Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:42:04.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Distribution of Thai Centres at Mid-Nineteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Larry Sternstein
Get access

Extract

Late in the seventeenth century the Phaulkon fiasco encouraged Thailand to rid herself of the possibility of European domination — an endeavour whose success no doubt owed much to unsettled conditions in Europe. It is not until the mid-nineteenth century, following the ascension of the enlightened King Mongkut, that the renewed activity of Western diplomats, traders and missionaries provide the memoirs from which may be reconstructed a relatively coherent description of the distributional pattern of the Thai centres.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1966 , pp. 66 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1966

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

1. This interlude in Thailand's history is perhaps most interestingly and certainly most informatively presented by Hutchinson, E. W., Adventurers in Siam in the Seventeenth Century, 1940.Google Scholar

2. Bowring, Sir J., The Kingdom and People of Siam, 1857, vol. 1, pp. 1–2Google Scholar. While most of the provincial names given by Bowring may be readily reconciled with those in use at present for either provinces or districts, the actual areas referred to cannot be considered comparable.

3. Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 1–55.

4. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 451.

5. See Sternstein, L., ‘An “Historical Atlas of Thailand”’, The Journal of the Siam Society, vol. 52, pt. 1, 1964.Google Scholar

6. See Sternstein, L., ‘A Critique of Thai Population Data’, Pacific Viewpoint, vol. 6, no. 1, 1965.Google Scholar

7. Neale, F. A., Narrative of a Residence in Siam, 1852, p. 29.Google Scholar

8. Malloch, D. E., Siam, Some General Remarks on Its Productions, 1852, p. 70.Google Scholar

9. Roman Catholic missionaries quoted by Parkes, H., ‘Geographical Notes on Siam, with a New Map of the Lower Part of the Menam River’, Journal of the Geographical Society of London, vol. 26, 1856, p. 77.Google Scholar

10. Quoted, ibid.

11. Bowring, , op. cit., vol. 1, p. 394.Google Scholar

12. Mouhot quoted by Bacon, G. B., Siam, Land of the White Elephant, As It Was and Is, 1892, p. 169.Google Scholar

13. See Graham, A. W., Siam, 1924, vol. 1, p. 113.Google Scholar

14. Pallegoix, Mgr., Description du Royaume Thai ou Siam, 1854, vol. 1, p. 60.Google Scholar

15. Bowring, , op. cit., vol. 1, p. 402.Google Scholar

16. Appended to Pallegoix, , op. cit., vol. 1.Google Scholar

17. The estimates referred to are derived from a table entitled ‘Names of Provinces, Cities, Towns and Villages of Siam, with the number of inhabitants and from what Countries immigrated — not including those in the interior after Agricultural pursuits, included in the total number’, contained in Malloch, , op. cit., pp. 70–2Google Scholar. As there is no differentiation in the table proper it is not possible — save by logical supposition — to directly determine whether a provincial or centre population is being quoted. Skinner, (Chinese Society in Thailand, 1957, p. 71)Google Scholar in attempting to arrive at some ‘reasonable’ figure for the numbers of Chinese in Thailand at various times, first states that Malloch ‘Gives the population by race of over eighty cities and towns in Siam, and the list includes every town of any importance’ and then takes him to task because ‘The figures given for most of the towns far uncountry from Bangkok are clearly inflated (Lamphun, for instance, is shown to have a population of 48,050 of whom 6,050 were supposedly Chinese, while even today Lamphun is a town of less than 10,100) [my italics], such that the total of Malloch's figures is unquestionably an overestimate.’ Malloch. nowhere states that his list includes all important towns, in fact as has been noted, he does not even state that all the figures given refer to towns or other centres — it is obvious that some do not. How Skinner has determined that the populations for most of the upcountry towns are ‘clearly inflated’ is a mystery. Certainly, when compared with those of others, Malloch's estimates appear reasonable; in fact, are generally lower. Lamphun's figure is, of course, a provincial estimate, not one for the town, but, even if it were the fact that Lamphun is now a town of less than 10,000 surely does not preclude its having had a population of 48,505 a century ago.

18. Quoted by Bowring, , op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 1.

20. Unseen places were invariably granted overgenerous populations, but the estimated number of inhabitants of a ‘capital’ far removed from Bangkok was most prone to gross exaggeration; probably through some logical transfer of Bangkokian proportions. Thus, Pallegoix's estimate for the population of Luang Phrabang in the 1830s, faithfully reproduced by Bowring, (op. cit., vol. 2, p. 53)Google Scholar for the 1850s, is discredited by Mouhot in the 1860s (‘Notes on Cambodia, the Lao Country, etc.’ Journal of the Geographical Society, vol. 32, 1862, p. 162)Google Scholar: ‘I arrived at Louang Prabang, a charming little town, standing on a square mile, containing a population, not of 80,000, as Bishop Pallegoix says in his work on Siam, but of 7,000 or 8,000 at most’.