethnic Yuan or of a mixed ethnic population. Chiang Mai were also of marginal importance I tried to map the monasteries and their with regard to political integration. It seems respective communities with regard also to that about the tum of the twentieth century the ethnicity (see maps 2 and 3). The geographical control exercized over the frontier zones by the distribution of settlements of the different ethnic secular and religious authorities in the capital groups reflects the situation in the late 19th was of only limited effectiveness. The Chiang century. As for the early decades of that century,

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 65 one can presume that, owing to assimilation found any reference to major captive settlements into the Yuan (Khon Miiang) society, the relative there. However, we know from oral tradition size of captive communities was somewhat that today there are still a few Khiin and Lii­ larger than in the 1890s. However, their Yong villages in the districts of San Pa Tong geographical distribution was probably not much and Hang Dong. 134 The "List of Monasteries" different. The maps show in detail: does not mention them, at least not under the I. Of the 56 monasteries situated inside the label of their respective nikai. Furthermore, the square (brick) city wall (1,400 m wide and 1,810 concentration of Lua (Lawa) in Hang Dong long), 54 monasteries were affiliated with Nikai district, a (wet-)rice-cultivating zone just to the Chiang Mai. Therefore, the large majority of west and southwest of Chiang Mai city, is people in the inner city were Yuan, descendants surprising, because at present, one century later, of the original population of Lan Na. As for the the Lua are regarded as "upland people" who southern and southeastern suburbs, i.e. those have survived only in two small mountainous compartments which were protected by an outer areas of Hot district (Chiang Mai) and Mae earthen wall (kamphaeng din, ri1LLW.:I~'I.I.), the Yuan Hong Son Province. From pre-Mangrai times constituted only a small minority. 18 of 23 the region around Doi Suthep (including Hang monasteries (almost 80%) in these "suburbs" Dong) was an old Lua stronghold, and still today, belonged to nikai other than Nikai Chiang Mai. the Yuan consider the Lua to be the original War captives from Chiang Saen were resettled people of Chiang Mai. Until the early Bangkok in areas to the east and southeast (close to the period the Lua played an important role in the Tha Phae Gate), in this area we also fmd two state ritual of Chiang Mai. They also held a Mon settlements. The southern and southwestern strong economic position by controlling, for suburbs were mostly inhabited by ethnic Khiin, instance, the cattle trade. An inscription in Ban Lii, and Tai Yai. Michael Vatikiotis observes Kuan (Hang Dong district), dated "the fifth that the orientation of these suburbs "does, in waning of the sixth month, C.S. 1192" (3 March fact, coincide with the two least auspicious 1831) specifies that Phutthawong, the then ruler comers [southeast, southwest] of the city. The of Chiang Mai, exempted the Lua from land in this area was, and still is, subject to corvee.I35 And remember that after their flooding, and was said to be inhabited by bad temporary retreat from Chiang Mai, in 1775/76, spirits .... The apparent location of these captive the Yuan leaders heavily relied on food settlements both outside and at the least requisitions "from the Lua and the mountain auspicious comer of the city walls [southeast], people."136 However, it is not clear whether all indicates the likelihood that they were settled of the Lua in Hang Dong were natives or whether by the Prince-ruler [Kawila]."I32 In 1837, some groups came from other areas, too. McLeod observed: "The outer fort is not in Numerous Lua villages are dispersed in the hilly some parts inhabited, being swampy; it is the areas surrounding the valley of Chiang Tung; it residence principally of the Kiang Timg, Kiang is possible that from there and other areas in the Then [Chiang Saen], and other Ts6buas [cao Shan states, some Lua villages were uprooted miiang], with their followers."I33 and deported to Chiang Mai by Kawila's 2. Concerning the rice-growing regions outside forces. 137 the city walls, the spatial pattern seems far more 3. The fertile, irrigated rice-growing zones to complex. The general picture appears to be that the east and northeast of Chiang Mai (San the rural areas in the immediate neighbourhood Kamphaeng, Doi Saket, San Sai) were obviously of the city (present Miiang district) were the most densely populated areas in Chiang inhabited by a native Yuan population. There Mai. More than two thirds of all rural are no captive settlements recorded for that zone. monasteries/ communities were situated in that The rice-growing areas to the south and region. Of that number roughly 20% had a non­ southwest (Saraphi, Hang Dong and San Pa Yuan background. Khiin settlements were Tong) were predominantly settled by Yuan as scattered over all three districts. One finds Tai well. With the exception of two Mon monas­ Yai villages in Doi Saket and Lii communities teries/ communities in Saraphi, we have not in Doi Saket and San Kamphaeng. The largest

JournaloftheSiamSociety87.I &2 (1999) 66 Volker Grabowsky concentration of war captives was in the this country but a very small portion now obtains, southern part of San Kamphaeng where six perhaps not above one third of the whole."i41 In monasteries of Nikai Y ong are reported. But his diary of a journey five years later he wrote nowhere did captives inhabit large coherent about the "captives of whom 3/4 of the people areas. Their villages were always interspersed are composed."142 Richardson explained the low among Yuan settlements. numbers of native Yuan by the frequent deportations of the local population to Burma 6.2. The Numerical Strength of the Captive during the 16th to 18th centuries. W.C. McLeod, Population who visited Chiang Mai and Lamphun on his journey to Chiang Tung in 1837, agrees with How many war captives were deported to Lan Richardson that the large majority of the Na during the era of kep phak sai sa kep kha sai population were war captives from the "different miiang? How large was this population in states tributary to Ava." McLeod estimates: absolute and relative numbers by the mid 19th "More than two-thirds of Zimme [Chiang Mai], century? The Northern Thai chronicles report Labong [Lamphun] and Lagon [Lampang] are in detail the numerical strength of various armies, Talien [Mon] refugees, or persons from the but do not generally provide any figures on the Burman provinces to the northward, who had people deported and resettled by these armies. either voluntarily settled under the Siamese Siamese sources are more precise here. The Shans [Yuan], having been inveigled to do so overall figures I collected for the various by specious promises, which were never kept, campaigns of forced resettlement (1782-1838/ or seized and brought away during their former 39) indicate that 50,000-70,000 war captives constant incursions into these provinces, chiefly were deported during the late 18th and early Kiang Tung [Chiang Tung] and Muang Niong 19th centuries to present-day Northern Thailand [Yong]."l43 (appendix table 2). Furthermore, at least some Should these figures, obtained by foreigners, 3,000 ethnic Mon fled after the last great Mon be taken at face value? One has to be careful for uprising in Burma (1814/15) to Chiang Mai, the following reasons: where they were settled in the eastern outskirts Firstly, judging from the routes Richardson and of the city and in Saraphi. 13 8 Since the forced McLeod were travelling in the 1830s, it seems resettlements were often followed by the more that they really did pass through areas with a or less voluntary immigration of those who were high proportion of war captives: Lamphun left behind, and if a natural annual increasel39 (nearly completely populated by Lii-Yong) as of 0.5% for the "Pre-Bowring Period" is a well as the eastern and southwestern parts of reasonable supposition, the captive population Chiang Mai (large concentrations of Khiin). It would have doubled by 1840, eventually is from observations in these regions that their reaching a total between 100,000 and 150,000 conclusions were drawn. As for Lampang, persons. Taking the census results of 1919/20140 visited by Richardson (in 1835) but not by and assuming an annual increase of 1.5% McLeod, neither explicitly mentions any captive between 1840 and 1919/20 (including migra­ group. Lampang apparently suffered from the tion), I calculated the total population of wars with Burma less than Chiang Mai and Northern Thailand at roughly 0.4 million people. Lamphun, and was, therefore, not so seriously That means that by 1840, roughly 25-40% of depopulated. Compared to Chiang Mai, the the population in the five Yuan principalities of capital, Lampang was of minor strategic Chiang Mai, Lamphun, Lampang, Phrae and importance vis-a-vis the Burmese. Lastly, the Nan were war captives or their descendants. Wang river basin was a traditional rice-deficit Contemporary British sources, however, zone. Therefore, I tentatively conclude that indicate a far higher percentage of war captives Lampang received a considerably smaller than that derived from my own calculations. number of war captives than the Chiang Mai­ After his three journeys in 1829-35 to Chiang Lamphun region. Mai, Lamphun and Lampang, David Richardson Secondly, Richardson and McLeod do not give estimated that "of the original inhabitants of any information about Phrae and Nan, regions

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 ( 1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 67

they obviously never visited. There were large whose names indicate, however, a non-Yuan numbers of people resettled in Nan province background. Some captive groups, such as the during the first decades of the 19th century, Karen, were animists, not Buddhists; their either as war captives or voluntary immigrants. villages are not represented by the "List of But neighbouring Phrae is virtually left out by Monasteries." Moreover, one important group the chronicles and other contemporary sources. of war captives, some 8,000 residents ofMiiang Perhaps this principality was too small to be Sat (ethnic Tai Yai), 148 were not conceded their worth mentioning. Or, perhaps Phrae had been own nikai. Their settlements, such as Ban Miiang far less destroyed during the 18th century than Sat Noi and Ban Miiang Sat Luang (near Chiang Nan or Chiang Mai and, was therefore not so Mai city), 149 were obviously included in the eager to be engaged in the resettlement category of "Nikai Chiang Mai." On the other campaigns of the latter. hand, Yuan villages in the sparsely populated Finally, the British diplomats were probably northern section of Chiang Mai (Fang, Phrao, excessively aware of the non-Yuan population, Chiang Dao ), are not included in the "List of because they did not expect so many alien Monasteries."150 At a very rough estimate, I elements in Chiang Mai. Certainly, the increase would guess that by 1840 perhaps up to one of population in LanNa during the late 18th and third of the population in Chiang Mai (whole early 19th centuries was only partly due to the province) was of captive origin, and probably influx of war captives. The return of former between one third and two fifths in the whole of residents from jungle and mountainous areas LanNa. was important, too. An inscription of Wat PhrabOrommathat Si Com ThOng (Chiang Mai) 6.3. Social and Political Status of War mentions 21 families who had served the Captives in LanNa monastery as phrai wat (lv.J'i'1(ij) then fled from the Burmese armies into the jungle and finally Nearly everywhere in the Yuan principalities, returned in 1779 to the monastery.I44 Various war captives and their. descendants constituted smaller valleys situated far off the major invasion so large a group, in some areas even the bulk of routes were not abandoned by their inhabitants, the populace, that their general enslavement as but, on the contrary, provided shelter for refugees "second-class citizens" was not feasible. from areas ravaged by war. The district of Li in Moreover, the Khiin, Lii, and Tai Yai (in this the far south ofLamphun, for instance, remained order) shared language, beliefs, customs, and relatively untouched by the events of the 1760s basic way of life with the Yuan and with each and 1770s. Many Yuan people from Mae Hong other. From a historical point of view, Chiang Son sought refuge in Li during that time.I45 Tung, Miiang Sat and Miiang Y ong were at There is, however, little doubt that the war least as strongly connected to Chiang Mai as captives and their descendants formed a major Phrae or Nan used to be. All these miiang part of the mid-19th century population of Lan belonged to the Yuan-Khiin-Lii cultural zone, Na. The results of a detailed analysis of the i.e. Lan Na.Isi To sum up, there were no attitudes "List of Monasteries" (appendix, table 1) show: of any racial or cultural superiority by the Yuan At the end of the 19th century the descendants (Chiang Mai) elite towards most of the war of war captives comprised roughly 20% of the captives. In this respect the situation in Central total population of Chiang Mai, 30-35% in the Thailand, where many tens of thousands Lao city and 15-20% in the countryside.I46 But these and Khmer war captives were often badly figures represent only the minimum margin, treated, was fundamentally different. The captive when the figures for half a century earlier are villages in Siam were organized in special labour taken into consideration. There had certainly units (kong, n

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 68 Volker Grabowsky

In the Yuan principalities the captive the stability and prosperity of the principality of population lived in settlements under the control Lamphun. 155 of their traditional village leaders. Sometimes While the noble families from Miiang Y ong the ruler of a captured miiang agreed to follow obviously lived in the main village of Wiang his subjects to the south and was allowed to Y ong, architects and construction workers settled maintain his high status. Thus, nearly all the the adjacent village of (Ban) Tong. The people members of the ruling familiy of Chiang Tung of Ban Tong are famous for their skills in settled in Chiang Mai city (1805), and Kawila constructing religious buildings such as vihiira regarded them as his "younger brothers." (1'1111'l) in the traditional Yuan-Lii style.ts6 The Intermarriage between the Kawila dynasty and villages of (Ban) Luai und (Ban) Yu were widely the Chiang Tung dynasty (both its Sirichai and known for their specialization in cloth-weaving Mahiikhanan lines) occurred frequently during and poetry, respectively. Outside this cluster of the 19th century.l53 four occupationally specialized villages, lived Likewise, cordial relations developed the bulk of the rice-growing peasants. 157 Both between the ruling families ofMiiang Y ong and rulers in Lamphun, the cao miiang in the city Lamphun after the principality ofLamphun was and his junior counterpart in Wiang Yong, restored in 1806/14. The ruler ofMiiang Yong profited from this "cellular" organization of settled in Wiang Y ong, opposite the city of society. Lamphun, on the eastern bank of the Kuang This pattern of settlement, based on strict river. As was discussed earlier, Wiang Yong status and occupational divisions, was yet more and the surrounding villages were replicas of distinct in Chiang Mai, where the various ethnic the old Miiang Y ong in a geographic-ecological groups living in the outskirts of the city were dimension. No less fascinating, however, is how highly specialized craftsmen. The Khiin, settling the new settlements reflected and reinforced south of the "Pratu Chiang Mai", were well­ ritual power and social stratification. The main known bell-founders and producers of lacquer­ monastery in Wiang Yong, Wat Hua Khua, ware (still called in Chiang Mai khriiang khoen, shelters the four guardian spirits ofMiiang Y ong Lfl~£1-lL~u). Compartments occupied by ethnic Lii which the cao miiang "resettled" along with the and Tai Yai were famous for silversmith's work population. The four guardian spirits are each and tanning, respectively. Iss The community of symbolized by a stone-cut white elephant.ts4 Ban Chang Khong, situated inside the outer city Their installation in Wiang Y ong ensured the wall along the banks of the Mae Kha waterway, well-being of the people and reinforced the not far away from the present Mae Ping Hotel, political authority of Miiang Yong's former was inhabited by descendants of Yuan war ruler, who had now become a ''younger brother" captives from Chiang Saen. They were highly of the ruler ofLamphun. His important position specialized drum and gong makers (chang within the leadership of Lamphun is evident khong, '111-l~El-3). Outside Chiang Mai City lived from the following incident: On the ninth waning the peasant population, made up of various of the second month, C.S. 1173 [9 November ethnic background, both native and captive. 1811], the king of Chiang Mai, Kawila, Although the war captives were in general announced that the ruler of Lamphun and his given fair treatment by the Yuan rulers, one deputy, the cao upalat ho na (L~1~un"lfVVEJ'IIIU1), would expect them to resent the loss of heimat. should rule together in harmony. In case of As paddy fields to cultivate were abundant, the dispute, the councillors (khun sanam, ~'l.lff'i,L13J) new settlers did not fear for their material well­ of Lamphun should be consulted first. If their being; but the psychological effects of mediation was unsuccessful the former ruler of deportation were much more difficult to Miiang Y ong was asked to act as arbitrator overcome, at least for the first and second before a final appeal would be brought to Chiang generations. Richardson reports on an encounter Mai. Holding the third highest rank in the with the last ruler of Miiang Yong, whom he political hierarchy of Lamphun and possessing met in 1834: "The rightfull Tsobwa of Mein the loyalty of its numerous Lii-Y ong population, Neaung stayed with me a great part of the day. the Cao Miiang Y ong was badly needed to secure He is a prisoner who was carried off by the

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 69

present Chow Tschee Weet [cao chiwit, b~1:a1111] recently left and which was thinly peopled, they about 30 years ago, the year after he re­ never made an attempt to escape."l63 It seems established this town [Lamphun]. He complained that the fear of the Yuan rulers that their captive with little reserve of this situation here. He said subjects might try to escape to their native he ate and drank and slept like other people. His country 164 put restraints on exploitation and natural part was here, but his spirit cit was in his misuse of power. own country."159 Richardson's report is corroborated by McLeod, who, a few years later, 7. Concluding Remarks had a similar encounter with the former ruler of Miiang Y <'mg. The British official, having been However, communication between the war instructed by his superiors to avoid sensitive captives and their original home-lands was never political issues during his fact-finding mission, 160 completely cut. On the contrary, the war captives describes an even stronger dissatisfaction with seemed to have played a vital role not only in an unpleasant situation. "The Mein Neaung chief the revival of agriculture and of handicrafts in ... said, he hoped the British would interfere LanNa, but certainly in the trade network, both and have him and his countrymen released, either intra- and inter-regional, as well. By the time of to return to their own country or to settle under McLeod's visit to Chiang Mai (1837) this trade us in the Tenasserim Provinces; that they, with was already flourishing. The British diplomat the people of Kiang Tung and other places to observed that dried fish and meat were brought the northward were sorely oppressed; that to the from Chiang Tung. "Quantities of betel nut, known benevolence and humanity of the English with which these territories [Chiang Mail all their hearts were turned." It seems, however, Lamp hun] abound, are smuggled for sale to that this alleged statement by the "Miiang Y ong Keng Tung, where there is none, and the chief' reflected McLeod's own wishful thinking consumption great."l65 The re-establishment of (of British intervention in the future) rather than Chiang Rai and Phayao as dependencies of real expectations by the Miiang Yong chief. As Chiang Mai and Lam pang respectively ( 1844), 166 if to dissipate such surmise, McLeod emphasized accelerated the contacts between Lan Na and a sentence later: "I, however, gave him [the the regions further to the north. These contacts former ruler of Miiang Yong] no hopes of our were only briefly interrupted by the Chiang Tung interfering as they were not our subjects, and Wars (1850-1854).167 The war captives and their had voluntarily placed themselves under the descendants contributed to the forging of close Siamese Shans."161 relations, based on ethnic and cultural bonds, The sentiments expressed in encounters with between Chiang Mai and the Chiang Tung­ foreigners certainly did not reflect any Miiang Yang-Chiang Rung region. This intolerably severe grief or feelings of hatred development was only interrupted after Word against the Yuan rulers. McLeod's conclusion War II as a result of developments in China and that the war captives were "disgusted with the Burma. treatment they receive" and "ripe for revolt", 162 The forced resettlement campaigns in is, to say the least, an exaggeration. Richard­ Northern Thailand during the early Bangkok son's diary includes a brief but moving account period gave rise to significant demographic of a discussion with a Lii-Y ong woman in Pa changes including the ethnic composition and Sang, a sister of "the rightfull Tsobwa of Mein the regional distribution of the population. By Neuang", in whose house the British diplomat 1840, the principal settlement areas of the Yuan had stayed one night. Richardson was told that principalities had contracted to the core areas in the war captives were allowed "to live as much the south. The concentration of the bulk of the together as possible." As they amounted to 3,000 population near the seats of princely power and people in Pa Sang, the Yuan authorities of surrounding rice-growing area created the Lamphun did not "trust them together." conditions for the accumulation of economic Therefore, "they were distributed in small resources that were necessary to restore viable numbers about the different villages in this polities in LanNa. The temporary depopulation principality which the Birmans had then only of extensive, but now peripheral, settlement areas

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87 .I & 2 ( 1999) 70 Volker Grabowsky in the north, particulary in the Kok-Ing basin, The latter movement was, at least partially, a was accepted. reaction to the challenges by European colonial After a period of political, social and powers Siam was facing during the last quarter demographic consolidaton, Bangkok and the of the 19th century. The old "Southeast Asian" Yuan rulers encouraged an influx of settlers idea of overlapping border zones, based on the back to the depopulated areas of the north. This primacy of manpower, was abandoned in favour remigration gained momentum in the 1840s of the "European" concept of a territorial state when Chiang Khong (1841/42), Chiang Rai, with clearly defined border lines. 168 However, Ngao and Phayao (1843/44) were refounded. A this would have to be the starting point of a second wave started in c. 1870 and led to the separate study focussing on the population repopulation of deserted towns like Fang, Chiang history of LanNa during the second half of the Dao, Mae Sariang, and, finally, Chiang Saen. 19th and the first quarter of the 20th centuries.

Abbreviations Central Thailand by the mid 19th century. In Prachinburi, for instance, the Lao still outnumbered C.S. Cii!asakaraja ("Little Era"= Christian the Siamese at the tum of the century. Compare Era minus 638) Bangon 1986:99. CH Cotmaihet 3 Chalong 1986:149. CHLN Cotmaihet Ian na 4 Snit and Breazeale 1988:21. CMC Chiang Mai Chronicle s For details of Miiang Phan see Ho cotmaihet HP Hans Penth version haengchat, "ll!.l~lut.i1D~uml'iTI;jU ~n 112 (pp. 10-12 and JSC Jengtung State Chronicle 21-22), R.5 l-1.58/187. KMCM Khlong riiang mangthara rop chiang 6 Ho samut haengchat, 'ii~'VIl-ll!.JL'VI"lflrm

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87 .I & 2 ( 1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 71

11 Udom (TPCM-U 1995) uses a method developed 25 TPCM-SN:82-83; TPCM-U:lOl-102; see also PY by the German classical philologist Paul Maas for , Prachakitkoracak 1973:408-411. the archetype, i.e. a text closest to the first perhaps 26 Quoted from Lieberman 1984. lost-original manuscript by examining all available 27 3,000 inhabitants of Chiang Mai were obviously surviving manuscripts called "witnesses" of the deported and resettled in the Shan State ofMok Mai. original. Udom obviously believes that there exists The miiang ofMok Mai was at that time depopulated. just one original text of the Chiang Mai Chronicle The ruler of Ava decided to reestablish it as a Burmese from which all present-day versions derive. The Wat vassal state. See Ho samut haengchat, 'il\11'11:1-ll~b,.,

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87 .I & 2 ( 1999) 72 Volker Grabowsky of Lamphun was still situated along the Ping River. Saen by forces other than Kawila's. But the Siamese At some time after 1558, the Ping changed its course, royal chronicles do report the events in detail. See probably as a result of a great flood. Thereafter, the PPRJ, Thiphakorawong 1988:48; compare Darnrong new course of the Ping was c. 5 km to the east. 1977:628-629. The Siamese sources are largely based 44 TPCM-SN:106; TPCM-U:129; TSHR-SR/:35; on the testimony of the captured Burmese general CMC-N, Notton 1932:226. who confessed: "I had spent a year with 10,000 men 45 See TPCM-SN:lOO; TPCM-U:122; TSHR-SR/:28; [?],cultivating the paddy fields at Cheingsen [Chiang CMC-N, Notton 1932:217. Saen] when Pya (governor) Pre [Phrae] and Phya 46 Kawila needed royal consent to the recall of the Yong marched a Siamese force [Yuan force] against Yuan refugees who had settled in Ban Porn near us. I slipped out of the town and surrendered to Phya Ayutthaya ("Krung Kao"). See TSHR-SR/:28; TPCM­ Chiengrai, who sent me to the Siamese forces [Yuan SN:lOO; CMC-N, Notton 1932:215-216; PY, forces) at Lakon [Lampang]. The governor of Lakon Prachakitkoracak 1973:455. sent me on to Ayuthia [Bangkok] where I have been 47 Tak was ruled by Chiang Mai until the reign of maintained until now." Quoted from Phraison Salarak, Rama III, when it was handed back to Siam. Tak Phra and Thien Subindu (U Aung Thien) 1957: 53. (Rahaeng) was until the end of the 19th century was the main source for the Thai version of the Moo­ predominantly inhabited by Yuan. Holt S. Hallett Burmese Chronicles [Phongsawadan mon phama, writes: "The province ofRahaeng is mainly occupied vm111m~;.~1lqJ~a.h). by descendents of the Zimme Shans [Yuan], owing 54 TSHR-SR/:29; TPCM-SN:10!; CMC-U:124; to its having formerly been part of the kingdom of CMC-N, Notton 1932:218; CMC-HP, Wyatt and Zimme. Even in the the city, more than half the Aroonrut 1995:155-156. people are Zimme Shans and Peguans [Mon]." Lilian 55 PPRJ, Thiphakorawong 1988:48-49. Curtis 1903:58 makes a similar observation: "The 56 PY, Prachakitkoracak 1973:458. city is made up of a native huts, crowded with people. 57 TPCM-SN:103; TPCM-U:!26; TSHR-SR/:32; The latter form a most interesting study, for the CMC-HP, Wyatt and Aroonrut 1995:158. As Wyatt population here is about half and half Siamese and and Aroonrut (ibid., fn. 31) observe, "the Ban Satoi Lao." Compare also Penth 1973. people founded a new village with the same name 48

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87 .I & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 73

64 The Northern Thai chronicles call the ruler of e.g., TPCM-U:l52; compare also Penth 1993:128. Miiang Sat "Racha [King] Com Hong" (~1'1f1

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 74 Volker Grabowsky

98 JSC, Saimoeng Mangrai 1981:259. 110 Renard 1980:132. 99 TMY, Thawi 1984:63 (original f• 83). Ill The province (cangwat, ~~\!11\11) of Chiang Mai 10o TMY, Thawi 1984:63-64 (original: f• 84-85). comprises an area of22,800 km2. 1o1 See JSC, Saimoeng Mangrai 1981:259. The Khiin 112 Wyatt 1984:7 describes the ambiguous meaning tradition says: "Sao Kawng Tai was the 33rd chief of miiang as follows: "Miiang is a term that defies [of Chiang Tung] in 1802, when the Siamese invaded translation, for it denotes as much personal as spatial that State. The invaders stormed through the 15th relationship .... We can imagine that such miiang century wall constructed by Alaungpaya, and sacked originally arose out of a set of political, economic, the city. The country was laid waste. Families and social interrelationships. Under dangerous including that of the chiefs were carried away and circumstances ... Tai villages banded together for forced to settle at Cheinshen [Chiang Saen] in mutual defence under the leadership of the most Northern Siam. Of the chiefs family thus carried powerful village or family, whose resources might away, Maha Khanan, younger brother of the chief, enable it to arm and supply troops. In return for such was the only one to escape. One version says that he protection, participating villages rendered labor made good his escape by wearing a monk's robe. service to their chao or paid them quantities of local The chief Sao Kawng Tai had died in 1804 and the produce or handicrafts." commander of the town garrison sent by Bodawpaya I 13 It can be seen, for instance, in numerous village refused to accomodate Maha Khanan: The country and street names in West Germany which are of was in utter chaos, Maha Khanan went north to Silesian or Pomeranian origin. If geography allows, Mongyang area and made a plan to regain his state. immigrants/ refugees tend to build their new He wiped out a force sent to capture him and settlements in a geographical and ecological maintained himself gallantly amid[s ]t vicissitudes for environment similar to that of their original home. some years. In 1813, he was called to the capital Sometimes even the spatial relationship of one locality [Ava]. He went boldly and presented his justification to another is preserved. In the former autonomous in fighting his right. King Bodawpaya heard him and German Volga Republic, dissolved by Stalin in 1941, in consideration of his courage, ability and the one finds the small towns of Basel and Schaffhausen correctness in the line of succession, recognized him situated a short distance from each other on the right as chief of Keng Tung." Quoted from The Working bank of the Volga. If we substitute the Rhine for the People's Daily (Rangoon), 7 February 1974. Volga, we get a duplicate of northern Switzerland, 1o2 Scott 1901:408. the native country of these German settlers. See map 103 Nithi 1991:270. in Siiddeutsche Zeitung (Munich), 11112 July 1992, 104 JSC, Saimoeng Mangrai 1981:254-256. p. 7. 105 Phama rop thai 1989:7-9. 114 For details see Sanguan 1972:166; see also Kraisri 106 Koenig 1990:34. 1978:55. 107 Keyes 1970:232 concludes:" ... it is reasonable 115 Kraisri 1983/84:31. to assume that the Burmese-Yuan wars were 116 Sangworayanprayut 1990; interview with responsible for the end of the production of the Phrakhru Wicitpanyakon (Wat Ban Tong, Lamphun), manuscripts in the area. It would seem probable that 8 March 1992. some of the Yuan subjects living along the Salween 117 The population of Pa Sang had been transferred would have evacuated their villages when they to Chiang Mai in 1776. The spread of Lii-Yong realized they were on the route of the Burmese armies. settlements in Pa Sang markedly increased after 1820. Once could well conjecture, further, that villagers in The wooden inscription of Wat Chang K.hao Noi the area, having decided to escape from the threat Niia, dated 1828, is a hint of that process. See Sawaeng posed by the Burmese attacks, had collected all of 1991. their religious texts and stored them in the cave 118 See Sangworayanprayut 1990. pending their return." 119 Interview with Phrakhru Wicitpanyakon (Wat Ban 108 Concerning the relations between Chiang Mai Tong, Lamphun), 8 March 1992. and its Lii and Khiin vassal states (until 1558) see 12o According to Cao Vimalatissa, abbot ofWat Phra Saraswadee 1996:185-197; Usani 1988. Phutthabat Tak Pha, who claims that Lii-Y ong make 109 TPCM-SN: 115; TSHR-SRI:48; see also PY, up even 95% of the population in their stronghold Pa Prachakitkoracak 1973:472. Sang. Interview, 17 April 1992.

Journal of the Siam Society 87.1 & 2 ( 1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 75

121 In 1814, Rama II ordered the restoration of inhabitants from Ban Wualai and Ban Tong Kai in Lamphun as a principality formally independent of Hang Dong district are descendants of war captives Chiang Mai and Lampang. Kawila 's younger brother, from Miiang Ngualai and Miiang Tong Kai in the Luang Kham Fan, was appointed ruler of Lamphun. Shan States (dependencies of Chiang Tung). They See Damrong 1990:99. TPCM-U: 143 reports that the were most probably ethnic Khiin. re-establishment ofLamphun took place on Thursday, 135 Kritsana 1988:18. 27 March 1806. According to TPCM-U, "five­ 136 CMC-HP, Wyatt and Aroonrut 1995:148. hundred" (i.e., in the language of the chronicle, a 137 There are still a large number of villages of Lua sufficiently large number of) people from Lampang origin in the districts of San Pa Tong and Com Thong. and Chiang Mai each were settled inside the city Te Yuan people of Mae Caem speak with a Lua walls. Perhaps the formal appointment of Lamphun accent and wear their pha sin with a Lua fold. See as a self-governing polity by Bangkok occurred Kritsana 1988. As to the role of the Lua in Northern several years later. That may explain the gap of II Thai society see Chonthira 1987. years that exists between the Siamese and the Northern 138 'ii~VI~l!.JLVI")GlTuul •.. , f• 28/3-5, in: Saraswadee Thai accounts. 1993:26. Other sources give the numbers of Mon 122 Li (~)means "to hide" (from perils). The location refugees as high as 5,000 (e.g., TPCM-SN:I25). ofLi on the periphery ofLamphun, some distance to Concerning the mass exodus ofMon from Burma see the main invasion routes, would explain why the Damrong 1990: I 06-107. More than 40,000 Mon fled Yuan population of Li had probably not left their to Siam, where most of them were resettled in areas villages like people in other areas. around Bangkok. The Mon village Nong Du in Pa 123 See Srisakara 1984:128. Sang district (Lamphun) was also founded in c. 1815 124 Prachan 1987:10-11. or later, and not, as the present villagers-SO% still 125 Ho samut haengchat, 'ii~VI~l!.JLVI")-l'-Ifm~~ I, 'il . .-t. 1164, speaking Mon-claim, by descendants of the L~'ll~ I. Many people from Miiang Pu and Miiang Sat Hariphunchai (pre-13th century) Mon. Interview with founded villages not far from Lampang city, such as Phrakhru Wichansatsanakhun, Wat Nong Du, 14 Ban Wat Miiang Sat. See Srisakara 1984:128. March 1992. 126 Sommai 1975b and Sanan 1996. 139 Natural increase= birth-rate minus death-rate. 127 Vatikiotis 1984. 140 According to the census of 1919/20, more than 128 Sommai 1975b. 1,342,000 persons lived in Monthon Phayap. For 129 Sanan 1996. Dr M.R. Rujaya Abhakorn planned details see le May 1986:85. to republish the text based on Sanan's new 141 Blundell 1836:602. transliteration but it never happened. On several 142 Richardson's Journal: 143 [17.2.1835]. occasions over the past years I searched for the 143 McLeod 1837:991. original manuscript in order to check both trans­ 144 Penth 1970: 161. literations. However, investigatons both at Wat Chedi 145 See Ngan khimg kao chao ban puang 1993. Luang and at Dr M.R. Rujaya's office remained 146 To calculate the proportion of non-Yuan ethnic unsuccessful. It seems now that this valuable groups in Chiang Mai, I took the number of manuscript has disappeared which is highly monasteries affiliated to different ethnic nikai as an regrettable as a complete verification of the text may indicator. First, I assumed that the size of each no longer possible. community was about the same. That is, of course, a 130 The dating probably follows the Northern Thai simplification, as the number of monks and novices (Yuan) style calendar which is two months in advance supported by each monastery varied in size. Therefore, over the Siamese calendar. According to the Siamese I used the number of all ordained persons in religious style calendar, the date would be I March 1898. service (banphachit, 1JTI"I'l~'11), i.e. monks and novices, 131 For detai Is concerning the (late 19th century) as a better indicator by assuming that the population population of Chiang Dao, Fang and Phrao see Hallett of a community and the number of religious people 1988:334-352. supported by that community would be proportional 132 Vatikiotis 1984:54-55 [Explanations are added (table 1). However, it can be argued that monks were in brackets]. not necessarily local people, but novices were. 133 McLeod's Journal:36 [23.1.1837]. Perhaps, the size of the local population should be 134 Sanguan Chotisukharat 1972: 167 reports that the determined only by the number of novices.

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87 .I & 2 ( 1999) 76 Volker Grabowsky

The "List of Monasteries" provides the number authorites feared the French might claim control over of monks for two successive years, i.e. 1896/97 and Lao "subjects" resettled in central and northeastern 1897/98. Concerning the number of novices, figures Thailand as well. "The very existence of captive are given only for 1897/98 and not for the previous labour villages became an acute embarrassment. It year. The figures indicate an overall increase of monks was imperative that their identity be officially of roughly 10% within a period of twelve months. At suppressed and their existence denied. An obvious the village level the fluctuations were even greater first step was the abandonment of the 'captive labour' because local (economic) conditions could vary caste designation within the Thai legal system. It considerably from one year to another. Moreover, mattered little that the villages themselves remained one may also assume differences in the monastic intact and identifiable. It was important only that discipline of various nikai influencing the ratio of they became 'Thai' villages and that all traces of banphachit to laypersons. However, I don't believe alien distinction be swept away. A second step was that these differences were significant. the formulation of a Thai nationality law in order to 147 HoltS. Hallett wrote in 1890: "In Bangkok the establish a legal definition for Thai citizens. The old inhabitants of the different quarters have gradually habit of indicating ethnic origins in official papers become amalgamated; but not far from the capital was dropped." Quoted from Snit and Breazeale the colonies of former captives of war still retain 1988:128. their language and customs, and keep little intercourse 153 For a useful and readable discussion of political with their conquerors. In the northern country [Lan relations between Chiang Mai and Chiang Tung in Na] the separation is as complete, and the town of the 19th century see Ratanaporn 1988. Chiengmai (Zimme), for instance, is divided into 154 The Piili-derived names of the four guardian spirits numerous quarters, inhabited exclusively by people are surana, pitthiya, lakkhana, thewada. The of a different race; and many of the villages in the monastery founded by the Lii-Yong in 1805/06 was provinces are also colonies of refugees or captives." Wat Hua Nguang. Later in the 19th century the people Hallett 1988:352. left the old monastery and built Wat Hua Khua 200m 148 From the campaigns in 1798, 1802 and 1838/39. distant. The small hall containing the guardian spirits 149 Personal communication with Aroonrut had not been moved. It is situated just outside the Wichienkeeo (22 April 1993 ). Furthermore, war compound of the new monastery. The elephant stone captives from Miiang Sat were resettled in Ban Nam figures are still in good physical condition. The local Ton and Ban Saen Kantha (San Pa Tong district) population, however, no longer seems to take notice where Anan (1984:44--45) made extensive field­ of the spirit hall. studies. 155 tl"'1~1~mLao river Phrakhru Wicitpanyakon (Wat Ban Tong, Lamphun), basin (until reaching Pak Pong, south of Chiang Rai, 8 March 1992. called "a border village of Siam"). However, the 157 Sangworayanprayut 1990:2. areas north of Chiang Rai seemed to have been 158 For details see Sanguan 1972:166-167. deserted. See McLeod's Journa1:44-49. 159 Richardson's Journal:58 [1.4.1834]. 151 Northern Thai as well as Burmese sources (from 160 E.A. Blundell, Commissioner in Tenasserim the 18th and early 19th centuries) often speak about Province, admonished his assistant "to make inquiries the "57 miiang ofLan Na", including Chiang Tung, on the present state of cattle trade, and ascertain as Miiang Y ong, Miiang Sat and even Chiang Rung in far as practicable the probable continuance of Sipsong Panna. supplies", but to "cautiously avoid all political subjects 152 The discrimination against Lao war captives in your conversation with the chiefs, and if introduced ended after the French established a Lao protectorate by them, you will state at once that your object is on the east bank of the Mekong in 1893. The Siamese solely that of extending trade, and that you are not

Journal of the Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 77

authorized in any way whatever to discuss other Burmese Generals]. subjects with them." Quoted from McLeod's "J\ii'VI:.IlUL'VI'IJ~'llnll'l~ 4, "J.~. 1228, L

166 Pritsana 1973:169-176. 1.4 Ho cotmaihet haengchat, Vl!l"'ili'I'VImm'VI'IJLLvi~'lilqj 167 Good summaries of the Chiang Tung wars are [National Archives]: provided by Melchers 1986. Saraswadee 1996:313- m::m1~:.IVI1\i!L'r1U [Ministry of the Interior], Ll'l'll~ 58/187 327; Ratanaporn 1988:311-319. (R.S/:.~.581187): ~ml"UL51~-umii-n:1-u~n 112 [Report 168 This change of concept is extensively discussed on Miiang Lamphun, A.D. 1893/94]. by Thongchai 1994. 1.5 Public Record Office (London/Kew) References Gould, E.B., "Letter to Knox, 4.8.1876", Foreign Office, Vol. 69 #64 [F.O. 69/64]. 1. Archives 1.6 Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University, 1.1 British Library, India Office & Oriental flmii-u'l~u#~fl:.~ :.I'VIl'i'r1m~uL:Jlu~L'VIa.J Collections: ~-uL511l~L:Jlm~m:au~LLfl"U [The Chronicle of Chiang Rai "A Journal kept by Captain W.C. McLeod, Assistant and Chiang Saen], 'l\i!La-Jn~nmlfl ("'il. Lm"'i), SRI 81 to the Commissioner in the Tenasserim 088 05 082-083 (in Northern Thai). Provinces, during his Mission from Moulmein l.J~::'Jqjmfl'11~li"1-um [The History ofLan Na], 'l\il1.hfl1, (!l. to the Frontiers of China" [McLeod's Journal]. fll~ii, "l. L:Jlu~'lVia.J), SRI 80 047 05 028-028 (in In: Parliamentary Papers, Vol. 46 (1868/69). Northern Thai). "E.A. Blundell, Esq., Commissioner in the Tenasserim ~"U1~m:.~VIlm::#'11"ll1~VIl'I1U~~::mfliJ"U'11~'liM"U:.I1 LLl'I~"U'l~mL~l Provinces, to Lieutenant W.C. McLeod, '1<.1Ufl'I<.Lfl1U ~1'lifl:.IU'11qjL-ud:i!l~i:I1LLl'IL5:i1l~li11<. [The Assistant to the Commissioner; dated the 25th Chronicle of Rulers Since the Reign of Phaya of November 1836." In: Parliamentary Papers, Samantalat and the Chronicle of the Nobles Vol. 46 (1868/69). who Ruled in Miiang Pua and Miiang Nan]. 'l\il ~~::L'I<.'11~ (1l. li:it~~, "'il. li11<.), SRI 82.107.05.043-043 1.2 British Library, Western Manuscript Department (in Northern Thai). (British Museum): Richardson, David, "Journal of Missions to the Shan 2. Published Sources and References States, Siam and Ava, 1829-1835" [Richard­ son's Journal], Manuscript# 30.354. Anan Ganjanapan 1984. "The Partial Commer­ cialization of Rice Production in Northern 1.3 Ho samut haengchat, Vl1lfl:lj\iiLLvi~'ll1qj [National Thailand ( 1900-1981 ). " PhD thesis, Cornell Library]: University. , n1~L'r1~'1.

Journal of the Siam Society 87 .I & 2 ( 1999) 78 Volker Grabowsky

Blundell, E.A. 1836. "An Account of Some of the Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, Petty States Lying North of the Tenasserim The University of Michigan. Provinces; Drawn up from the Journals and Kraisri Nimmanhaeminda 1mrn ii.l.Jl.J1ULV!SluVi 1965. Reports ofD. Richardson." Journal ofthe Royal "Put Vegetables into Baskets, and People into Asiatic Society of Bengal, Nov., pp. 688-707; Towns." In: Ethnographic Notes on Northern Oct., pp. 601-625. Thailand, eds. Lucien M. Hanks et. a!., pp. 6-9. Chalong Suntharawanit >\!lm ~U'II"il11rn'lf~ 1986. ''i!l.JY!uli Ithaca N.Y.: Cornell University (Data Paper m~L'II!.l-!l11b~~lh~"l~mf11ll4 riEJufli-.1'1\~m~~~ 20" No. 58, Southeast Asia Program). [The Thai-Lao Historical Relationship Before 1978. "Liiu~n'lrl-ii1Lnu·ihhhi1EJ~" [Put the 20th Century A.D.]. 'lu: ft!lu"l\uu~ 1, 'llil1 142-150. Towns]. 'tu: li"1uu1L'Yl!.lfl~ [LanNa Studies], u-s~f!El~ Chomrom ian na khadi chiang mai 'l!l.J-sl.Jli"1uU1fl~fln'lf1 ii.l.Jl.J1UbV15luVi LL!l~m~ffn~ u"il~1\uu"l\UlJ~ 1 , the Siam Society, Vol. 16, Pt. 2, pp. 1-48. VIU1 266-284. Keyes, Charles F. 1970. "New Evidence on Northern Notton, M. Camille 1932. Annales du Siam, life Thai Frontier History." In: In Memoriam Phya volume: Chronique de Chiang Mai. Paris: Anuman Rajadhon, eds. Tej Bunnag and Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Michael Smithies, pp. 221-250. Bangkok: The Penth, Hans ifu~ ~~uli 1970. "'il1~nw-s~-sl.Jtn!ll'ilEll.J'IIEJi' Siam Society. [Com Thong Inscription]. 'lu: il'~fll.JLL!l~"l

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 79

____ 1973. "A Note on Old Tak." Journal of ratchakan thi 1 ·L4D~m~Ji~L~1U'l~L\'l~'l1'1fn'l~ the Siam Society, Vol. 61, Pt. 1, pp. 183-186. ~iiiulnllu\'l~'lfm~~ I [On the Appointments ~f ---- 1974. "Der Wiederaufbau des LanNa Vassal State Rulers, Bangok Era, The First Thai nach den Birmanenkriegen." Nachrichten Reign] 1971. n1~L\'1W'1. der Akademie der Wissenschqften in Goettingen, Sanan Tharnmathi <1i1u !rl'l;.Jn (translit.) 1996. "'ll!l~£1 Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Vol. 1974, 'ili1LL~~ii.mu

n1~L\'1W'1: ')1<1111. 1990. ''L4D~'llD~~uuD~ h%~VI'ili1a1'Y,jt<" [History of Prachakitkoracak, Phraya 'l'l'l~mii•m'i%m 71973 [ 1907]. the Lamphun Province]. LDn~nDu m'lL

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 80 Volker Grabowsky

Thailand and Laos. New Haven: Yale Thawi Sawangpanyangkun YJ'i ~iru 700 u [The Chiang Crossroads, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 63-70 .. Mai Chronicle, 700th anniversary of Chiang (trans!. and ed.) 1994. The Nan Mai edition] 1995. L:a!.J~LV1a.i:~\.b~1@1J\.b1l~~a.~ L:a!.J~LVIa.i, Chronicle. Ithaca, N.Y.: Southeast Asia !lmu\.b~l'lfil!JL:amLVIa.i. Program, Cornell University. Tamnan sipha ratchawong llil\.bl\.bilu~m'lf1~fl [The Wyatt, David K. and Aroonrut Wichienkeeo (trans!. Chronicle ofthe 15 Dynasties] 1989. L1'i3.1 3, ~n~ and ed.) 1995. The Chiang Mai Chronicle. 6-7, mflm1TI<111hlifu~ 35/1989. L:a!.J~LVIa.i: <~mir... 'i~!.J Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. fl~f13.1 3-IVIl'iYJm!lm:amLVIa.i.

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 81

Map 1: LanNa and neighbouring regions 102° ·:.:· Chiang Run~ .... CHINA\ ...l'jA. La ...... BURMA '•' ·-., • I eM. Sing M. Nai•

/··...... ,,.. · ·· ...... ····-· . Chiang Dao ,; . . ~~e Hong Son .

. ... ' . •....

© Grabowsky 98° approximate scale

KM 0 50 100 200 300 500

Journal of the Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 82 Volker Grabowsky

Map 2: Ethnic groups in Chiang Mai City

@ Grabowaky 0

0 1 km D 0 0

0

0

0

Natives 0 Yuan: Nikai Chiang Mai (67) \l LU: Nikai Len ( 1)

Foreign groups D. KhUn: Nikoi KhUn {5) Nikoi Nguoloi (1) 0 Yuan: Nikoi Chiang Seen (6) D Toi Yai: Nikoi Ngiao (3) Nikai Non (3) Nikai Khong (2) Nikai Toi (3) 0 Mon: Nikai Mon

Map based on data provided by Aroonrut 1996:112-115.

Journal of the Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 83

Map 3: Ethnic groups in Miiang Chiang Mai (outside the city walls)

Mae Taeng © Grabowsky Phrao : • • ...... + • . . ... ·· ...... ·...... DOl Saket .:'. . e :.:x X •!Je •x.. •.e • • • Z lampaf19 :Mae Rim e·t:~~~ ~•. ·· · ·• ...... cs·-Y.~~si'r~.:!:: Samoeng :······. . ,~ .. ·· . . • •.' Muang ·~·••• ~··.6.•. • • u.."• " . .: ;'•• • ··•·~N ,._,:.•·~ • n Kamphaeng .. .. ••.•••...... ~ ··~~ .v ••• ·· · ··.. . ·· •••• ···e • ar i • \7 : .. '·· •• ··H~nil'P.oig:~:-i: :•®.®l • • • e.... X • e • • • X e • e .: •••••-••..... X : e e • • SanPaTong•. .. 'x: ...... ••• 0 + .····· . . .··• .·.... ··.. . .. Lamphun . • Yuan: Nikai Chiang Mai {206) :Com Thong x Lua: Nikai lua (7) • 0 Y-uan: Nikai C-hiang Saen (1} CS Nikai Nan {1) :N ...... Nikai Phrae (1) P .. . \7LO: Nikai Yong (6)

Hot Nikai luang {2) Ntkaii.-uat-(2} .6. Khun: Nikai Khun (9) (rough distribution) 0Tai Yai:Nikai Mae Pa (2)

@ Mon: Nikai Mon (2)

Map drawn from an outline made by Aroonrut in July 1993.

Journal of the Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) 84 Volker Grabowsky

Appendix

List of "Nikai" in Chiang Mai Ethnic Groups

Nikai Chiang Mai Yuan (in Chiang Mai) Nikai Chiang Saen Yuan (from Chiang Saen) Nikai Nan Yuan (from Nan) Nikai Phrae Yuan (from Phrae) Nikai Len Lii (from Len) Nikai Yong Lii (from Y ong) Nikai Luang Lii (from Luang) Nikai Luai Lii (from Luai) Nikai Ngualai Khiin (from Ngualai/Wualai) Nikai Khiin Khiin (from Chiang Tung) Nikai Ngiao Tai Yai Nikai Khong Tai Yai (from the Salween) Nikai Mae Pa Tai Yai (from Pa river) Nikai Tai Tai Yai Nikai Man Burmese Nikai Mon Mon Nikai Lua Lua

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999) Forced Resettlement Campaigns in Northern Thailand During the Early Bangkok Period 85

Table 1: Number of Monks and Novices in Miiang Chiang Mai in C.S. 1259 (A.D.1897/98)

Name of nikai Inside the city Outside the city Total absolute in% absolute in% absolute in% Chiang Mai 572 64.3 2637 80.9 3209 77.3 Chiang Saen 63 7.1 11 0.3 74 1.8 Nan 38 4.3 4 0.1 42 1.0 Phrae 9 0.3 9 0.2

Len 5 0.6 5 0.1 Yong 93 2.9 93 2.2 Luang 67 2.1 67 1.6 Luai 38 1.2 38 0.9

Ngualai 13 1.5 13 0.3 Khiin 52 5.9 196 6.0 248 6.0

Ngiao 35+ 3.9+ 35+ 0.8+ Khong 19 2.1 19 0.5 MaePa 47 1.4 47 1.1 Tai 24 2.7 24 0.6

Man 17 1.9 13 0.4 30 0.7

Mon 36 4.0 32 1.0 68 1.6

Lua 65+ 2.0+ 65+ 1.6+

Unknown 16 .u 47 1A 63 u

Total 890 100.0 3259 100.0 4149 100.0

(Note: Table adaptated from Sommai 1975b and Sanan 1996.)

+) Numbers incomplete

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87 .I & 2 ( 1999) 86 Volker Grabowsky

Table 2: Resettlement of War Captives from the Shan states, Sipsong Panna and other Areas to LanNa (1780-1840)

Year of Area of target Area of resettlement Number of Source campaign war captives 1780 Chiang Saen Chiang Mai, 1,700-1,800 CHLN Lam pang 1783 Kayah State ChiangMai < 1,000 * TPCM 1784 M. Cuat Chiang Mai, 1,000-2,000* TPCM Lam pang 1788- Salween region ChiangMai, 2,000-4,000 * TPCM 1791 (Lampang) 1790 M. Yong Nan 2,500-3,500 PMN (505 families) 1791 Chiang Khong Nan 3,000-4,000 PMN (585 families) 1798 M. Sat Chiang Mai 1,000-2,000* TPCM 1802 M. Sat, M. Pu, M. Pan, Chiang Mai, > 6,000 NL- Chiang Tung Lampang CHR1 111164 1804 Chiang Saen Chiang Mai, Nan, c. 15,000 PPR1 Lam pang 1805 M. Y ong, Chiang Tung, Lamphun, Lampang 10,000-20,000 PPR1 Sipsong Panna ChiangMai 1807/08 Sipsong Panna Lampang, Chiang Mai ? CHLN 1809/10 M.Yong, Chiang Tung Chiang Mai, 2,000-4,000 * TPCM Lamp hun 1812 Chiang Khaeng, Nan 6,000 PMN M. La, M. Phong 1823 Salween/Tenasserim Chiang Mai ? PLN region 1827/28 Wiang Can Nan 600 PMN 1838/39 M. Sat Chiang Mai 1,800-1,900 PCM- LL

*) rough estimate

Journal ofthe Siam Society 87.1 & 2 (1999)