Mueang Phon Phisai in 1884

Another interesting quote from the book Isan Travels by Etienne Aymonier. On February 5 1884 he stayed in Phon Phisai, a small Mueang east of Nong Khai at the Mekong river, and gave a detailed description of this small province in his travelogue. I only have a few pages of this book at hand right now - will buy it next time I'm in Bangkok for sure - but it seems in other chapters it has similar descriptions of the Mueang he visited. As many of the minor Mueang are nowadays districts, this should give quite some material to enhance the history sections of the corresponding Wikipedia articles. The one on Phon Phisai also had almost nothing about the history prior to the 20th century.

Note that the coordinates given in the first sentence are clearly wrong as it would have placed Phon Phisai into Phrae province, Francis Garnier systematically had the longitude about 3 degrees off to the west maybe due to a faulty clock - the correct location of the modern district center is at 18°1′19″ N, 103°4′38″ E.

Mœuong Phon Vi Saï, at 18°01′00″ N, 100°39′00″ E (according to Garnier), was a village of about 150 huts dispersed among fruit trees along the right bank of the river. The terrain, quite low, flooded by the river's high rises, did not allow the cultivation of rice in that immediate vicinity. There were five pagodas, each with seven or eight monks. The population, which was Laotian, cultivated rice and cotton. There were a few Chinese there who sold fabric and pottery and who bought bastard cardamon, which could be collected in the forests. [...]

The chau had as titles: phrah saurinhah sakdi santhon chao Mœuong Phon Vi Saï; or, according to others phrah visaï saura dêt chau Mœuong Phon Vi Saï. The province was bordered in the east by Sayahbouri at the Keng Sadâk, a four days' march from Phon Vi Saï; in the south by Nong Han, in Ban Pho, half a day's march from Phon Vi Saï; and in the west by the Houé Luoung, which separated the province from Nong Khaï. In the north this small province, entirely on the right bank, was bordered by the Great River. Nevertheless, people said that Mœuong Pasoum on the Nam San came under the jurisdiction of Phon Vi Saï and still sent its tribute there. In Phon Vi Saï there reportedly were 900 registered men and 200 outside. The annual poll tax was six ticals per married registered man, three ticals for an elder, and two ticals for a single young man. The tribute taken to Bangkok was thirty-six catties. The inhabitants complained that the tax was too heavy. The authorities had requested a reduction from Bangkok, but in vain.

When my two men were in Phon Vi Saï, the chau had been dead for some time, leaving behind only young children. His first cousin, the oppahat, provisionally replaced him while waiting for his nomination as incumbent; the two dignities had been in the family for a long time. The dignities of ratsevong and ratsebout belonged to another family, which also passed from father to son. [...]

Mueang of Isan

Another quote from Volker Grbowskys "Kleine Geschichte Thailands", in the chapter on the history of the Isan.

In dem halben Jahrhundert zwischen 1778 und 1826 stieg die Zahl der müang im Isan von 13 auf 35; für die Erschließung des Landesinneren erwiesen sich vor allem die Gründungen von Ròi Et (1775), Ubon Ratchathani (1791), Kalasin (1793) und Khòn Kaen (1797) als äußerst wichtig.

In the half century between 1778 and 1826 the number of mueang in the Isan increased from 13 to 35; most important for the development of the central area were the founding of Roi Et (1775), Ubon Ratchathani (1791), Kalasin (1793( and Khon Kaen (1797).

Now, I already wrote about the number of mueang in Isan before, quoting an article by the same author in the book "Regions and national integration in Thailand", in which the author gave the numbers for some selected years between 1826 and 1880.

• 1826 - 33
• 1840 - 54
• 1860 - 70
• 1880 - 100
• and no new Mueang after 1885
  

The number for 1826 contradicts with the new quote, but when rechecking the article I noticed that in there the above mentioned numbers for 1778 and 1826 were also given few paragraphs before - so in fact the article already contains both contradicting numbers.

And to my shame I have to admit that I still haven't worked through the scans I received last year, which would have allowed me to confirm which of the two numbers of 1826 is wrong.

Enclave Mueang

Few weeks ago, a new German book on Thailand titled "Kleine Geschichte Thailands" was published, written by Professor Volker Grabowsky, whom I already knew as the editor of the anthology "Regions and national integration in Thailand". As it is written for a non-academic audience, I did not expect to learn much new from it, but already the first pages had a very interesting speciality of the administration at the beginning of the 20th century.

Die politische Zugehörigkeit eines müang hing von den herrschaftlichen Bindungen der dort lebenden Bevölkerung ab. So gehörte der 40km südlich der Stadt Chiang Rai gelegene Distrikt (amphoe) Phan noch zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts als Enklave verwaltungstechnisch zu Müang Lamphun. Phan war nämlich in den 40er Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts von Siedlern aus Lamphun erschlossen worden, die auch nach der Auswanderung weiterhin ihrem alten Patron, dem Herrscher (cao müang) von Lamphun unterstanden. Diese Bande wogen stärker als geographische und wirtschaftliche Faktoren, die eine Zugehörigkeit von Phan zu Chiang Rai nahegelegt hätten.

Now as most of my readers don't understand German, and trying to translate the above with Google translate will only create garbled nonsense, here's my translation of this paragraph.

The political affiliation of a mueang depended on the stately dependencies of its population. For example, the district Phan located 40km south of the city Chiang Rai, at the beginning of the 20th century formed an enclave and belonged administratively to Mueang Lamphun. Phan was founded in the 1840s by settlers from Lamphun, who after their emigration kept their relationship with their old patron, the ruler (chao mueang) of Lamphun. This relationship was stronger than geographical and economical factors, which would have suggested Phan to be a subordinate of Chiang Rai.

The oldest mention of any changes for Phan district in the Royal Gazette that I am aware of is from 1912, when the minor district Mueang Phan was upgraded to a full district [Gazette].

Lan Na administrative structure

An excerpt from the article A brief history of Lān Nā by Hans Penth (in: Regions and National Integration in Thailand, 1892-1992) - not be confused with the same-titled book by the same author.

Lān Nā was not a single country. It consisted of several countries much as a modern country is made up of districts or partly self-governing states. The basic unit was a settlement called bān "village" (modern Thai: "house"), often a cluster of houses belonging to one family. The leader of the village was the senior relative or otherwise locally elected. A number of villages formed a district, pan nā "1,000 paddy fields". An important village could be fortified by a rampart and a moat; such a settlement was called a wiang "town". If a town was inhabited by senior royalty, the wiang was called a chiang "city". Several ban with a wiang or a chiang formed a müang "country; city state". A müang was an area bordered by hills. Beyond the hills would be another müang.

Eat the town

Kin Mueang (กินเมือง), literally "eat the town" was the traditional way of payment for the local administration until the thesaphiban reforms of King Chulalongkorn at the begin of the 20th century.

A more fitting way to translate that term would be "eat from the town", since at those times the administrator like the provincial governors were not paid by the central government, but earned their living directly from the town under them. They had to send a fixed amount to the central government, so any additional funds they could earn from their town was their salary. Thus the more ruthless administrators were the ones who could become the richest, and since the normal populace was not allowed to choose their residence freely they were totally at their governor's mercy.

For the lower administrative posts, the correct term was Kin Tamhaeng (กินตำแหน่ง, eat the position), but the actual system was the same - the official had to deliver a fixed amount to his superior, and any additional funds he could make by his position were his salary. Especially the tax farmers, mostly of Chinese origin, became quite rich in this way.

Though this system was abolished more than 100 years ago, and the government staff became a fixed salary instead, it doesn't mean that after that there were no attempts ways of extract additional salary from the local sources. Of course these were then illegal ways like corruption, but as the salary especially for the lower ranks are hardly appropriate one could think these illegal means were somehow sanctioned by the government.

I am not sure if it's related, but nowadays many of the officials are shuffled around in their posts, it is rare to have a province governor or district head officer to serve in the same locality for more than two years, especially province governors often get moved to a new province after just one year. One reason to do so may be to avoid that these officers built a local income net, in their short time in one specific place they hardly have the time to learn who could bribe them best.

Mueang Khlung

While working through the Royal Gazette announcements of the beginning of the 20th century, I came across the probably shortest time a province existed. In 1906 the Monthon Chanthaburi was created, when France gave back control of this area back to Siam, however occupying the province Trat instead. This new Monthon was created out of three provinces, then named Mueang - Chanthaburi, Rayong and Khlung. The last one was newly created with the same announcement, consisting of the two districts

• Khlung (ขลุง)
• Thung Yai (ทุ่งใหญ่), which is now Khao Saming district.

In 1907 however, this Mueang was already dissolved again, in the announcement which contains the creation of Kabinburi province also includes the abolishing of Khlung province, with Khlung district reassigned to Chanthaburi province and Thung Yai to Trat province.

Now, the interesting thing is to compare this with the book "The Provincial Administration of Siam" by Tej Bunnag, still my prime source of the administrative system 1892-1915. In appendix II it has a list of all provinces in the various Monthon, yet for Chanthaburi it only lists Rayong, Chanthaburi and Trat. The text on page 163 gives only few further facts on this Monthon.

In 1906 monthon Chanthaburi was created when France returned the province which she had occupied since 1893. In 1907, Trat, the south-easternmost province which the French had occupied since 1904, was joined to monthon Chanthaburi.

I wasn't yet able to find an announcement in the Royal Gazette on the integration of Mueang Trat into Monthon Chanthaburi, which must have taken place only shortly before the abolishing on Mueang Khlung.

Lao Mueang administration

The article Administrative reforms and national intergration: The case of the northeast by Paitoon Mikusol (ไพฑูรย์ มีกุศล) (in: Regions and national integration in Thailand, 1892-1992) gives an interesting view on the two different styles of administration in the mueang before around 1900 and the changes during the thesaphiban reforms.

In northeastern Siam, the mueang had two different systems of their internal administration, one in use for the Lao mueang and another one for those under more Siamese control. The Lao system was introduced by the first chao mueang (governor) of mueang Tung, the precursor of present-day Suwannaphum district in southern Roi Et province. Several mueang were grouped into one principality named hua mueang (หัวเมือง, lit. head town), either for group of mueang of a specific ethnic group, or for one major mueang with its subordinate mueang.

The internal administration of each mueang was headed by the chao mueang (เจ้าเมือง), which can be translated as governor or lord. This post, though it was to be appointed by the King in Bangkok, was in fact an hereditary post of the local nobility. Usually the chao mueang had the rank of a Phra (พระ) or Phraya (พระยา). The second post was the uparat (อุปราช), normally the son or younger brother of the chao mueang, and the heir when the chao mueang died. Two further posts are the ratchawong (ราชวงศ์) and ratchabut (ราชบุตร), with the whole group of four posts named aya si (อาญาสี่). All three lower posts were appointed from the court in Bangkok, and were not under control of the chao mueang. Also the capital punishment was not in the authority of the chao mueang, but in many other fields he was quite independent in his administrative decisions.

This system ceased to exist with the thesaphiban reforms during which the local nobility was replaced by paid officials sent from the capital. At least this was the case in those parts which stayed under Siamese rule, what happened in the areas east of the Mekong which were included into French Indochina I have no idea.

The Siamese style of mueang administration will be the topic of a later post.

Mueang of Isan

I knew before that there were more of the Mueang than those which became the modern-day provinces, yet most of these were subordinate of more important and powerful Mueang. For several of the districts I read in the history that they were such subordinate Mueang in the past. But I not knew the numbers of these, as the only list of Muang I have found so far seems only to include those directly subordinate to Bangkok.

But at least for the northeast (Isan) I have now found the numbers, in the paper The Isan up to its integration into the Siamese state (in: Regions and National Integration in Thailand, 1892-1992) by Volker Grabowsky the author cites a Thai lnaguage source, according to which the numbers were as follows.

• 1826 - 33
• 1840 - 54
• 1860 - 70
• 1880 - 100
• and no new Mueang after 1885
  

To compare, there are now 19 provinces with 321 districts, thus by far more Mueang than provinces, but on the other side by far not all of the districts can claim their history to go back to such an old entity.

The Thai source is a book titled "Prawattisat isan" (ประวัติศาสตร์อีสาน, History of Isan) by Toem Waphikphotcanakit (เติม วิภาคย์พจนกิจ) published in 1970. I though it'd take long till I could get my hand on this book, let alone be able to read it to into the base data for the above numbers. But then the fact I posted my Thailand books on LibraryThing helped. This had inspired Jakkrits from the Ethnowater blog to do the same. And when I just checked through his library I noticed that he has exactly that book in his collection, and he send me a scan of the relevant pages. Now I only need to find the time to work through that list.

Prince of ... titles

A lot of the royals in the beginning of the 20th century are known by titles like "Prince of Chumphon" or "Prince of Chainat". It was apparently introduced by King Chulalongkorn modeled after the usage in England, most famously the Prince of Wales who is the heir apparent there. In English it is rendered as "Prince of", while in Thai it is "กรมหลวง" (Krom Luang).

I had tried to ask for more details in the 2bangkok forum, but did not get much then. So what would be most interesting is which of the provinces were used for a royal title, especially if one of the no longer existing provinces like e.g. Lang Suan was among them, or if any title was given to more than one royalty. Those I have read about quite often are the following

• Prince of Chumphon (กรมหลวงชุมพรเขตอุดมศักดิ์), Abhakara Kiartiwongse, the founder of the Thai Navy. The statue in the photo above is showing him.
• Prince of Songkhla (กรมหลวงสงขลานครินทร์), Prince Mahidol, the father of the King
• Prince of Chainat (กรมหมื่นชัยนาทนเรนทร), Prince Rangsit Prayurasakdi
• Princess of Narathiwat (กรมหลวงนราธิวาสราชนครินทร์), Galyani Vadhana, the elder sister of the King. She was also the latest one who received such a title in 1995

Only found with the help of the Thai Wikipedia and their list of all Krom Luang are a prince of Nakhon Ratchasima, Nakhon Chaisi, Phichit, Phitsanulok, Phetchaburi, Ratchaburi, and Lopburi. But these are only those who have an article in the Thai Wikipedia so far, so quite likely it is incomplete. These titles should not be confused with the "na" family names, e.g. the "na Ranong" (ณ ระนอง) family. These are the descendants of the former local aristocracy of the former provincial governors before the thesaphiban reforms. Especially the na Ranong family would be worth a separate blog posting.

Districts and provinces in the deep south around 1909

My post on the administrative history of Pattani has found at least one reader very interested into the topic. He has even digged out an old map dating from the time of the 1909 boundary treaty between Siam and the United Kingdom fixing the boundary the way it still is today.

Of the five points he stumbled upon in this map, I can at least answer some relatively easy with the sources available to me.

• Tak Bai belonged to Kelantan before 1909, but as the Sungai Kolok river was chosen as the boundary line, the area of Tak Bai district stayed under Thai control. In August 1909 the creation of the district under the province Narathiwat was announced in the Royal Gazette.
• The same Gazette announcement also includes the creation of Sadao district by merging together the subdistrict Sadao with the minor district Prink (กิ่งปริก), which was a subordinate of Nuea district (now named Hat Yai). Originally, Sadao belonged to Changlun and was part of the ''Mueang'' Saiburi, better known as Kedah. Due to the 1909 contract Changlun became Malay, while the northern part of it became Thai and thus was made the district Sadao. Strangely the history of the district in amphoe.com must be wrong, as that claims the district was created in 1917, and at the same time the subdistrict was renamed from Changlun to Sadao. Yet the Gazette announcement dates it to 1909, and also does not mention the name Changlun at all. As the Wikipedia article was originally based on amphoe.com this researched could at least fix the history in there.
• Thepha was drawn as a separate province in that map, which must be a misunderstanding of the mapmaker. Here amphoe.com gives a detailled history, according to which Thepha was a forth-class Mueang and subordinate of Phatthalung in 1786, when the governor of Thepha had to present the tribute as a golden and silver tree to the governor of Phatthalung. In the reign of King Rama II it was upgraded to third-class Mueang and placed under Songkhla. But no trace of the alleged reassignment of this district from Pattani to Songkhla as it was claimed by the anonymous Wikipedia editor.
• Also Chana was drawn separately. As the website of the district (there are only very few districts with a website, and this is a very good one) has a long history text including a list of all the past governors and district officers. This history is quite similar with Thepha, as Chana also was at first a subordinate of Phatthalung and then became reassigned to Songkhla. The town was moved around often - last location was in Pa Ching subdistricy before the district was created in the thesaphiban reforms. The first district office was in present-day Na Thawi district, but since the location was inconvenient it was moved to Ban Na, and the district was renamed to Ban Na then. While the website gives no date, the rename was announced in 1917 in the Gazette. In 1924 the name change was reverted, as there were two more districts with the same name already.
  

The two things I cannot answer is the fact that Perlis is shown divided into two entities, and Raman and Rangae's extent into current Perak and Kelantan respectively. The Wikipedia article on Perlis does not mention any division, but the second one I can at least suspect that it might be similar to the above mentioned case of Sadao and Tak Bai where the 1909 boundary does not follow the historical boundaries of the Mueang.

Origin of Surat Thani province

As I am most interested in Surat Thani province, it was this province I tried hardest to find sources on its history. But due to its more complicated history, the English sources I found are somewhat contradicting. It's especially the thesaphiban reforms and its effects on Surat Thani which I am talking about now. At first I will present the history as I right now think is most correct, hopefully I am not too far from reality.

1896 the Monthon Chumphon was created, consisting of the four provinces (Mueang) Chumphon, Lang Suan, Chaiya and Kanchanadit. The center of Kanchanadit was in fact located in Ban Don, the modern-day district Kanchanadit only covers the older location at Tha Thong Mai - the name Kanchanadit was bestowed on Tha Thong during the reign of King Rama V. In October 1899 the Mueang Kanchanadit and Chaiya were merged (Gazette), and the center set to Ban Don but the name Chaiya was retained. 1906 the monthon administration was moved to Ban Don as well. In August 1915 the province was renamed to Surat Thani, while the Monthon was renamed from Chumphon to just Surat (Gazette).

The first two sources I found while researching for the Wikipedia article on the province was the Golden Jubilee Network (Kanchanaphik), which had informative pages on the provinces. Strangely these pages went blank some years before, and apparently no webmaster ever checked and fixed this. So the text I am talking about is only available from archive.org.

Later, it was divided into Chaiya, Tha Thong and Kiri Raj towns which were governed by Nakhon Si Thammarat town. In the reign of King Rama IV, Tha Thong town was moved to Ban Don (present town) and governed by Bangkok. The name Tha Thong was changed to Kanchanadit Town. Due to the change in the country administrative system, King Rama V combined Chaiya, Kanchanadit, Lang Suan and Chumporn together to be called Chumporn . In 1898, the municipal hall was built in Chumporn but it was moved to Ban Don in 1915, in the reign of King Rama VI. This place was re-named “Surat Thani”.

The second one, also not online anymore, was from a site named Goods-th

The Thong and Khiri Rat were annexed to Nakhon Si Thammarat, while Chaiya reported directly to Ayutthaya. After Ayutthaya fell to Burma in 1767, Chaiya fell under Nakhon Si Thammarat. King Rama IV moved the administration and Tha Thong to Ban Don, and renamed it "Kanchanadit". Which was to report directly to Bangkok.
King Rama V In 1896: The regional administration center was established. The so-called Monthon Chumphon looked after Kanchanadit (or Ban Don). Chaiya, and Khiri Ratthanikhom.

So both sources list Khirirat Nikhom as a third province which existed in the area of Surat Thani. However, as the Gazette announcement cited above only lists Kanchanadit and Chiaya, this must have been demoted before. This confusion probably arises due to the fact that Mueang not just named the provinces directly under the central government, but also the minor Mueang which were subordinate of another Mueang.

Even Tej Bunnags "Provincial Administration of Siam" added more confusion, as in Appendix III it lists the provinces within each monthon, and for Chumphon/Surat it says

Chumphon, and then Suratthani, Chaiya,
Kanchanadit, Langsuan

which sounds like there were three - Surat Thani, Chaiya and Kanchanadit.

Another version in Wolf Donner's Five faces of Thailand lists instead another additional Mueang, this time Khiri Wong. On page 464f. it says:

South of Chumphon we find the rather large changwat of Surat Thani with a capital that received its present name from Rama VI meaning "the town of the good people". Originally, this province was part of Nakhon Si Thammarat but it was, towards the end of the last century, separated under the name of Kanchanadit or Ban Don, with the capital of the latter name. Today the changwat encloses the old provinces of Chaiya and Kiriwong and reaches close to the west coast.

My interpretation is however backed by the Thai book "Our Surat Thani", which only talks on the histories of Chaiya and Kanchanadit.

If you're still with me here after all these texts you can imagine how much difficult it often is to write well-researched articles on the Thai provinces or districts in Wikipedia.

Creation of Chiang Rai

The town (Mueang) Chiang Rai was founded in 1262 by King Mangrai, who expanded his kingdom from the town of Ngoen Yang (now Chiang Saen) and founded new towns - first Chiang Rai, and then later Chiang Mai. His kingdom thereafter became known as Lan Na, which existed until it was absorbed into Siam in the beginning of the 20th century.

The founding of Chiang Rai is described in the Chiang Mai chronicle in the translation of late David K. Wyatt.

Not long afterwards, the auspicious elephant of King Mangrai ran loose north of a mountain to the east. The king followed the track of the elephant and beheld a country on the banks of the Kok River, flanked by a single beauteous hill. He thought, "When Grandfather Lao Cong built a home for / my Grandfather Lao Kao, I heard that it was [founded] at the base of Mount Pha Rao. When Grandfather Lao Khriang built M. Ngoen Yang, he built it nestled between three mountains, namely Dòi Thung, Dòi Tha, and Dòi Ya Thao, which was very good, so I should likewise make [mountains] the navel of the town in its center. So King Mangrai / built a [fortified] city around Dòi Còm Thòng, which he made the center of the city. It was built in the tao set year, 624 of the Era (1262/63), and was named Chiang Rai.

Book excerpt - A description of the Kingdom of Siam 1690

In 1690 the German physicist Engelbert Kaempfer made a visit to Ayutthaya on his way to Japan. About his travel he wrote a book, which however wasn't published during his lifetime. After his death in 1716 the Latin text was translated into English and published in 1727. The first part of this book covering the time in Siam is published separately under the title A description of the Kingdom of Siam, 1690. The section fitting to the topic of the blog from chapter II is as follows.

The Kingdom of Siam is by the Natives called Muan Thai, which is as much as to say, the Land Thai. In their books it is sounded with this Epithet, Krom Thep Pramma haa Ikoon, (Circuitus visitationis Deorum) the Cirtcuit of the Visitations of the Gods. The Malagans and Peguans call it Tziam, from whence comes the European name Siam. Its Northern Latitude about the middle of it, or where the Capital City is situated, is fourteen degrees eighteen minutes, and its Longitude according to the common Maps 138, but according to the late Observations of the Jesuits 120 degrees. Eastward it borders upon the Kingdoms Tunkin, Cosynsina and Cambodia; on the South it is limited by the Sea, and the Counrties of Malacca, of which the King of Siam possesses Ligoor, Tanasseri, and some other small Provinces. On the West if the Kingdom of Pegu, and on the North that of Laos. Considering its extend it is but indifferently peopled being best inhabited only along the banks of the Rivers. [...] This Kingdom contains twelve large provinces, each of which is govern'd by an Oja, or Prince, as the King's Lieutenant, who hath several Opera's, or subaltern Officers under him. Besides there is an Oja at Court for every Province, who manages its Concerns, and keeps a watchful Eye over the Lieutenant's conduct. The late King had added a thirteenth Province to the aforesaid twelve, which he conquer'd from the Kingdom of Laos, and in all probability he would have conquer'd more, if the swelling of a large River had not put a stop to his progress. But a few years after that Province was taken from him again, so that all the benefit of an expedition undertaken in so remoate a Country, and with so much expence, was only the creating of Jealousy between the two Nations, which ruin'd the former trade between them, and remov'd it to Cambodia.

I did not know before that the name Thailand (Mueang Thai) is in fact much older, and wasn't just created in the 1930s when the name of the country was officially changed from Siam to Thailand. Its a bit sad that the author did not name the 12 or 13 provinces, or those of the Malay kingdoms and provinces under Siam.

Thongchai Winichakul on the Preah Vihear issue

Thongchai Winichakul, historian professor at the University of Wisconsin and most well-known for his book "Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo Body of a Nation", wrote a comment on the Preah Vihear issue in English language newpaper The Nation. Since I blogged about that issue some month ago, it has apparently become the main political topic in Thailand, especially now the UNESCO World heritage committee started its annual session with that temple on their agenda. While the foreign ministry tries to keep tensions down by a joint statement on the nomination with the Cambodia government, especially the Democratic Party as well as the PAD protesters on the streets try to use the nationalistic feeling for their fight with the government. And all this despite the fact that the issue was already finally settled at the International Court of Justice in 1962, which confirmed the boundary as marked by the French in 1907. Below are the in my opinion main statements in Prof. Thongchai's comments, though I recommend to read it completely:

Using the temple to fan nationalism can lead to much bigger tragedy. The nature of modern boundaries between Thailand and its neighbours is like a time bomb. [...] With little exception, claims to exclusive "ownership" rights of borderlands longer than the past 100 to 130 years are probably false and historically impossible to support. [...] We should respect the settlement provided by the court since Thailand has no better justifiable claim than Cambodia. Despite that, the talks about "losing territory" have been common among thoughtless nationalists in the region. [...] Thais have been taught their territories were lost as well. Every country lost territories. The idea of loss is a powerful tool used to whip up nationalism, especially in domestic politics. The dark side of nationalism is dangerous as ever. It has now become a weapon in today's Thai politics.

To get a deeper understanding into the complexity of the boundaries, Prof. Thongchai aove mentioned book is a great resource. It is important to know that before the spread of European colonialism to the area there was nothing like a demarcation line as we know the boundaries today. Instead the semi-independent city states (Mueang) at the boundary area often swore allegiance to both more powerful kings, making the countries in fact a blurred with each other in their boundary areas. This has become known under the term "Mandala" since O.W. Wolters coined the term in 1982.

Mueang of Sukhothai kingdom

The controversial Ramkhamhaeng stele is the oldest proof of the administrative subdivision of a Tai kingdom, as well as the oldest written text in Thai script. Some scholars doubt the authenticity of this stele however, claiming it was written much later due to linguistic oddities, while others strongly doubt it could be made up in the 19th century as it refers to places rediscovered in the 20th century and long forgotten when the later King Mongkut discovered the stele in 1833. A whole collection of papers on this topic was published by the Siam Society in 1991, however I have only one of the texts within that collection - David K. Wyatt's Studies in Thai History contains the one titled Contextual Arguments for the Authenticity of the Ramkhamhaeng Inscription.

Praising King Ramkhamhaeng (ca. 1239–1317) achievements for his kingdom, it also lists cities (Mueang) and minor kingdoms under the overlordship of Sukhothai in the last part of the fourth side. However this does not mean that these areas were part of a nation-state like the modern-day Thailand, all of these were rather independent kingdoms on their own who just had swear an oath of allegiance to the overlord, pay tribute and help in case of a military conflict.

• East: Sara Luang, Song Khwae, Lam, Bachai, Sakha, Wiang Chan, Wiang Kham
• South: Khonti, Phra Bang, Phraek, Suphanaphum, Ratchaburi, Phetchaburi, Si Thammarat
• West: Chod, … (unreadable) , Hongsawati
• North: Phrae, Man, N… (unreadable), Phlua, Chawa
  

Some of the names are directly identified as they still have the same name today, like Wiang Chan (Vientiane) or (Nakhon) Si Thammarat. Others changed their name, so Song Khwae is the old name of Phitsanulok, or are now better known in a different name, like Hongsawati which is the Mon name of Pegu (Bagan). I think I once saw the above list with all names matched to their modern-day name, but sadly cannot find it anymore.

The whole inscription in both Thai and English together with a little more on the controversy around it can be found in this blog posting, while here there are photos of the original piece.

Moving Mueang

Something which kept me puzzled a bit when I was writing about the provinces on Wikipedia were references in the history about the town (Mueang) being "moved" to a new location. However this was a cultural prejudice, which finally became clear to me when I read the book "The Connection Phuket-Penang" by Ian Morson (ISBN 974-8298-24-8, Siam Society 1993). Talking on the former capital town of Phuket named Tha Ruea, it says on page 36:

Westerns are often surprised that Asian cities often ceased to exist or even moved to other locations. It is however quite understandable when it is realized that almost all the buildings were often simple wooden construction with thatched roofs. ... The only buildings that might survive in shattered form would be those of poor quality brick which would crumble away more slowly.

The ruins depicted are at Khu Bua (คูบัว), a settlement from Dvaravati times (6th to 10th century) just a few kilometers south of the town Ratchaburi. Though it not fully fits the topic of moving a town, because the town was abandoned in the 10th century and refounded by king U-Thong in the 14th century, that ruins of the former main temple of the town still put an example of what might stay behind of such a Mueang being moved to a new location. Sadly the small museum next to that ruins was closed for renovations when I visited there last year, so I have to go there again to learn more about that old town.

Another very recent example for a relocation of a town happened in Trang in the beginning of the 20th century. At first the center of the province was moved in 1896 from Khuan Thani to the coast of the Andaman Sea in Kantang, and after several floodings it was move inland again in 1916. One thing which still reminds on these relocations is the fact that the city pillar shrine (Lak Mueang) is still located outside the modern city.