Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:52:45.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Delineation of the Kayah States Frontiers with Thailand: 1809–1894

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Ronald D. Renard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1809, representatives of Chiang Mai and the Kayah State of Kantarawaddy marked their mutual boundary by releasing a buffalo on the summit of a range of mountains and erecting markers on the line it followed. As this episode suggests, these Kayahs and Thais (and also Burmans) translated the world into cognitive maps quite different from those of the British colonialists who would later rule in Burma. The anthropologist, Edmund Leach, noted this difference in his “The Frontiers of ‘Burma’”, observing that European concepts of frontier, state, and nation are not always applicable to Burma where the frontier is not an absolute division but “a border zone through which cultures interpenetrate in a dynamic manner”. This paper examines the interaction between the Kayah-Thai-Burman and the British conceptions of frontier in the working out of demarcated borders between the Kayah states and Thailand during the nineteenth century.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 81 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I wish to thank Professor Aye Kyaw and Dr. Robert Taylor, both of whom gave constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper, which was presented at the Ninth Conference of the International Association of Historians of Asia, atQuezon Cityin 1983Google Scholar. Thanks also to three anonymous readers for the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies who made helpful suggestions on this paper.

1 Government of India, Foreign Department, “Proposals for Settlement of the Boundaries of the Trans-Salween State”. Letter submitted to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for India, “Political and Secret Letters from India”, 1890, London: India Office Records (IOR) L/P and S/7/60, p. 1059. Report by J.G. Scott. As noted below in the text, there were other treaties, and this account might refer to a later agreement. The evidence nonetheless points to the 1809 agreement.

2 Leach, Edmund, “The Frontiers of Burma”, Comparative Studies in Sociology and History 3, no. 1 (10, 1960): 50Google Scholar.

3 The Kayah states were amalgamated into one Kayah State after independence.

4 Ratchawongsa Phun Muang Chiang Mai (Local Chronicle of Chiang Mai), ed. Premchit, Sommai and Tuikhio, Puangkam (Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, 1975), p. 37Google Scholar; Scott, J.G. and Hardiman, J.P., Gazetteer of Upper Burma and the Shan States (Rangoon: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1900–1901), Vol. II, Pt. II, p. 441Google Scholar.

5 Sangermano, V., Description of the Burmese Empire (London: Susil Gupta, 1966), p. 44Google Scholar. Original English translation (by W. Tandy) published in 1833.

6 For an authoritative discussion of the “Red Karens” and Kayahs, see Lehman, F.K., “Kayah Society as a Function of the Shan-Burman-Karen Context”, in Contemporary Change in Traditional Societies, ed. Steward, Julian (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1967), pp. 1–104Google Scholar.

7 Leach, Edmund, Political Systems of Highland Burma (London: London School of Economics Monograph on Social Anthropology No. 48, 1970), pp. 290–91Google Scholar. Originally published in 1954.

8 Lieberman, Victor, “Ethnic Politics in Eighteenth-Century Burma”, Modern Asian Studies 12, no. 3 (1978): 455–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Leach, “Frontiers”, p. 51.

10 Ibid., p. 63.

11 Lehman, “Kayah Society”, pp. 17, 20.

12 Ibid.

13 Scott, and Hardiman, , Gazetteer, Vol. II, Pt. II, p. 443Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., p. 442.

15 Leach, , Political Systems, pp. 279–80Google Scholar. This statehood, incidently, predates contacts with the British from whom Karens and other ethnic groups in Burma picked up ideas of nations, states, and cultures. Information on this topic can be found in Taylor, Robert's “Perceptions of Ethnicity in the Politics of Burma”, Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 10, no. 1 (1982): 7–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Hinton, Peter, “Do the Karen Really Exist?”, in Highlanders of Thailand, ed. McKinnon, John and Bhruksasri, Wanat (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 164–66Google Scholar.

16 Prachakitchakorachak, Phraya (Saem Bunnag), Phongsawadan Yonok (Yonok Chronicle) (Bangkok: Khlang Withaya, 1964), pp. 452–53Google Scholar. Keyes, Charles, “The Karen in Thai History and the History of the Karen in Thailand”, in Ethnic Adaptation and Identity: The Karen on the Thai Frontier with Burma, ed. Keyes, Charles (Philadelphia: ISHI, 1979), p. 39Google Scholar, suspects they were Sgaw but this apparently overlooks or considers insignificant the reference to “Nyang Daeng”. Also, Lehman, “Who are the Karen?”, ibid., pp. 225–28, suggests they are Sgaw but is also apparently unaware of the “Nyang Daeng” reference.

17 Prachakitchakorachak, , Phongsawadan Yonok, p. 453Google Scholar.

18 Scott, and Hardiman, , Gazetteer, Vol. II, Pt. II, p. 442Google Scholar.

19 “Kayin” (Karen), Myanma Sunsounkyi (Encyclopedia Birmanica) (Rangoon: Ministry of Union Culture, 1960)Google Scholar.

20 Ibid., and Chotisukharat, Sanguan, “Banthuk Kantham Sanya Maitri Chiang Mai kap Muang Yang Daeng” (Account of Treaty Making Between Chiang Mai and the Red Karen State), Prachum Tamnan Lan Na Thai (Collected Accounts of La Na Thailand), ed. Chotisukharat, Sanguan (Bangkok: Odeon Store, 1972), pp. 546–47Google Scholar.

21 Scott, and Hardiman, , Gazetteer, Vol. II, Pt. II, p. 444Google Scholar.

22 Great Britain, House of Commons, 1869, “D. Richardson Journey of 1836–1837, Copy of Papers Relating to the Route of Capt. W.C. McLeod from Moulmein to the Frontiers of China and to the Route of Dr. Richardson on his Fourth Mission to the Shan Provinces of China”, p. 114Google Scholar; Cooler, Richard, “The Karen Bronze Drums of Burma: The Magic Pond” (Ithaca: Cornell University Ph.D. Dissertation, 1979), p. 25Google Scholar.

23 Scott, and Hardiman, , Gazetteer, Vol. II, Pt. II, p. 304Google Scholar; Wilson, Constance M., “Burmese-Karen Warfare, 1840–1850: A Thai View”, in Ethnicity and the Military in Asia, ed. Ellinwood, DeWitt C. and Enloe, Cynthia H. (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1981), p. 33Google Scholar, citing Thailand National Archives Documents R3 1211/25 & 1207/22.

24 Scott, and Hardiman, , Gazetteer, Vol. II, Pt. II, p. 446Google Scholar.

25 Khirinam, Pritsana, “Khwamsamphan Rawang Thai lae Prathetsarat nai Huamuang Lan Na Thai Samai Rattanakosin Ton Ton” (Relations between Thailand and its Dependencies in the Lan Na Thai Principalities during the Early Bangkok Period) (Bangkok: Prasanmit University M.A. Thesis, 1969), p. 205Google Scholar. Based on documents in the Ministry of Interior Library. The sacking of Mae Sariang is noted in Hallett, Holt, A Thousand Miles on an Elephant in the Shan States (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1890), p. 30Google Scholar.

26 Chotisukharat, Sanguan, Nam Thiao Chiang Mai Lamphun (Guide to Chiang Mai and Lamphun) (Bangkok: Odeon Store, 1971), pp. 244–47Google Scholar.

27 Keyes, , “The Karen in Thai History”, p. 42Google Scholar.

28 Sanguan, , “Banthuk”, p. 547Google Scholar.

29 Richardson Journal, pp. 114–15.

30 Scott, and Hardiman, , Gazetteer, Vol. II, Pt. II, pp. 446–50Google Scholar.

31 The Cambridge History of India (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1929), pp. 566–67Google Scholar.

32 “Evidence regarding the proper source of the Thoung Yeen River, March 31, 1849”, in The Burney Papers (Bangkok: Vajiranana National Library, 1910–1914), Vol. 3, Pt. 2, pp. 261–63Google Scholar.

33 Brailey, Nigel, “The Origins of the Siamese Forward Movement in Western Laos, 1850–1892” (London: London University Ph.D. Dissertation, 1960), p. 120Google Scholar.

34 Ibid., citing Commr Phayre of Pegu to Govt. of India, 3 July 1855, Vol. 193, India Secret Papers of the India Office Library (IOL).

35 Ibid., city Dep. Commr. Allen to Bogle, 28 June 1856, in the India Political and Foreign Consultation Papers (IPF), Vol. 40, IOL.

36 Ibid., citing Kawilorot to Bogle,? April 1857, in IPF.

37 Ibid., Kawilorot to Rahaeng Phraya, 27 Oct. 1857, Thailand National Library (NL) 1219/2.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid., citing Kawilorot to Lukkhun Sala 27 Dec. 1857, NL 1219/26/2.

40 “The Trans-Salween Boundary Question”, Bangkok Times, 10 01 1891, p. 2Google Scholar. Based on an article from the Moulmein Advertiser, 8 Dec. 1868, in which a proclamation of Kawilorot made in 1867, was quoted.

41 Mangrai, Sao Saimong, The Shan States and the British Annexation (Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program Data Paper No. 57, 1965), p. 224Google Scholar; Great Britain, Report of the Administration of the Shan States, 1889–1890, p. 6Google Scholar.

42 Pritsana, , “Khwamsamphan”, p. 205Google Scholar.

43 See a copy of the treaty in ibid., pp. 260–61.

44 India Office Library, IOR L/P&S/18 B20 India Foreign Department, “Burmah — Question of Karennee, 1880” (A.W. Moore), pp. 51–53.

45 Ibid.

46 Saimong, , The Shan States, p. 225Google Scholar; the question of the transfer from rights in people to rights in land is discussed in Feeny, David, The Political Economy of Productivity: Thai Agricultural Development 1880–1975 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1982), pp. 94–95Google Scholar.

47 “Scott to Commissioner, Anglo-Siamese Commission, 18 January 1890”, pp. 1104–1106, IOR L/P&S/60.

48 “A Thai Government Survey of the Middle Salween, 1890”, tr. Wilson, Constance M., in The Burma-Thailand Frontier Over Sixteen Decades: Three Descriptive Documents, ed. Wilson, Constance M. and Hanks, Lucien M. (Athens: Ohio University Monographs in International Studies Southeast Asia Series, No. 70, 1985), p. 34Google Scholar.

49 Names of five hundred individuals tattooed are in the Thai National Archives 5 M58/30 26–44; 58/31 50/77; 58/32 27/56, “Banchi Sak Muang Mae Hong Son” (Tattoo Register, Mae Hong Son Town) R.S. 108. There were more tattooed; the census list in the Archives is incomplete. Based on the average household size of five used by Lehman, “Kayah Society”, p. 13, about 2,500 were represented. Allowing for omissions and people not surveyed, perhaps 3,000 Kayah resided in Mae Hong Son in 1889.

50 “A Thai Government Survey”, p. 34.

51 Saimong, , The Shan States, p. 225Google Scholar.

52 Ibid., p. 227; also see Prescott, J.R.V., Map of Mainland Asia by Treaty (Melbourne: Melbourne University, 1975), p. 387Google Scholar and Leng, Lee Yong, The Razor's Edge: Boundaries and Boundary Disputes in Southeast Asia (Singapore: ISEAS Research Notes and Discussion Paper no. 15, 1980), p. 12Google Scholar.

53 Saimong, , The Shan States, p. 227Google Scholar.