¹ E.g., see Moor, J.H., Notices of the Indian Archipelago, and Adjacent Countries (Singapore, 1837), p. 266Google Scholar; Dunmore, John (trans.), “French Visitors to Trengganu in (he Eighteenth Century”. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (hereafter cited as JMBRAS) 46, no. 1 (1973):153Google Scholar. See also the opinions quoted in Bowring, John, The Kingdom and People of Siam, vol. I (Kuala Lumpur, 1969), pp. 244–45Google Scholar: Purcell, Victor, The Chinese in Southeast Asia (London, 1965), pp. 88–90, 261Google Scholar; Milner, A.C., “The Malay Raja: A Study of Malay Political Culture in East Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula in the Early Nineteenth Century” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1977), pp. 54–56Google Scholar.

² The Burney Papers, vol. 2, pt. 5 (Farnborough, Harts, 1971), p. 144Google Scholar; Neale, Arthur, Narrative of a Residence at the Capital of the Kingdom of Siam (London, 1852), pp. 176–77Google Scholar.

³ Burney Papers, p. 144Google Scholar.

⁴ Crawfurd, John, Journal of an Embassy to the Courts of Siam and Cochin China (Kuala Lumpur, 1967), p. 175Google Scholar.

⁵ Moor, , Notices of the Indian Archipelago, p. 207Google Scholar. In Kedah, Chinese junks were allowed to trade freely after paying “a certain sum only as duty” (quoted in Purcell, , Chinese in Southeast Asia, p. 261)Google Scholar.

⁶ See the discussion in Cushman, J.W., “Fields from the Sea: Chinese Junk Trade with Siam during the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1975), pp. 57–59, ch. 5Google Scholar; Viraphol, Sarasin, Tribute and Profit: Sino-Siamese Trade, 1659–1853 (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), chs. 9, 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Much of the Sino-Siamese trade was, in fact, private trade carried by Chinese residents of either Siam or China. Dr Viraphol has failed to provide a clear definition of private, state, and tributary trade and we are left in some doubt as to which he is discussing at any given time (see esp. pp. 142, 151, 165–66, 177, 242–43). For a more detailed critique of his work, see my review in the Asian Studies Association of Australia Review 2, no. 1 (1978):70–74Google Scholar.

⁷ See, e.g., the role of Constantine Phaulkon in 17th-century Siamese political life: Hutchinson, E.W., Adventurers in Siam in the Seventeenth Century (London, 1940)Google Scholar. For a discussion of Japanese merchants as agents for the Siamese king, see Ishii, Yoneo, “Seventeenth-Century Japanese Documents about Siam”, Journal of the Siam Society 59, no. 2 (1971): 161–74Google Scholar; Viraphol, , Tribute and Profit, chs. 1, 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Chen, Chingho A., “Mac Thien Tu and Phraya Taksin: A Survey of Their Political Stand, Conflicts and Background”, Proceedings of the Seventh IAHA Conference (Bangkok, 1979), pp. 1538–39, 1550–53Google Scholar.

⁹ Quoted in Osborne, Milton, The French Presence in Cochinchina and Cambodia: Rule and Response (1859–1905) (Ithaca, N.Y., 1969), p. 11Google Scholar. I am grateful to Dr Osborne for bringing Pavie's remark about Ang Duong to my attention and for discussing this section of the paper with me at some length.

¹⁰ Quoted in Milner, , “Malay Raja”, p. 34Google Scholar.

¹¹ Skinner, C., “Abdullah's Voyage to the East Coast, Seen through Contemporary Eyes”, JMBRAS 39, no. 2(1966):24Google Scholar.

¹² Bowring, , The Kingdom, vol. 1, p. 466Google Scholar.

¹³ Milner, , “Malay Raja”, p. 74Google Scholar. On the importance of manpower see also Siegel, James T., The Rope of God (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1969), pt. 1Google Scholar; Warren, Jim, “Who Were the Balangingi Samal? Slave Raiding and Ethnogenesis in Nineteenth-Century Sulu”, Journal of Asian Studies 37, no. 3 (1978):487CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trocki, Carl, Prince of Pirates: The Temenggongs and the Development of Johor and Singapore, 1784–1885 (Singapore, 1979), pp. 58–59Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Quoted in Siegel, , The Rope, p. 30Google Scholar. Hsieh Ch'ing-kao, a Chinese visitor to Kelantan at the end of the 18th century, commented upon the presence of retainers in the port who accompanied the king and his officials when they went out: “The king, chieftains, and wealthy families all have them”: Cushman, J.W. and Milner, A.C., “Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Chinese Accounts of the Malay Peninsula”, JMBRAS 52, no. 1 (1979):17Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Milner, , “Malay Raja”, pp. 206, 217, ch. 7 passimGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Trocki, , Prince of Pirates, p. 56Google Scholar; see also pp. 45, 51.

¹⁷ Rabibhadana, Akin, The Organization of Thai Society in the Early Bangkok Period, 1782–1873, Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program, Data Paper 74 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1969), p. 56, ch. 7Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Ibid., pp. 15–39.

¹⁹ Ibid., pp. 33–34.

²⁰ Smith, George Vinal, The Dutch in Seventeenth-Century Thailand, Northern Illinois University Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Special Report 16 (De Kalb, Ill., 1977), pp. 73–75Google Scholar.

²¹ Rabibhadana, , Organization of Thai Society, p. 127, ch. 7Google Scholar.

²² Ibid., p. 139.

²³ van Leur, J.C., Indonesian Trade and Society: Essays in Asian Social and Economic History (The Hague, 1955), p. 87Google Scholar.

²⁴ Burney Papers, vol. 1, p. 180; Crawfurd, , Journal, p. 378Google Scholar; Smith, , The Dutch, pp. 74–75Google Scholar.

²⁵ de La Loubere, Simon, (A New Historical Relation of) The Kingdom of Siam (London, 1969), p. 94Google Scholar.

²⁶ The mission is referred to in Viraphol as the 1780 mission (Tribute and Profit, pp. 145–47) but the letter King Taksin sent with it is dated May 1781: National Library, Bangkok, Archives from the Thonburi Period, no. 13 (1781). The mission is also described in a Chinese memorial of 7 Sept. 1781 which tallies with the date of Taksin's letter: the vessels would have left Siam in July and arrived in China in August; Siam's envoys would. have presented the letter to the local authorities who then memorialized the throne in September: Kao-tsung shih-lu (): 1137: 16a–19b. Skinner also follows the 1781 dating (Chinese, p. 23). My thanks to Miss Nimitra Indasukha for translating the Thai documents cited below.

²⁷ Archives from the Thonburi period, no. 13(1781); Viraphol, , Tribute and Profit, pp. 145–51Google Scholar.

²⁸ Viraphol, , Tribute and Profit, pp. 173–74Google Scholar.

²⁹ Thadeus, and Flood, Chadin (trans., ed.), The Dynastic Chronicles Bangkok Era, The First Reign, vol. 1 (Tokyo, 1978), p. 303Google Scholar.

³⁰ Ibid. See also Wenk, Klaus, The Restoration of Thailand under Rama I, 1782–1809 (Tucson, 1968), p. 12Google Scholar.

³¹ Crawfurd, , Journal, p. 380Google Scholar.

³² Damrong Rachanuphap, Prince, Phraratchaphongsawadan Ralchakan Thi, 2, 11 (Bangkok, 1960), p. 57Google Scholar.

³³ Ibid., pp. 204–5.

³⁴ Chotmaihet Ralchakan Thi 2, no. 15 (1813); Viraphol, Tribute and Profit, App. E. Dr Viraphol indicates that the prince referred to as the Gim Yok Sun's patron is the “Crown Prince” (p. 268). He is probably referring to the future Rama III who was closely associated with the Treasury, although, according to Dr Benjamin Batson, Rama III was not the crown prince in his father's reign. The person under Rama II who could most suitably be called a “crown prince” was the Second King or Uparat, a younger brother of Rama II. All that is clear from the report is that a prince of high rank from the Treasury department sponsored one or more of the vessels trading with China at the time. I am grateful to Dr Batson for this information and for explaining some of the more difficult passages in the Thai archival material.

³⁵ Cushman, “Fields from the Sea”, App. B.

³⁶ Crawfurd, , Journal, p. 381Google Scholar.

³⁷ National Archives, Fourth Reign, Krom Phra Kalahom, Order of Chaophraya Akkha Mahasena (concerning the coconut oil tax) 20 July 1852, pp. 19–23.

³⁸ Burney Papers, vol. 1, p. 51. According to Burney, Rama III was motivated by the losses incurred in the state trade. They were subtracted from the king's share and he had no intention of suffering in this manner.

³⁹ Rabibhadana, , Organization of Thai Society, p. 126Google Scholar; Vella, Walter, Siam under Rama III, 1824–1851 (Locust Valley, N.Y., 1975), p. 19Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Rabibhadana, , Organization of Thai Society, pp. 126, 138Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Ibid., pp. 148–49.

⁴² Ibid., pp. 135–36.

⁴³ Viraphol, , Tribute and Profit, p. 192Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Flood, , Chronicles, vol. 1, pp. 102, 116Google Scholar, mention “Chinese” and “royal Chinese” junks which were used for carrying royalty and transporting captured cannon. In the 1830s, the Praklang was said to have brought back 4,000–5,000 prisoners from the south “on board small junks and war-boats” (Moor, , Notices of the Indian Archipelago, p. 202)Google Scholar. On Siam's relations with her southern dependencies in Rama III's reign, see Vella, , Siam under Rama III, ch. 5Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register, n.s., 23 (05–08 1837): 122Google Scholar; Krom Phra Kalahom, 20 July 1852; mention is made of Rama III cancelling the royal junks.

⁴⁶ Allen's Indian Mail, and Register of Intelligence 84 (09 1847):527Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Bowring, , The Kingdom, vol. 1, 241Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Krom Phra Kalahom, 20 July 1832.

⁴⁹ He was instrumental in promoting Mongkut's ascension to the throne on the death of Rama III and became Minister of War and the Southern Provinces (kalahom) during his reign. See Wyatt, David K., “Family Politics in Nineteenth Century Thailand”, Journal of Southeast Asian History 9, no. 2 (1968):220–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ Chotmaihet Ratchakan Thi, 3, no. 49 (1844). See also Cushman, “Fields from the Sea”, App. B.

⁵¹ Bowring, , The Kingdom, vol. 2, pp. 277–78Google Scholar.

⁵² We do have evidence, however, that some Southeast Asian rulers played a more active part in supervising the trade in their own ports. The sultan of Trengganu was said to deal “himself with foreigners” (Dunmore, “French Visitors”, p. 152), and the Bangkok-based merchant, Hunter, failed to sell his rice in Kelantan because “the Sultan would not come to his terms” (Earl, George, The Eastern Seas [Singapore, 1837], p. 152Google Scholar.

⁵³ Van Leur, , Indonesian Trade, pp. 67, 204–8Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Quoted in Trocki, , Prince of Pirates, p. 53Google Scholar. See also Andaya, Barbara W., “The Indian Saudagar Raja (the King's Merchant) in Traditional Malay Courts”, JMBRAS 51, no. 1 (1978):16Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Krom Phra Kalahom, 20 July 1852. Statements about the unsuitability of royal trade must, however, be regarded with caution, for they reflect, I think, Siam's growing awareness of Western attitudes towards wealth and power. By 1852 some Siamese leaders believed that wealth could be created more readily by permitting Western merchants unrestricted access to Siamese ports. They felt that if Siam failed to conform to Western standards of how states and their rulers were to behave, they would be looked upon with scorn by the British. In a world of theoretical equality between sovereign states, the “unsuitability” of Siamese participation in the Chinese tributary system, for instance, was clearly a factor in the Siamese decision to stop sending missions in 1853.

⁵⁶ Chotmaihet Ratchakan Thi 2, no. 15 (1813); Chotmaihel Ratchakan Thi 3, no. 49 (1844): Chinese served on all of these vessels as captains and navigators.

⁵⁷ “Notes on the Chinese in the Straits”, Journal of the Indian Archipelago 9 (1855):121Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ See, e.g., F.O. 682/44/(4), in which it is claimed that a Chinese merchant, Wang P'an-kuei, was commissioned by the Thai tribute envoy to China to sell pepper. This document has not yet been reclassified under the system devised by Pong, David (A Critical Guide to the Kwangtung Provincial Archives [Cambridge, Mass., 1975])Google Scholar for the Kwangtung archives held in the Public Record Office, London; the old classification has, therefore, been retained. See also Chotmaihet Ratchakan Thi 3, no. 49 (1844). The second half of this document lists the various items — from paving stones to baby dolls — that these vessels were to bring back from China.

⁵⁹ On king's agents in pre 18th-century maritime Southeast Asia, see Andaya, , “Saudagar Raja”, pp. 13–35Google Scholar. Chinese could be chosen for this position (p. 19) but Muslims from southern India were more commonly used (p. 21).

⁶⁰ Rabibhadana, , Organization of Thai Society, p. 136Google Scholar. For some of the other factors leading to Chinese success as middlemen, see Skinner, , Chinese, pp. 99–100Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Prince Damrong Rachanuphap to Prince Naritranuwatiwong, 21 Nov. 1935, “An Explanation on the Province of Takua-pa”, in The Political Economy of Siam, 1910–1932, ed. Nartsupha, C., Prasarset, S., and Chenvidyakan, M. (Bangkok, 1978), p. 105Google Scholar.

⁶² Ch'ing-ch'ao wai-chiao shih-liao () CC 14/8/7, vol. 3, 24b (hereafter cited as CCWCSL). Dr Ng Chin-keong of the National University of Singapore kindly provided me with a translation of this memorial.

⁶³ Chen, “Mac Thien Tu”, pp. 1550–53; Skinner, , Chinese, pp. 20–23Google Scholar. On Taksin see also Ch'un-sheng, Ling et al. () (eds.), Chung-T'ai wen-hua lun-chi () (Taipei, 1958), pp.271–72Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Chen, “Mac Thien Tu”, pp. 1538–41, 1543–44. On the Na Songkhla family and its rapid rise in Thai political life, see Skinner, , Chinese, pp. 21–22, 150Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Rabibhadana, , Organization of Thai Society, pp. 75–76Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Moor, , Notices of the Indian Archipelago, p. 237Google Scholar. This is not to say, however, that Chinese immigrants never posed any problems for the Thai government. They were involved in uprisings, but these do not appear to have been aimed at overthrowing the established order (Skinner, , Chinese, pp. 143–46Google Scholar).

⁶⁷ Foster, Brian L., “Ethnicity and Commerce”, American Ethnologist 1, no. 3 (1974):446 and passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar. On other aspects of ethnic identity, assimilation, and trade, see Cohen, Abner, “Cultural Strategies in the Organization of Trading Diasporas”, in The Development of Indigenous Trade and Markets in West Africa, ed., Meillassoux, C. (London, 1971), pp. 266–78Google Scholar; Barth, F., “Introduction”, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference (Bergen/Oslo, 1969), pp. 9–38Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Skinner, , Chinese, pp. 152–54Google Scholar; Rabibhadana, , Organization of Thai Society, pp. 135–36Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Economic and social advancement were, in fact, interconnected. All Thai were ranked or given “dignity marks” (sakdina) according to their position in Thai society. Those Chinese who served as officers and crew on the state trading vessels were drawn into the Thai social hierarchy by virtue of the sakdina attached to the positions they filled. The rank of captain, for instance, had a sakdina of 400, that of pilot and business manager on larger vessels had a sakdina of 200 and on small vessels of 100, helmsmen were accorded 80 and so forth (Kotmai trasam duang, Bangkok, 1962, p. 235)Google Scholar. Sakdina represented a specific amount of land and manpower and a sakdina of 400 or above was required if one were to be considered noble. Chinese who served as captains in the state trade (or as tax farmers) became members of the Thai nobility with all the perquisites attached to such status. Even those serving in lesser positions benefitted by acquiring a sakdina greater than that held by Thai commoners. Financial reward was not, therefore, the only advantage for Chinese who participated in the state trade. On the Thai system of ranks and its application to Chinese, see Rabibhadana, , Organization, pp. 22–23, 102–4, 135, 162–65Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ See, e.g., those cited in Skinner, , Chinese, pp. 149–52Google Scholar; Prince Damrong, “Explanation of Takuapa”, pp. 101–7.

⁷¹ Hsieh Ch'ing-kao remarked that the people of Songkhla were Malay and described Malay customs in the province (Cushman and Milner, “Chinese Accounts”, pp. 12–13).

⁷² Manlikamat, Kulap, Khati Chaw Ban (Bangkok, 1975), pp. 212–15Google Scholar. I am grateful to Dr Anthony Diller for providing a translation of this story. Patani also seems to have had a number of harbour masters who were Chinese: Blussé, L., “Inpu, Chinese Merchant in Pattani: A Study in Early Dutch-Chinese Relations”, Proceedings of the Seventh IAHA Conference (Bangkok, 1979), p. 293Google Scholar; Teeuw, A. and Wyatt, D.K., The Story of Patani, vol. 2 (The Hague, 1970), p. 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷³ Ming-Ch'ing shih-liao: keng-pien () (Taipei, 1960): 561b–562aGoogle Scholar; 565a–b (hereafter cited as MCSL:KP). These memorials have been summarized in Viraphol, , Tribute and Profit, pp. 157, 167–68Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ See the examples in Viraphol, , Tribute and Profit, pp. 161–63Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Viraphol (Ibid., p. 157) says they “loaded sugar … at Kiangnan and Chekiang” (emphasis mine) which must be an error as the text clearly says they sold sugar there. Kiangnan and Chekiang were, moreover, sugar importing regions. See Chin-keong, Ng, “Trade and Society: The Amoy Network on the China Coast, 1683–1735”, (Ph.D. diss., Australian National University, 1980), pp. 177–79, 222Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ MCSL:KP:561b.

⁷⁷ Ibid. The Chin Chil Shun and Chin Kuang Shun vessels in Chekiang and the Shih Wan Ts'an at the port of Tung-lung were also allowed to buy a new cargo before sailing back to Siam.

⁷⁸ For Yang Hua's biographies see: T'ung-an hsien-chih (), 42 + 1 chiian, 1929:30:11b; Ch'en Yen (), Fu-chien t'ung-chih lieh-chuan hsüan () (Taipei, 1964), 4:251–52Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ MCSL:KP:565b.

⁸⁰ He must have left almost immediately in order to take advantage of the northeast monsoon before it changed direction.

⁸¹ MCSL:KP:565a. Ch'en K'un-wan is called “a man from Kwangtung” in the text; he was not from Fukien as Viraphol states: “all were originally from … South Fukien”. Wu Ching did not, moreover, sell his own cargo but asked Ch'en K'un-wan to do so (Tribute and Profit, p. 168).

⁸² MCSL:KP:565b.

⁸³ CCWCSL, CC 14/8/7, vol. 3, 24a–25a. The memorial was sent to Peking in Sept. 1809. Po-ling is occasionally rendered as Pai-ling by some scholars.

⁸⁴ Ibid., 24b.

⁸⁵ Ibid., 25a.

⁸⁶ Chotmaihet Ratchakan Thi 2, no. 15 (1813)Google Scholar: of the 20-odd vessels named in this document as having sailed to China, 11 begin with the kim initial which is the Amoy pronunciation for chin.

⁸⁷ Hsia-men chih (), 16 chüan (Taipei, 1961):15:649Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ This does not mean, however, that the firm was necessarily headed by a person of the same name (see Viraphol, , Tribute and Profit, p. 157Google Scholar); that was but one possibility. The name might have been chosen because it was auspicious and the head of the firm was subsequently called by the same name. Alternatively, the firm's name may have been the same as the founder's, and if the firm became very well known, subsequent owners would have been nown by the original owner's name: Ng, , “Trade and Society”, p. 216, n. 37–38Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ MCSL:KP:565b. On the importance of kin and friendship ties, see also Hamilton, Gary, “Nineteenth-Century Chinese Merchant Associations: Conspiracy or Combination? The Case of the Swatow Opium Guild”, Ch'ing-shih wen-t'i 3, no. 8(1977):63–65Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ F.O.931/167. This citation follows Pong, , Critical Guide, p. 26Google Scholar. The old classification was F.O.682/253A/4(4).

⁹¹ F.O.682/44/(4).

⁹² The Japanese, too, regarded Siamese shipping as a form of Tosen, a term for junks coming from China, because the vessels were named by Chinese (To-jin): Ishii, “Seventeenth-Century Japanese”, p. 165.

⁹³ Cushman, , “Fields from the Sea”, pp. 51–59Google Scholar; Ng, , “Trade and Society”, pp. 74–76Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ MCSL:KP:561b.

⁹⁵ Ibid., 565b.

⁹⁶ Ibid., 565a.

⁹⁷ The navigators on all the vessels sent to China in 1844 were Chinese (Chotmaihet Ratchakan Thi 3, no. 49 (1844); F.O.931/167.

⁹⁸ Britain, Great, Board of Trade, Abstract of Reports on the Trade of Various Countries and Places (Gt. Br. Parliament, Papers by Command, 1856–[61?])Google Scholar. In 1854/55 Siam sent 11 square-rigged vessels to China (p. 47); in 1856, 7 arrived in Shanghai (p. 60), and in 1859, 9 entered and departed from Ningpo (p. 17).

⁹⁹ Chotmaihet Ratchakan Thi 4, no. 113 (1854).

¹⁰⁰ Ken, Wong Lin, “The Trade of Singapore, 1819–1869”, JMBRAS 33, no. 4 (1960):149Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Quoted in Skinner, , Chinese, p. 118Google Scholar.