The research for this article was supported by the American Philosophical Society and the Graduate School, University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1992/93.

¹ See Kasetsiri, Charnvit, “Thai Historiography from Ancient Times to the Modern Period”, Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia, ed. Reid, Anthony and Marr, David (Singapore: Heinemann Education Books, 1979), pp. 156–70Google Scholar, for history and nation, and Winichakul, Thongchai, Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-body of a Nation (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994), chap. 8 for the plot and paradigm of Thai historical discourse.Google Scholar

² For the politic developments of 1973–76, though not their cultural impact, see Morell, David and Samudavanija, Chaianan, Political Conflict in Thailand: Reform, Reaction, Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, 1981).Google Scholar

³ Thamsuk Numnonda et al., “Sathanaphap ngan wichai sakha prawattisat nai prathetthai rawang ph.s. 2503–2535” [The status of research in history in Thailand 1960–1992], a report to the National Research Council, (Bangkok, 1993), pp. 11–13, 18–19, 29, 31–35, 52, 59–60, 79–82. The study considers only “formal” research works undertaken for degrees, those funded by research institutions, and articles in academic journals, and it only looks at works appearing between 1960 and 1992, regarded as the period in which history became a profession.

⁴ Thamsuk et al., [Status of research], p. 80; Suntharawanit, Chalong, “Sathanaphap kansuksa prawattisat: raingan kansamruat buangton” [The state of historical studies: a preliminary report], paper presented at the conference “Thai Studies in the Next Decade” (in Thai, ) (Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, 1990), pp. 4–6.Google Scholar

⁵ Chalong, “[State of historical studies]”, pp. 7–11. Chalong only looks at students' theses between 1970–89 as indicators. Political history remained the most popular but was declining. Intellectual and social history, as he defines them, developed substantially from negligible levels before 1974. Interest in economic history sharply increased between 1975 and 1984, and remained to be strong. The modern Bangkok era since Chulalongkorn was the most popular time period, but attention to other periods increased.

⁶ Kasetsiri, Charnvit, “Sakun prawattisat” [Schools of Thai historical studies], Sinlapa watthanatham 6, 1 (Nov. 1984): 36–44.Google Scholar

⁷ The best account of the Thai Marxist literature in the 1950s is Kasian Tejapira, “Commodifying Marxism: the Formation of Modern Thai Radical Culture, 1927–1958” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1992).

⁸ See Reynolds, Craig, Thai Radical Discourse: The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today (Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program, 1987), chap. 2 for a translation of Jit's book. Reynolds' book is a study of the adoption of Marxism by Thais and of the way Marxist thought became influential in Thai political and historical discourse.Google Scholar

⁹ The annual meeting of the Historical Society has been a forum for this discussion. See, for example, Historical Society, Sathana khong wicha prawattisat nai patchuban [The state of historical studies today] (Bangkok: Thammasat University Press, 1980)Google Scholarfrom the meeting in 1978. In subsequent years, the themes included the varieties of history, the state of economic history, of Southeast Asian history in Thai, of local history, and history and other sciences.

¹⁰ Kasetsiri, Charnvit and Sawatsri, Suchat (eds.), Pratya prawattisat [Philosophy of history] (Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1975)Google Scholar; and by the same editors, Prawattisat lae nak prawattisat thai [History and Thai historians] (Bangkok: Social Science Association of Thailand, 1976).Google Scholar

¹¹ Suwannathat-phian, Kobkua, “Kankhian prawattisat baep chatniyom: phicharana luang wichitwathakan” [The nationalist historiography: considering Luang Wichitwathakan], Warasan Thammasat 6, 1 (Jun.-Sep. 1976): 149–80Google Scholar; and Atcharaphon Kamutphitsamai, “Naeo kankhian prawattisat khong luang wichit wathakan” [Luang Wichitwathakan's approach of history] in [History and Thai Historians], ed. Charnvit and Suchat, pp. 262–90. About this nationalist ideologue see Barmé, Scott, Luang Wichit Wathakan and the Creation of Thai Identity (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993).Google Scholar

¹² For the works of Damrong in English see Breazeale, Kennon, “A Transition in Historical Writing: the Works of Prince Damrong Rachanuphap”, Journal of the Siam Society 59, 2 (Jul. 1971): 25–49.Google Scholar

¹³ Kobkua Suwannathat-phian, “Kankhian prawattisat khong sakun damrong rachanuphap” [The historiography of the Rajanubhap, Damrong school], Aksonsatphichan 2, 6 (Nov. 1974)Google Scholar, reprinted in Charnvit and Suchat, eds. [History and Thai historians]. For Nithi's lecture, see “Kansuksa prawattisat thai: a-dit lae a-nakhot” [Thai historical studies: past and future], Ruam botkhwam prawattisat [Collected articles in history], no. 1 (Bangkok: the Historical Society, 1980): 1–22.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Nithi, [”Thai historical studies”], pp. 12, 17.

¹⁵ The overt response was from Sulak Sivaraksa, a Damrong loyalist but not less critical of Thai history. He defended Damrong at the expense of many other historians of later generations who, he claimed, had tarnished the Prince's reputation. There was no “Damrong school”, he contended. The spoilers were in fact a “Wichitwathakan school”. See Sivaraksa, Sulak, “Somdet kromphraya damrong kap sakun damrong rachanuphap” [Prince Damrong and the Damrong School], [Collected Articles in History] no. 1 (1980): 23–52.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Aeusrivongse, Nithi, Prawattisat rattanakosin nai phraratcha phongsawadan Ayutthaya [A history of Bangkok in the royal chronicles of Ayudhya] (Bangkok: Bannakit, 1980). This material was first presented in 1978.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Phongphiphat, Wimol, “Phraratchaphongsawadan - chua dai rue mai?” [Are the royal chronicles reliable?], Warasan Aksonsat (Chulalongkorn University) 14, 2 (Jul. 1982): 16–33.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The works in this series, on Sunthon Phu (a poet), Lady Nopphamat (a fictional character), the Phetchaburi version of the Jataka, Vessantara, and the classic “bourgeois culture” are collected in the volume Pakkai lae bairua [Quill and Sail] (Bangkok: Amarin Printing, 1984).Google Scholar

¹⁹ The works in this series, especially on “bourgeois culture”, have never received adequate criticism. The issues and evidence Nithi brought into his discussion are complex. Yet his basic concepts of the, relationship between the society's economic base, the social conditions of historical actors, their views, and the manifestations of all of them in literary works are problematic. Nithi is not a true follower of any particular theory. His concept is not that of an orthodox Marxist. Some of his points sound Weberian. Many are basic economic historical concepts. The characteristics of the bourgeois mentality, that it was “more rational, realist, and humanist”, is also problematic, though this crisicism is not intended to lessen Nithi's contribution as explained so far.

²⁰ Aeusrivongse, Nithi, Kanmuang thai samai phra narai [Thai politics in the reign of King Narai] (Bangkok: Thai Khadi Research Institute, 1980).Google Scholar

²¹ Aeusrivongse, Nithi, Kanmuang thai samai phrachao krung thonburi (Bangkok: Sinlapa watthanatham Publishing, 1986).Google Scholar

²² In English see Craig Reynolds and Hong Lysa, “Marxism in Thai Historical Studies”, Journal of Asian Studies 43, 1 (Nov. 1983): 77–104; and Lysa, Hong, “Warasan Setthasat Kanmuang: Critical Scholarship in Post-1976 Thailand” in Thai Constructions of Knowledge, ed. Turton, Andrew and Chitakasem, Manas (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1991), pp. 99–118Google Scholar. In Thai see Atiwanitchayaphong, Napaporn, Phatthanakan khwamkhit setthasat kanmuang thai tangtae 2475-patchuban [The development of the Thai political economy ideas from 1932 to the present] (Bangkok: The Political Economy Group, 1988).Google Scholar

²³ Jit Phoumisak, Chatthip Natsupha and Chai-anan Samudavanija have this question and this presupposition in common. See Jit Phoumisak, [Thai feudalism]; Natsupha, Chatthip, Watthanatham thai kap khabuankan plianplaeng sangkhom [Thai culture and the movements for social change] (Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press, 1991), p. 33Google Scholar; and Chai-anan's, Sakdina kap phatthanakan sangkhom thai [Thai feudalism and the development of Thai society] (Bangkok: Namakson kanphim, 1976), introduction.Google Scholar

²⁴ See the summary of the debate in Reynolds and Hong, “Marxism”.

²⁵ Napaporn Atiwanitchayaphong, [Thai political economy ideas], pp. 52–54.

²⁶ Chatthip Natsupha and Suthy Prasartset (eds.), The Political Economy of Siam, 1851–1910 and The Political Economy of Siam, 1910–1932 (both Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1981Google Scholar). The best commentary on Chatthip in Thai is Somsak Jeamtheerasakul, “Sangkhomthai: chak sakdina su thunniyom” [Thai society: from feudalism to capitalism], Warasan Thammasat 11, 2 (Jun. 1982): 128–64.Google Scholar

²⁷ Reynolds and Hong, “Marxism”, p. 96.

²⁸ Ibid., p. 91.

²⁹ Natsupha, Chatthip, “Muban kap rat nai krabuankan phatthana” [Villages and the state in the development process], Setthasat parithat 8, 1 (Sep. 1986): 2, 6, 8.Google Scholar

³⁰ Yala, Songchai Na (pseud.), “Panha kansuksa withikanphalit khong thai nuangmachak thritsadi kung muangkhun kung sakdina” [Problems in the study of Thailand's modes of production concerning the semifeudal semi-colonial theory], Warasan Setthasat Kanmuang 1, 2 (Mar.-Apr. 1981).Google Scholar

³¹ Rangsarit, San, Watthanakan haeng sangkhom sayam [The evolution of Thai society] (Bangkok, 1975).Google Scholar

³² Songchai Na Yala (pseud.), “[Problems]”.

³³ Wanthana, Somkiat, “Rat somburanayasit nai sayam” (Bangkok: Social Science Association of Thailand, 1982).Google Scholar

³⁴ Samudavanija, Chai-anan, Rat kap sangkhom: trai laksana rat thai nai phahusangkhom sayam [The state and society: the three dimensional Thai state in the pluralistic Siamese society] (Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

³⁵ Vallibhotama, Srisak, Kho khatyaeng kieokap prawattisat thai [Arguments about Thai history] (Bangkok: Muangboran Publishing, 1981) which is a collection of his major articles since 1966.Google Scholar

³⁶ The title of his latest book which is a comprehensive narrative of history in his view, is Sayamprathet. The English title as he provides is Siam. Thailand's Historical Background From Pre-historic Times to Ayudhya (Bangkok: Matichon Publications, 1991).Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid., p. 4.

³⁸ See Vallibhotama, Srisak, Borankhadi thai nai thotsawat thi phanma [Thai archaeology in the past decade] (Bangkok: Muangboran Publications, 1982)Google Scholar, and Muang boran nai a-nachak sukhothai [Ancient cities in the kingdom of Sukhothai] (Bangkok: Thai Khadi Research Institute, Thammasat University, 1989).Google Scholar

³⁹ See Vallibhotama, Srisak, Aeng arayatham isan [A Northeastern Site of Civilization: New Archaeological evidence to Change the Face of Thai History] (Bangkok: Matichon Publications, 1990). The English title is from the book.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Srisak Vallibhotama, “Chao sayam thi wiangchan lae isannua pen phusang khwaen sukhothai” [The Siamese at Vientianne and upper Isan were the founders of Sukhothai], Sinlapa watthanatham 13, 1 (Nov. 1991): 220–28.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Thongchai Winichakul, Siam Mapped, pp. 150–56.

⁴² Many times Srisak credited Jit Phoumisak for the breakthrough from the linear history of the Thai capitals. I believe Srisak realized that Jit attracted greater public interest than his own credentials.

⁴³ Wongdes, Sujit, Sukhothai maichai ratchathani haengraek khong thai [Sukhothai was not the first Thai capital] (Bangkok: Sinlapa watthanatham Publications, 1983).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Saraya, Dhida, Rat boran [Ancient states] (Bangkok: Muang boran, 1994)Google Scholar, and Sri tawarawadv prawattisat yuk ton khong sayamprathet [Dvaravati: the early history of Siam] (Bangkok: Muang boran, 1979).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ The conferences were independently organized, though a local educational institution had to be involved. The figure cited here is from a survey involving all teacher's colleges in the country, and from the available conference materials. It does not include a few conferences held before 1978, or a number of seminars in Bangkok mostly about the methodology and values of local history, or overviews of it.

⁴⁶ Interviews with Att Nanthachak, Pranut Sapphayasan, and Thirachai Bunmatham at Srinakharinwirot University (Mahasarakham), 27–28 Jul. 1992; and interview with Anan Kanchanaphan, Chiangmai University, 16 Jul. 1992.

⁴⁷ Saraya, Dhida, Tamnan and Tamnan History: A Study of Local History (Bangkok: The Office of the National Culture Commission, 1982), pp. 94–97.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Suntharawanit, Chalong, “Sathana khong kansuksa prawattisat thongthin” [State of studies in local history], Warasan Setthasat Kanmuang 5, 3–4 (Apr.-Sep. 1986): 150. Interviews with Renu Wichasilp and Arunrat Wichiankhieo, the Ratchaphat College (former Chiangmai Teacher's College), 14 and 17 Jul. 1992.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Saraya, Dhida, Prawattisat thongthin [Local history] (Bangkok: Muang boran Publications, 1986), p. 25.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid., pp. 6–7.

⁵¹ Ibid., pp. 7, 12–14. For an elaboration in English of this historical ideology and the necessity of “local history”, see Dhida Saraya, Tamnan, chaps. 2–3.

⁵² Dhida Saraya, [Local history], pp. 4–5, 29–30, 43–44, 79–82; and Mekharat, Wilailak, “Interview: Dr. Dhida Saraya”, Warasan Aksonsat (Chulalongkorn University) 17, 1 (Jan. 1985): 3–8.Google Scholar

⁵³ Dhida Saraya Tamnan, chap. 4, especially p. 114. She demonstrates in this small book a history of the settlement of Chiangmai as constructed from tamnan.

⁵⁴ See Dhida Saraya Tamnan. The full version of this small booklet is her dissertation at the University of Sydney in 1982.

⁵⁵ Dhida Saraya, [Local history], pp. 2–3, introduction by Srisak. Many studies of the peasants come from the Chatthip school.

⁵⁶ Dhida Saraya, Tamnan, pp. 120, 121.

⁵⁷ The second conference at Phitsanulok in 1982 partly focused on Nakhonthai, now a district in the province.

⁵⁸ A11 have tertiary institutions. Historically, they were once at least second rank centres in the kingdom. (Here Mahasarakham represents Isan, not the province.) Chiangmai has had at least seven major conferences, Nakhon five, Ubon and Phitsanulok three, and Isan four.

⁵⁹ Somjai Phairotthirarat, “Thatsana khong klum nakkhian prawattisat lanna thai” [The views of Lanna's historical writers] in [History and Thai Historians], ed. Charnvit and Suchat, pp. 166–207. Here Somjai recognizes Lanna as a historical kingdom in its own right, but she criticizes the Lanna intellectuals who honestly wrote a history as if Lanna was a nation and failed to explain its relationship with the Thai centre.

⁶⁰ At the same time, we must recognize some writers of local history who focused on the evolution of towns, states, or dynasties, with some some mention of the relationship with the Thai centres. Unfortunately, the obvious case is Chiangmai-Lanna which used to be a kingdom in its own right, not a local town.

⁶¹ See Warunee Osatharom's report of the conference on the local history of Suphanburi in Chunlasan thai khadi suksa [Bulletin of the Thai Khadi Research Institute] 5, 2 (Feb. 1988): 135.Google Scholar

⁶² ”Sammana prawattisat suratthani khrangthi 1, 2527” [The first conference on history of Suratthani, 1984] (Suratthani: Suratthani Teacher's College, 1990), pp. 67–68.

⁶³ Chalong Sunthrawanit, “[State of studies in local history]”, pp. 140–44.

⁶⁴ Ibid., p. 144.

⁶⁵ Chatthip Natsupha, [Thai culture and movements], pp. 4–6. Vallibhotama, Srisak, “Phak tawanok kap kansuksa prawattisat thongthin” [The eastern region and local history], in Chonburi prawattisat lae sinlapa watthanatham [Chonburi: history, arts and culture] (Chonburi: Srinakharinwirot University-Bangsaen, 1989), pp. 1–3. The criticism was also about the lack of focus and coherence in most conferences, and a general lack of progress in local history.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Natsupha, Chatthip, “Kansuksa setthakit kanmuang thongthin: khwammai lae khwam samkhan” [A study of local political economy: meanings and significance], Warasan Setthasat Kanmuang 4, 1 (Sep. 1984): 9–10.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 13.

⁶⁸ Natsupha, Chatthip, Setthakit muban thai nai adit [The economy of Thai villages in the past] (Bangkok: Sangsan, 1985).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Chatthip's introduction in Pornphilai Lertwicha, Khiriwong (Bangkok: Muban Publications, 1989).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ The surge of local studies is not an isolated phenomenon of this trend, though it began before many other issues. In politics, the issues now include decentralized administration, budgets and local elections.

⁷¹ The speech by the Governor of Surin, a province in the northeast, at the opening ceremony of a conference on the local culture of the Mun valley. See Centre, Surin Cultural, Watthanatham lummaenam mun: korani khamen, lao, suai surin [The culture of the Mun valley people: the cases of the Khmer, Lao, and Suai in Surin] (Bangkok: Sanmuanchon, 1990).Google Scholar

⁷² Nithi once questioned how far the state's accommodation of local cultures can go with this discourse since it contains serious limitations. His suggestions are perhaps too radical for the state: either to drop the unifying elements of Thai identity in the past hundred years, such as Buddhism, in order to accommodate more people in the domain of Thai identity, or to abandon the national culture ideology, the unifying, main culture upheld only by the state, since Thailand is not a homogeneous country anyway. Nithi Aeusrivongse, “[Two hundred years of Thai historical studies]”, pp. 113–15; and “Khwam laklai khong watthanatham thai: kan thathai mai” [The diversity of Thai culture: a new challenge], in Su khwam khaochai watthanatham [For the understanding of culture] (Bangkok: The Office of National Culture Commission, 1989).Google Scholar

⁷³ There is no authoritative work in Thai on the Chinese overseas in Thailand which can nurture a sense of communal history. The publications that come closest are works of fiction, such as Botan, Letters from Thailand or a recent popular account entitled Lot lai mangkon [Through the dragon motif], by Praphatson Sewikul. Another recent genre is biographies of successful Chinese businessmen (no women yet) in Thailand. The inquiry into the culture of Chinese society in Thailand is long overdue. One of the recent critical comments is Kasian Tejapira, Lae lot tai mangkon [Looking through the dragon motif] (Bangkok: Khopfai Publication, 1993).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ One of the most controversial cases is the preservation of old Sukhothai, which was made into a historical site for tourism.

⁷⁵ See Chamberlain, James (ed.), The Ramkhamhaeng Controversy (Bangkok: The Siam Society, 1991).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ As a matter of fact, the expansive space and time of Srisak's history is similar to the vision of the Siamese historical domain proposed by King Chulalongkorn since 1907 which apparently had been abandoned by later generations of historians in favour of the Thai-centric history. See Chulalongkorn, King, “Samakhom supsuan khong boran nai prathetsayam” [The Antiquarian Society in Siam], Sinlapakorn 12, 2 (Jul. 1968): 42–46.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See, for example, Reid, Anthony, Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, vol. 2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994)Google Scholar and Lieberman, Victor, “Local Integration and Eurasian Analogies: Structuring Southeast Asian History, c. 1350-c. 1830”, Modern Asian Studies 27, 3 (1993): 475–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar