State, Community, and Ethnicity in Early Modern Thailand, 1351-1767 by John Smith A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (History) in the University of Michigan 2019 Doctoral Committee: Professor Victor B. Lieberman, Chair Associate Professor Christian de Pee Professor Nancy K. Florida Professor Hitomi Tonomura Dr. John K. Whitmore John Smith [email protected] ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3840-4807 © John Smith 2019 DEDICATION For Sirinya Siriyanun-Smith ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to start by thanking the two people who contributed the most to this dissertation. The first of these is my committee chair, Professor Victor Lieberman. He has been a joy to work with for the past six years, and his constant support, hard-hitting questions, and unwavering belief in my ability to complete this work have inspired me to constantly improve my research and writing. The second is my wife and research partner, Dr. Sirinya Siriyanun of Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University. She has read and listened to countless chapter drafts, accompanied me to remote temples, museums, and provincial archives throughout central Thailand, helped me locate obscure and hard-to-find manuscripts, and has played a critical role in my growing command of Thai as a research language. This is not even to mention the extensive moral support and encouragement that she provided me during the process of writing the dissertation. Next, I would like to thank the members of my committee. Professor Nancy Florida and Dr. John Whitmore have provided valuable comparative insight into other areas of Southeast Asian history and have helped me better situate my work within the broader tradition of Southeast Asian historiography. Professor Hitomi Tonomura and Associate Professor Christian de Pee, as experts from outside the field of Southeast Asia, have helped me improve my organization and better communicate my theoretical concepts and conclusions. I also would like to thank my parents, Otto and Kristin Smith, as well as my parents-in- law, Tkatus Siriluxnanon and Matinee Siriyanun, my sister, Anna Bosnick, and my brother-in- law, Eli Bosnick. My family have provided a thousand varieties of moral and material support for the writing of my dissertation, including but not limited to shipments of food, assistance in moving, financial assistance particularly during summers, and invitations to holiday dinners when I was facing cold Ann Arbor winters on my own. It is difficult if not impossible to complete such a major work without an extensive support network, and my family has formed the core of my support network. iii I would next like to thank two scholars whom I have corresponded with during the writing of my dissertation. The first is Assistant Professor Alan Strathern of the University of Oxford, with whom I engaged in a brief but productive correspondence early in my writing process. The second is Assistant Professor Wallop Piriyawatthana of Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, who has helped me obtain some of my most important sources and reference texts. I would like to thank my extended support network, including but not limited to Oren Ashkenazi, Graham Swanson, Johnathan Preshaw, Erin Karcher, and other old friends whose constant interest in my work has reminded me that I am writing something that people will want to read. Finally and perhaps most importantly, I would like to thank the entirety of the History department at the University of Michigan, including the staff, the faculty, and my fellow graduate students. This is a truly special place, and one in which I have been encouraged to pursue and embrace my passion for history, and to constantly push the boundaries of my comfort zone. Without the world-class training and the intellectually rarified environment of the Michigan history department, this dissertation would not exist. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS viii LIST OF APPENDICES ix ABSTRACT x CHAPTERS 1. Introduction: The Origins of Thai Ethnicity 1 1.1 Justifying an Ethnic Analysis 1 1.2 State and Ethnicity 10 1.3 Community 24 1.4 Chapter Outline 29 1.5 Conclusions 32 2. The Origins of the Siamese Thai 34 2.1 Before Ayutthaya: Examining “Siam” 35 2.2 The City-State Era 41 2.3 Ethnicity in the City-State Era 62 2.4 Cultural Boundaries in the North 71 2.5 Conclusion – State, Community, and Ethnicity in the City-State Era 83 v 3. Martial Organization and Ethnic Consolidation 84 3.1 Martial Organization 85 3.2 Commerce and Communal Change 109 3.3 Ethnic Violence and the State 123 3.4 Conclusion – State, Community, and Ethnicity in the Period of Ethnic 146 Consolidation 4. Buddhist Revival and Cultural Crisis 147 4.1 Commerce and Centralization 148 4.2 Central and Peripheral Ethnic Communities 168 4.3 The Cultural Crisis 196 4.4 Conclusion – State, Community, and Ethnicity in the Period of Buddhist 213 Consolidation 5. Cultural Reform and Ethnic Realignment 215 5.1 Balancing the Court 216 5.2 Cultural Reform 227 5.3 Ethnicity and Community in Ayutthaya’s Last Golden Age 251 5.4 Collapse and Restoration 276 5.5 Conclusion – Ethnicity in the Last Century of Ayutthayan History 285 6. Conclusions: State, Community, and Ethnicity 286 APPENDICES 290 BIBLIOGRAPHY 305 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Events from 1369 to 1373 293 Table 2: Events from 1388 to 1409 294 Table 3: Events from 1412 to 1453 297 Table 4: Important Kings of Ayutthaya 303 vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration 1. A pregnant Thai woman stretches her legs, Wat Khongkharam, 241 Ratchaburi. Illustration 2. Chinese merchant and boat, Wat Khongkharam, Ratchaburi. 242 Illustration 3. Brahman and Thai Worshippers, Wat Khongkharam, Ratchaburi. 243 Illustration 4. Soldiers abduct palace women, Wat Khongkharam, Ratchaburi. 244 Illustration 5. Armored Soldiers, Wat Ko Kaeo Suttharam, Phetchaburi. 245 Illustration 6. Armored Soldiers, Wat Ko Kaeo Suttharam, Phetchaburi. 246 Illustration 7. A foreigner’s mansion, Wat Khongkharam, Ratchaburi. 247 Illustration 8. Foreigners in battle, Wat Khongkharam, Ratchaburi. 248 Illustration 9. Muslim and European soldiers, Wat Khongkharam, Ratchaburi. 249 Illustration 10. Demonic foreigners, Wat Khongkharam, Ratchaburi. 250 Illustration 11. Angelic foreigners, Wat Khongkharam, Ratchaburi. 250 viii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: A Chronology of the City-State Era 291 Appendix B: Glossary of Frequently Used Terms 298 Appendix C: Important Kings of Ayutthaya 303 ix ABSTRACT Ayutthaya (1351-1767) stands apart from other Tai-speaking kingdoms in its longevity, its administrative complexity, and its cosmopolitanism. It is also historically significant as a direct predecessor of the modern Thai nation-state. The cultural and political history of Ayutthaya holds the potential to not only illustrate the nature of Ayutthayan society, but to reveal the origins of regional differences and communal identities in Thai society that persist to the present day. An examination of notions of ethnicity shows that the while a form of modern Thai was the language of the Ayutthayan state for all of its history, the concept of Ayutthaya as a Thai state did not emerge until the sixteenth or the seventeenth century. In addition, ethnic diversity and the slow, inter-generational integration of minority communities into the Thai ethnic majority changed the nature of Thai ethnicity. By the mid-eighteenth century, Ayutthaya had become a Thai state, but one in which numerous non-Thai, or formerly non-Thai, ethnic groups were fixtures of the social landscape and played integral roles in the political and economic life of the state. x CHAPTER 1 Introduction: The Origins of Thai Ethnicity While Thai nationalism is largely a twentieth-century phenomenon, the early modern Ayutthaya period (1351-1767) laid the ground on which it was built. Over the course of the Ayutthaya period, the Tai-speaking populations of the Caophraya basin integrated culturally and politically with a diverse group of indigenous and migrant populations.1 At the heart of this integrative process were the Thai ethnic group, who constituted the majority population of Ayutthaya. Between the fourteenth century and the fall of Ayutthaya, the Thai majority defined its boundaries and characteristics through a process of internal consolidation. At the same time, Thai expansion encouraged interaction and integration with non-Thai communities on the periphery. These processes occurred in phases and led to changes in Ayutthayan concepts of ethnicity. While Ayutthaya remained a “Thai state,” by various definitions, throughout its existence, the degree to which the state was associated with Thai ethnicity increased over time. In addition, long-term processes of communal integration and ethnic assimilation changed the definition of Thai ethnicity. As a result, much of what was considered Thai at the end of the Ayutthaya period, and by extension much of what is considered Thai today, was originally foreign in origin. 1.1 Justifying an Ethnic Analysis “Ethnicity” has become nearly as contentious a concept in the study of history as “nation,” as it often carries assumptions of an essentialized, primordial, and inherently political identity. In the fields of pre-modern non-European history, striving as they are to rid themselves of faulty, colonial-era cultural assumptions, “ethnicity,” a European concept used in places to 1 This study will follow standard practice in the field of Thai history and refer to the people of central Thailand as “Thai,” while other speakers of Tai languages will be referred to as “Tai.” 1 justify the colonial division of society, would seem to have no place. Yet most pre-modern studies of Southeast Asia, by necessity, use ethnonyms that carry with them ethnic assumptions. References to Angkor as a “Khmer” empire, to “Tai” migrations, or to “Shan” and “Malay” states all evoke the default, primordialist understanding of ethnicity regardless of the intention of the author.