Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:12:16.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Buddhist Icons to National Antiquities: Cultural Nationalism and Colonial Knowledge in the Making of Thailand's History of Art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2013

MAURIZIO PELEGGI
MAURIZIO PELEGGI*
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the mid 1920s Prince Damrong Rajanubhab and George Coedès jointly formulated the stylistic classification of Thailand's antiquities that was employed to reorganize the collection of the Bangkok Museum and has since acquired canonical status. The reorganization of the Bangkok Museum as a ‘national’ institution in the final years of royal absolutism responded to increasing international interest in the history and ancient art of Southeast Asia, but represented also the culmination of several decades of local antiquarian pursuits. This paper traces the origins of the art history of Thailand to the intellectual and ideological context of the turn of the twentieth century and examines its parallelism to colonial projects of knowledge that postulated a close linkage between race, ancestral territory and nationhood.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 5 , September 2013 , pp. 1520 - 1548
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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 In this paper ‘Siam’ is used as the country's name prior to 1939 and ‘Thailand’ for the following period according to the official date of the name change; ‘Siamese’ is meant as adjectival of ‘Siam’, not as a noun for the country's inhabitants except when occurring in quotations; ‘Thais’ (and, in some quotations, ‘Tai’) refers to the members of the ethnic group, not to Thailand's inhabitants as a whole. Personal names are Romanized according to each individual's preferred form whilst Thai words are Romanized according to the Royal Institute System of Phonetic Transcription, but without diacritic marks.

2 Rajanubhab, Prince Damrong, Tamnan phraphuttha chedi (Bangkok: Sophon Phiphattanakon, BE 2469 [1926])Google Scholar.

3 This ninth chapter, ‘Phuttha chedi nai sayam prathet’ (Buddhist reminders in Siam), and the previous eighth chapter, ‘Phutthasasana nai prathet sayam’ (Buddhism in Siam), which together make up almost half the book, were first published in English with the title A History of Buddhist Monuments in Siam, trans. Sulak Sivaraksa (Bangkok: Siam Society, 1962); and republished in a revised translation as Monuments of the Buddha in Siam, trans. Sulak Sivaraksa and A. B. Griswold (Bangkok: Siam Society, 1973; repr. Bangkok: Diskul Foundation, 1982). Whereas the Thai word chedi (from Pali cetiya) commonly indicates a stupa (a monumental reliquary), Prince Damrong follows the canonical typology in which cetiya designates four types of physical ‘reminder’ of the Buddha: dhatucetiya or bodily relics (including stupas containing relics); dhammacetiya or doctrinal reminders (the Pali Canon and inscriptions); paribhogacetiya or reminders by association (footprints, the Bodhi tree and sites associated with the Buddha's life); and uddesikacetiya or indicative reminders (iconic and aniconic representations of the Buddha as well as copies of paribhogacetiya, that is, stupa that do not contain relics). See Griswold's introduction to Monuments of the Buddha, pp. v–vi, and his essay, ‘The Sculpture and Architecture of Siam’, in Theodore Bowie (ed.), The Arts of Thailand (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University, 1960), pp. 25–165.

4 Coedès, George, Les Collections archéologiques du Musée National de Bangkok, Ars Asiatica Series, vol. 12 (Paris and Brussels: G. Van Oest, 1928)Google Scholar. An abridged Thai-language version was also printed as a guidebook to the museum: Boranwatthu nai phiphithaphan sathan samrap phranakhon [Antiquities in the Royal Capital City Museum] (Bangkok B.E. 2471 [1928]).

5 See Winichakul, Thongchai, Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-body of a Nation (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

6 Higham, Charles and Thorasat, Rachanie, Prehistoric Thailand: From Early Settlement to Sukhothai (London: Thames and Hudson, 1998), p. 7.Google Scholar

7 Winichakul, Thongchai, ‘The Quest for “Siwilai”: A Geographical Discourse of Civilizational Thinking in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Siam’, Journal of Asian Studies 59:3 (2000): 528–549.Google Scholar

8 Preziosi, Donald, ‘In the Temple of Entelechy: The Museum as Evidentiary Artefact’, in Wright, Gwendolyn (ed.), The Formation of National Collections of Art and Archaeology (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1996), p. 170 (original emphasis).Google Scholar

9 Tanaka, Stephan, ‘Imaging History: Inscribing Belief in the Nation’, Journal of Asian Studies, 53:1 (1994): 24–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Tanaka, ‘Imaging History’, p. 32.

11 See Peleggi, Maurizio, ‘Royal Antiquarianism, European Orientalism and the Production of Archaeological Knowledge in Modern Siam’, in Ravi, Srilata, Rutten, Mario and Goh, Beng-Lan (eds), Asia in Europe, Europe in Asia (Singapore: Institute of South-East Asian Studies and Leiden: International Institute for Asian Studies, 2004), pp. 133–161.Google Scholar

12 Peleggi, Maurizio, Thailand: The Worldly Kingdom (London: Reaktion Books, 2007), pp. 10–12Google Scholar and Lords of Things: The Fashioning of the Siamese Monarchy's Modern Public Image (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002), pp. 11–14.

13 See Notton, Camille, The Chronicle of the Emerald Buddha (Bangkok: Bangkok Times Press, 1933).Google Scholar

14 Nagara, Prasert Na and Griswold, A. B., Epigraphic and Historical Studies (Bangkok: The Historical Society, 1992), p. 393Google Scholar; Griswold, A. B., What is a Buddha Image? (Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, 4th edn, 1990), p. 16.Google Scholar

15 Reynolds, Craig J., ‘Buddhist Cosmography in Thai History with Special Reference to Nineteenth-Century Cultural Change’, Journal of Asian Studies 35:2 (1976): 203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also his Seditious Histories: Contesting Thai and Southeast Asian Pasts (Seattle: University of Washington Press in association with Singapore University Press, 2006), Chapter 8.

16 Chaophraya Thipakorawong, The Dynastic Chronicles of the Fourth Reign, trans. Chadin Flood, vol. II (Tokyo: Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies, 1966), pp. 496–518. See also Byrne, Denis, ‘Buddhist Stupa and Thai Social Practice’, World Archaeology 27:2 (1995): 272, 274–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 See Kasetsiri, Charnvit, ‘Thai Historiography from Ancient Times to the Modern Period’, in Reid, Anthony and Marr, David (eds), Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia (Singapore: Heinemann, 1979), pp. 156–170Google Scholar; and Sattayanurak, Atthachak, The Formation of the Absolute Monarchy in Siam: An Analysis of its Intellectual Aspects (Kyoto: Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, 1993)Google Scholar.

18 Reynolds, ‘Buddhist Cosmography’, pp. 214–215.

19 Bowring, John, The Kingdom and People of Siam, vol. II (London: J. W. Parker, 1857), p. 279.Google Scholar

20 Yupo, Dhanit, The Development of National Museums in Thailand (Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, 3rd edn, 1990), p. 3.Google Scholar

21 Thongchai, ‘The Quest for “Siwilai”’, p. 543.

22 Crane, Susan A., ‘Story, History, and the Passionate Collector’, in Myrone, Martin and Peltz, Lucy (eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700–1850 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), p. 187.Google Scholar

23 Sutton, Tiffany, The Classification of Visual Art: A Philosophical Myth and its History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 20.Google Scholar

24 Coedès, Musée de Bangkok, pp. 8–9.

25 Peleggi, Lords of Things, pp. 86–87.

26 Rajanubhab, Prince Damrong, ‘Wat Benchamabophit and its Collection of Images of the Buddha’, Journal of the Siam Society 22 (1928): 19–28Google Scholar (quotation from pp. 20–21).

27 Damrong, Monuments of the Buddha, p. 39.

28 Griswold, What Is a Buddha Image? p. 16.

29 Damrong, ‘Wat Benchamabophit’, p. 21.

30 Benjamin, Walter, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, in his Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, Arendt, Hanna (ed.), trans. Zohn, Harry (New York: Shocken Books, 1969), pp. 217–252Google Scholar.

31 See Coedès, George, Bronzes khmèrs, Ars Asiatica Series, vol. V (Paris and Brussels: G. Van Ouest, 1923)Google Scholar. Coedès also remarked in Musée de Bangkok (p. 26): ‘On sait que c'est à Bangkok qu'il faut venir étudier l'art du bronze khmèr.’ ‘It is said that one must go to Bangkok to study Khmer bronze art.’

32 ‘The Antiquarian Society Speech of King Chulalongkorn’, trans. Chris Baker, Journal of the Siam Society 89: 1–2 (2001): 95–99 (quotation from pp. 96, 97). The Antiquarian Society was launched during royal celebrations, held in the former royal city of Ayutthaya and staged by Prince Damrong and the provincial governor, Phraya Boran Boranurak (Lord Preserver of Antiquities), with a historical mise en scène that included a purpose-built wooden pavilion and olden entertainments, including a bullock-cart race. For the king's speech and an account of the celebrations, see National Archives (comp.), Chotmaihet phra ratcha phithi ratchamangkhala phisek r.s. 126, 127 [Chronicles of the royal jubilee celebrations of 1907 and 1908] (Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, 1984), pp. 18–25Google Scholar; and Peleggi, Lords of Things, pp. 129–132.

33 Tanaka, ‘Inscribing Belief’, p. 26.

34 Quoted in Majaroen, Chawingam, ‘Kan song soem khwam ru thang dan sinlapa watthanatham prawattisat lae borannakhadi nai ratchakan thi 4–7’ [Promotion of knowledge about art, culture, history and archaeology from the Fourth to Seventh Reigns], Sinlapakon 18:3 (1974): 70Google Scholar, my translation (‘uncivilized’ transliterated from English into Thai in the original text).

35 The classic but now badly outdated study in English is Vella, Walter, Chaiyo! King Vajiravudh and the Development of Thai Nationalism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1978)Google Scholar. On the revisionist historiography on Thai nationalism, see Peleggi, Thailand, pp. 117–120.

36 Until 1940 the Siam Society's presidents were all Westerners: W. R. D. Beckett (1904–1906), O. Frankfurter (1906–1917), H. Campbell Highet (1918–1921), W. A. Graham (1921–1925), G. Coedès (1925–1930), F. Giles (1930–1938), and E. Seidenfaden (1938–1940). Afterwards, in an era of nationalist fervour, Thais were appointed, starting with Prince Dhani Nivat, who served two terms as president over the next quarter century (1940–1944 and 1947–1965) intermitted by Prince Wan Waithayakon's term.

37 On colonial archaeological services, see the considerations in Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Considerations on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 3rd edn, 2006), pp. 178–182Google Scholar; and Day, Tony and Reynolds, Craig J., ‘Cosmologies, Truth Regimes and the State in South East Asia’, Modern Asian Studies 34:1 (2000), pp. 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Gerini, G. E., ‘Siamese Archaeology: A Synoptical Sketch’, in Carter, A. C. (ed.), The Kingdom of Siam (New York: Knickerbockers Press, 1904; reprint Bangkok: Siam Society, 1988), pp. 213–226Google Scholar (quotations from pp. 213, 224, 220).

39 Mouhot, Henri, Travels in the Central Parts of Indo-China (Siam), Cambodia and Laos, 2 vols (London: John Murray, 1864)Google Scholar. The French missionary, Father Charles-Émile Bouillevaux, had reported the existence of monumental ruins at Angkor already in the 1850s, but failed to excite public interest.

40 See Clémentine-Ojha, Catherine and Manguin, Pierre-Yves, Un siècle pour l'Asie. L’École française d'Extrême-Orient, 1898–2000 (Paris: École française d'Extrême-Orient, 2001)Google Scholar; Singaravélou, Pierre, L’École française d'Extrême-Orient ou l'institution des marges (1898–1956) (Paris: L'Harmattan, 1999)Google Scholar; and Wright, Gwendolyn, ‘National Culture under Colonial Auspices: The École Française d'Extrême-Orient’, in Wright, G. (ed.), Formation of National Collections of Art and Archaeology (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1996), pp. 127–142.Google Scholar

41 See Edwards, Penny, Cambodge: The Cultivation of a Nation, 1860–1945 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2007)Google Scholar, Chapter 1.

42 ‘. . .la connoisance scientifique du Siam est pour la plus grand part une oeuvre française’. ‘L’École française d'Extrême-Orient depuis son origine jusq'en 1920’, Bulletin de l' École française d'Extrême-Orient [hereafter BEFEO], 21 (1921), p. 313.

43 Delaporte, Louis, Voyage au Cambodge. L'architecture Khmère (Paris: Éditions Delagrave, 1880)Google Scholar; Aymonier, Etienne, Le Cambodge I. Le royaume actuel and Le Cambodge II. Les provinces siamoises (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1900–1901)Google Scholar, recently published in English translation as, respectively, Khmer Heritage in the Old Siamese Provinces and Khmer Heritage in Thailand, trans. W. E. J. Tips (Bangkok: White Lotus, 1999).

44 Fournereau, Lucien, Le Siam ancien. Archéologie, épigraphie, géographie, 2 vols, Annales du Musée Guimet, no. 27 and no. 31 (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1895–1908).Google Scholar

45 Lunet de Lajonquière, Étienne-Edmond, Inventaire descriptif des monuments du Cambodge, 2 vols (Paris: École Française d'Extrême-Orient, 1902–1907)Google Scholar; ‘Le domain archéologique du Siam’, Bulletin de la Commission archéologique de l'Indochine (1909), pp. 188–262; and ‘Essai d'inventaire archéologique du Siam’, Bulletin de la Commission archéologique de l'Indochine (1912), pp. 19–181.

46 Trigger, Bruce G., A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 111.Google Scholar

47 Marchand, Suzanne L., ‘The Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns in German Museums’, in Crane, Susan A. (ed.), Museums and Memory (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), p. 196.Google Scholar

48 Coedès, George, Angkor: An Introduction, trans. Gardener, E. F. (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1963 [Hanoi, 1943]), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

49 Edwards, Cambodge, pp. 132–134.

50 Streckfuss, David, ‘The Mixed Colonial Legacy in Siam: Origins of Thai Racialist Thought, 1890–1910’, in Sears, Laurie J. (ed.), Autonomous Histories, Particular Truths: Essays in Honour of John R. W. Smail, Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Monograph no. 11 (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1993), pp. 123–153.Google Scholar See also Renard, Ronald, ‘The Differential Integration of Hill People into the Thai State’, in Turton, Andrew (ed.), Civility and Savagery: Social Identity in Thai States (London: Curzon, 2000), especially pp. 78–79.Google Scholar

51 Damrong, Monuments of the Buddha, pp. 3–4, 43–44, and endnotes 19 to 22 (by A. B. Griswold). The distinction between Tai Yai and Tai Noi is also found in Harvey, G. E., History of Burma (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1925), p. 4Google Scholar.

52 Dodd, William Clifton, The Tai Race Elder Brother of the Chinese: Results of Experiences, Exploration and Research (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: The Torch Press, 1923).Google Scholar The theory of the Tai kingdom of Nanchao, proposed by French Sinologists at the turn of the twentieth century, is today discredited.

53 Peleggi, Thailand, pp. 120–123.

54 See Suzanne Marchand, L., ‘The Rhetoric of Artefacts and the Decline of Classical Humanism: The Case of Josef Strzygowski’, History and Theory 33:4 (1994), pp. 106–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Salmony, Alfred, Sculpture in Siam (London: Ernest Benn, 1925), p. 1; French edition, La sculpture au Siam (Paris: G. Van Oest, 1925).Google Scholar

56 Salmony, Sculpture in Siam, p. 45 (original emphasis).

57 See Jory, Patrick, ‘Books and the Nation: The Making of Thailand's National Library’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 31:2 (2000): 351–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58 Rajanubhab, Prince Damrong, Laksana kanpokkhrong prathet sayam tae boran [The nature of government in Siam since antiquity] (Bangkok: 1927), pp. 6–7Google Scholar.

59 Coedès, George, ‘The Origins of the Sukhodayan Dynasty’, Journal of the Siam Society 14:1 (1921): 1–11Google Scholar; and Recueil des inscriptions du Siam. Première partie: Inscriptions de Sukhodaya (Bangkok: Bangkok Times Press, 1924). Before leaving Siam, Coedès published a second volume on inscriptions in languages other than Thai: Recueil des inscriptions du Siam. Duexième partie: Inscriptions de Dvaravati, de Çrivijaya et de Lavo (Bangkok: Bangkok Times Press, 1929).

60 Prachum kotmai (Compendium of laws), vol. 36, B.E. 2466 (1923/4), pp. 222–224. See also Coedès’ report on the Archaeological Service's first year of activity (April 1924 to March 1925, according to the traditional Siamese calendar) in Journal of the Siam Society 19:1 (1925): 29–41.

61 Coedès, Musée de Bangkok, p. 11.

62 Coedès, Musée de Bangkok, p. 17: ‘On voit que l'idée directrice qui a présidé à l'organisation et à l'installation a été de faire un museé vraiment national consacré aux arts et à l'archéologie du Siam’.

63 Donald Preziosi, ‘In the Temple of Entelechy’, p. 167.

64 Coedès, Musée de Bangkok, pp. 9–10, 13.

65 Coedès, Angkor, p. 68.

66 Marchand, ‘The Rhetoric of Artifacts’, p. 109.

67 Damrong, Monuments of the Buddha, pp. 9–11. Prince Damrong proposed the inexplicably high dating of 50 BCE onwards for Dvaravati antiquities.

68 Coedès, Musée de Bangkok, pp. 20–24.

69 The discovery in 1964 of silver coins bearing the inscription ‘king of Dvaravati’ lent credit to the theory of the existence of a Dvaravati kingdom but its location remained vague. See Boeles, J. J., ‘The King of Sri Dvaravati and His Regalia’, Journal of the Siam Society 52:1 (1964): 100–102.Google Scholar

70 Coedès, George, ‘Le royaume de Çrîvijaya’, BEFEO 18, 6 (1918), pp. 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 Damrong, Monuments of the Buddha, p. 11.

72 Coedès, Musée de Bangkok, p. 25.

73 Damrong, Monuments of the Buddha, pp. 12–13.

74 Coedès, Musée de Bangkok, pp. 26–28.

75 Damrong, Monuments of the Buddha, pp. 14–17.

76 Coedès, Musée de Bangkok, pp. 30–31.

77 Damrong, Monuments of the Buddha, p. 19.

78 A. B. Griswold, ‘Sculpture and Architecture’, p. 88.

79 Coomaraswamy, Ananda K., A History of Indian and Indonesian Art (London: E. Goldston, 1927), pp. 176–177Google Scholar and plates 321, 322.

80 Coedès, Musée de Bangkok, pp. 28–29.

81 George Coedès, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, Walter Vella (ed.), trans. Susan Brown Cowing (Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1968 [translation of L’État hindouisés, 3rd edn, Paris, 1964]), p. 222.

82 Damrong, Monuments of the Buddha, pp. 24–25. The first two sub-periods (1350–1488 and 1491–1628) were characterized as marking a transition from Khmer to Sinhalese stylistic influences in architecture and the latter two (1630–1733 and 1733–1767) by artistic decline and the tendency to restore old buildings rather than build new ones.

83 Coedès, Musée de Bangkok, pp. 33–35. See also Damrong, Monuments of the Buddha, p. 50, notes 81 and 82, and p. 56, note 152 (all by A. B. Griswold).

84 Le May, Reginald, A Concise History of Buddhist Art in Siam (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938), pp. xi, 13, 15Google Scholar. Le May proposed a nine-fold stylistic periodization including: I. Pure Indian (i.e., imported): up to the fifth century CE; II. Mon-Indian (Gupta): fifth to tenth centuries; III. Hindu-Javanese: seventh to twelfth centuries; IV. Khmer and Mon-Khmer transition: tenth to thirteenth centuries; V. Thai (Chiangsaen): eleventh to fourteenth centuries; VI. Thai (Sukhothai): thirteenth to fourteenth centuries; VII. Khmer-Thai transition (Uthong): thirteenth to fourteenth centuries; VIII. Thai (Lopburi): fifteenth to seventeenth centuries; IX. Thai (Ayutthaya): fourteenth to seventeenth centuries.

85 Le May, A Concise History, pp. 108, 128.

86 Le May, A Concise History, p. 143 (emphasis added).

87 Barmé, Scot, Luang Wichit Wathakan and the Creation of a Thai National Identity (Singapore: Institute of South-East Asian Studies, 1993), pp. 160–162.Google Scholar

88 Damrong, Monuments of the Buddha, p. 4.

89 Tanaka, ‘Imaging History’, p. 32, where he translates a passage from Okakura's Nihon Bijutshushi (p. 39), vol. 4 of the collected works, Okakura Tenshin zenshu (Tokyo: Rokugeisha, 1939).

90 An analogous case is the art historical research of E. B. Havell and A. K. Coomaraswamy, produced in the context of rising nationalism in colonial Bengal. See Tapati Guha-Thakurta, ‘Orientalism, Nationalism and the Reconstruction of “Indian” Art in Calcutta’, in Asher, C. B. and Metcalf, T. R. (eds), Perceptions of South Asia's Visual Past (New Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies, 1994), pp. 47–65.Google Scholar

91 Coedès, George, ‘Review of Reginald Le May's A Concise History of Buddhist Art in Siam’, Journal of Siam Society 30:2 (1939)Google Scholar. See also Coedès, Musée de Bangkok, p. 36.

92 Krairikish, Piriya, Art Styles in Thailand: A Selection from National Museums and an Essay in Conceptualization (Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, 1977).Google Scholar

93 See Boisselier, Jean and Beurdeley, Jean-Michel, The Heritage of Thai Sculpture (New York: Weatherhill, 1975)Google Scholar, which carries the dedication ‘In memory of the founder of Thai archaeology, Prince Damrong Rachanuphap’; and Pisit Charoenwongsa and Momchao Subhadradis Diskul, Thailand (Geneva: Nagel, 1978), the latter co-author being a late son of Prince Damrong.

94 See Vallibhotama, Srisakra, Aeng arayatham isan: chae lakthan borannakhadi phlik chomna prawatsat thai [A northeastern site of civilization: new archaeological evidence to change the face of Thai history] (Bangkok: Matichon, B.E. 2533 [1990])Google Scholar. See also Lysa, Hong, ‘Twenty Years of Sinlapa watthanatham: Cultural Politics in Thailand in the 1980s and 1990s’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 31:1 (2000): 37–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For two recent volumes that deal with the history of art in Thailand prior to the rise of Sukhothai, see Gosling, Betty, Origins of Thai Art (Bangkok: River Books, 2004)Google Scholar; and Woodward, Hiram W., The Art and Architecture of Thailand: From Prehistoric Times Through the Thirteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2003).Google Scholar Ban Chiang was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1996.

95 Higham and Rachanie, Prehistoric Thailand, p. 215. The claim advanced in the late 1980s by authors such as Michael Vickery and Piriya Krairikish that the Ramkhamhaeng stele was a later fake caused considerable consternation. See Chamberlain, James (ed.), The Ramkhamhaeng Controversy: Collected Papers (Bangkok: The Siam Society, 1991).Google Scholar Instead, the recent re-dating of the Wat Bang Sanuk inscription to 1219—some 70 years earlier than the Ramkhamhaeng inscription—aroused little interest. On the historical hypotheses raised by the re-dating, see Wyatt, David K., ‘Relics, Oaths and Politics in Thirteenth-Century Siam’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 32:1 (2001): 3–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar