Chiang Mai deserted.

[CMHomeboy78]

It is the consensus among historians that Chiang Mai was deserted between 1775 and 1797. The primary source of information is the Chiang Mai Chronicle which says: "At that time Chiang Mai was abandoned and overgrown with weeds, bushes, and vines. It was a place for rhinoceros and elephants and tigers and bears and there were few people..." [Wyatt/Wichienkeeo translation. 1995].

Professor Hans Penth in his book, A Brief History of Lan Na [silkworm Books.1994] outlines it as follows: "For military reasons, but also because the city had suffered much physical damage and a serious loss of population along with a loss of food supply, the royal court, between 1775 and 1797 lived in a camp near Pa Sang, south of Lamphun. During that time Chiang Mai was nearly deserted. After King Kawila had ceremoniously re-entered the city on Thursday, 9 March, 1797, Chiang Mai received new fortifications; what is left of them at present dates from that period around 1800."

The liberation of Lanna T'ai from Burmese rule was a long struggle that dragged on for almost thirty years devastating and depopulating large areas of the north. It started with an uprising in the south led by Thip Chang, a commoner who expelled the despotic ruler of Lampang in 1732. He did so with broad popular support and moral encouragement by the local Buddhist Sangha. He ascended the throne under the name Phana Sulawaluchai [r.1732-59]. His son, Chai Kaeo [r.1759-74] was instrumental in organizing armed resistance to the Burmese after 1770. His eldest son, Kawila [b.1742] helped his father in day-to-day administration; proved to be an able military commander, and finally played a crucial role in defeating the Burmese at Chiang Mai.

From 1775 on, Kawila and his six brothers dominated politics in Chiang Mai, Lamphun, and Lampang. Throughout the 19th century all leading administrative posts in these three closely allied principalities were held by the seven brothers and their offspring. People in the north called this dynasty Trakun Chao Jet Ton - the family of the seven lords.

During this period Lanna T'ai was nominally a vassal of Bangkok as a result of military treaties aimed at preventing another Burmese incursion. In fact it was ruled by its Chaos, the aristocratic families of Chiang Mai. The Chakri Kings were satisfied with various forms of token tribute and the occasional Chiang Mai Princess in exchange for non-interference. The Burmese threat was being neutralized because they were engaged in conflict with the British who were taking over their country piecemeal.

In the course of the 19th century Chiang Mai's position changed dramatically with the American Protestant missionaries and the British teak-wallahs playing key roles in the machiavellian events that led to complete dominance by the central government.

To sum up, it can be said that the abandonment of Chiang Mai for over twenty years at the end of the 18th century is an established fact. But to what extent was it abandoned? That has been a vexed question among historians.

My own opinion - for what it's worth - is that the city was never totally deserted. Even if its social structure and institutions broke down and the place became a haunt of "wild beasts" - both two and four-legged. There was just too much there; even if it was in ruins. The number of temples and sacred sites would have made it almost a thebaid to rival Sagaing and Pagan. Even without an organized Sangha there must have been devotees of one kind or another, and a breakdown of civil society would embolden treasure-hunters.

I think there were always people in Chiang Mai... scavengers who came to strip whatever they could of value... Buddhist pilgrims comparable to palmers and Romers... people who loved the city and would live there in a rathole rather than go anywhere else.

The good, the bad, and the ugly.

Plus ca change...

[bangmai]

So kind of like LK....it seems abandoned, but not really.

[Thailand]

They were all at Kad Farang!

[CMHomeboy78]

So kind of like LK....it seems abandoned, but not really.

Spot on.

[hml367]

Thanks, CMHomeboy78, for another great history lesson.

I look forward to any others coming forth.

[MESmith]

If the reported gridlock continues, then maybe time for another abandonment

[northernjohn]

Thank you for the information. As always interesting.

[CMBob]

I've read a few histories of northern Thailand and I personally think that the most definitive history is the book written by Wyatt (A Short History of Thailand, which is neither all that short or easy to read).

In any event, he asserts that the ruler of the Lampang kingdom from 1732-1759 was King Thip Chang, he having been appointed to that position by the Burmese because of his military prowess and favors for them. Thip Chang is considered the progenitor of what's called the Dynasty of the Seven Lords. His grandson was Prince Kawila who, along with Phraya Chaban (the vassal ruler of Chiangmai installed by the Burmese) sided with the Siamese (King Taksin had brought his armies north to take on the Burmese) in 1774 and they finally gained control of the Chiangmai area from the Burmese. After this defeat of the Burmese, Wyatt asserts that Taksin appointed Prince Kawila as ruler of Lampang and Taksin appointed Phraya Chaban as ruler of what was left of Chiangmai. Ten to twenty years later (I don't remember what happened to Chaban, perhaps he died), the first Chakri King (Rama I) appointed Kawila as ruler of Chiangmai. Wyatt seems to be fairly adamant that after 1774, what was left of the Lanna Kingdom was truly a vassal state to the Siamese Kingdom down south.

While Chiangmai was generally destroyed and depopulated for a long period of time, I agree that it's difficult to believe that there weren't some people left in the area - just as it's silly to believe that there were no indigenous people here in 1296 when Mengrai allegedly founded the city. In fact the Lawa people lived around Chiangmai and had settlements here for hundreds of years before Mengrai ever decided to build his "new city" here.

Another interesting note is that Kawila, with the help of the Siamese, repopulated the Chiangmai area by largely resettling (likely not all in a very voluntary manner) thousands of people from three cities in what is now the Shan State of Burma.

[pgrahmm]

MAYBE they just got tired of queuing up early every 90 days at immigration?

[CMHomeboy78]

I've read a few histories of northern Thailand and I personally think that the most definitive history is the book written by Wyatt (A Short History of Thailand, which is neither all that short or easy to read).

In any event, he asserts that the ruler of the Lampang kingdom from 1732-1759 was King Thip Chang, he having been appointed to that position by the Burmese because of his military prowess and favors for them. Thip Chang is considered the progenitor of what's called the Dynasty of the Seven Lords. His grandson was Prince Kawila who, along with Phraya Chaban (the vassal ruler of Chiangmai installed by the Burmese) sided with the Siamese (King Taksin had brought his armies north to take on the Burmese) in 1774 and they finally gained control of the Chiangmai area from the Burmese. After this defeat of the Burmese, Wyatt asserts that Taksin appointed Prince Kawila as ruler of Lampang and Taksin appointed Phraya Chaban as ruler of what was left of Chiangmai. Ten to twenty years later (I don't remember what happened to Chaban, perhaps he died), the first Chakri King (Rama I) appointed Kawila as ruler of Chiangmai. Wyatt seems to be fairly adamant that after 1774, what was left of the Lanna Kingdom was truly a vassal state to the Siamese Kingdom down south.

While Chiangmai was generally destroyed and depopulated for a long period of time, I agree that it's difficult to believe that there weren't some people left in the area - just as it's silly to believe that there were no indigenous people here in 1296 when Mengrai allegedly founded the city. In fact the Lawa people lived around Chiangmai and had settlements here for hundreds of years before Mengrai ever decided to build his "new city" here.

Another interesting note is that Kawila, with the help of the Siamese, repopulated the Chiangmai area by largely resettling (likely not all in a very voluntary manner) thousands of people from three cities in what is now the Shan State of Burma.

The late David K. Wyatt is a credible source of information about Thai history.

Your statement that Wyatt asserts that Thip Chang, the ruler of the Lampang kingdom and founder of the Dynasty of the Seven Lords was "...appointed to that position by the Burmese..." is something new to me.

I have Wyatt's A Short History of Thailand and several of his other books, but have been unable to find the reference you mention. Perhaps you could point it out.

My information about Thip Chang and the dynasty he founded is based primarily on The McLeod and Richardson Diplomatic Missions to the Tai States in 1837 [Turton/Grabowsky edition. Silkworm Books.2003], pages 7-20. The historian Sarassawadee Ongsakul in her History of Lanna also covers the subject on pages 126-129.

It would be hard to understand why a distinguished historian like Wyatt would make such a claim, and it would be interesting to know what his belief was based on.

Your mention of indigenous people in the area before Chiang Mai was founded is a fascinating subject in itself. Sumet Jumsai in his book Naga: Cultural Origins in Siam and the West Pacific [Chalermnit. 1997] has a map of the remains of the moat and walls of Vieng Jed Rin at the base of Doi Suthep. In the late '70s, early '80s that area was a boy scout camp as I remember. No telling what damage the little devils did on the site - like the French scouts that scrubbed off prehistoric cave paintings in the south of France.

Anyway, thanks for your interest.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

"Deserted" from a 19 century historian's perspective may just mean 'deserted by the people that matter'. If all kinds of commoner riff-raff lived around town then those may not count?

It must have been quite empty though, otherwise Kawila's effort to traffic in people from really just about anywhere to get the numbers up would not make sense. Not sure how much is known about how he actually did that, but chances are some carrots and sticks involved.

It did result in a very diverse gene pool for Chiang Mai.

Edited February 1, 2016 by WinnieTheKhwai

[2020]

Thanks for another interesting history lesson!

Its a running topic on tv already but since people have flocked here in recent years, does one think that if (or maybe when is a better word) the dams run dry, Chiang Mai will be an abandoned city once more?

[CMHomeboy78]

"Deserted" from a 19 century historian's perspective may just mean 'deserted by the people that matter'. If all kinds of commoner riff-raff lived around town then those may not count?

It must have been quite empty though, otherwise Kawila's effort to traffic in people from really just about anywhere to get the numbers up would not make sense. Not sure how much is known about how he actually did that, but chances are some carrots and sticks involved.

It did result in a very diverse gene pool for Chiang Mai.

Good point... but I don't think there were many people here during those years. It must have been a really rough hood at that time.

The repopulation of Chiang Mai and the surrounding countryside, post 1797 is mentioned often in the Chiang Mai Chronicle.

My wife's family has for many generations lived in the Wat Muang Guy community near the Gymkhana Club. Both Wat Muang Guy and the adjacent Wat Muang Saht areas were settled in the early 19th century by war captives and their families from Muang Guy and Muang Saht in the Burmese Shan States.

Other areas in and near the city were likewise settled by people from various places that had been liberated from the Burmese by the Trakun Chao Jet Ton and a resurgent Chiang Mai.

As you say, it did result in a very diverse gene pool for Chiang Mai.

Thanks for your comments.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

"Deserted" from a 19 century historian's perspective may just mean 'deserted by the people that matter'. If all kinds of commoner riff-raff lived around town then those may not count?

It must have been quite empty though, otherwise Kawila's effort to traffic in people from really just about anywhere to get the numbers up would not make sense. Not sure how much is known about how he actually did that, but chances are some carrots and sticks involved.

It did result in a very diverse gene pool for Chiang Mai.

Good point... but I don't think there were many people here during those years. It must have been a really rough hood at that time.

The repopulation of Chiang Mai and the surrounding countryside, post 1797 is mentioned often in the Chiang Mai Chronicle.

My wife's family has for many generations lived in the Wat Muang Guy community near the Gymkhana Club. Both Wat Muang Guy and the adjacent Wat Muang Saht areas were settled in the early 19th century by war captives and their families from Muang Guy and Muang Saht in the Burmese Shan States.

Other areas in and near the city were likewise settled by people from various places that had been liberated from the Burmese by the Trakun Chao Jet Ton and a resurgent Chiang Mai.

As you say, it did result in a very diverse gene pool for Chiang Mai.

Yes, and Wat Tha Satoi also. (Again same area on the East bank of the river).

I wonder actually why all those people ended up there in those more flood-prone areas, and not in the middle of the old town. So either the old town already had enough people, or these new arrivals were relegated to what would very much have been the outskirts of town. Or maybe it was actually desirable to be closer to the river and the commercial center / markets just North from there?

It's still a little strange though, if you're repopulating a completely deserted city then the old town, Thapae/Chang Moi and riverside would come to mind first. And here these people end up near Wat Muang Guy in the middle of nowhere, in an area that floods and is also militarily not really defendable, compared to roughly the area in between Kamphaeng Din and the Suan Dok wall.

Thanks for another interesting history lesson!

Its a running topic on tv already but since people have flocked here in recent years, does one think that if (or maybe when is a better word) the dams run dry, Chiang Mai will be an abandoned city once more?

No, the Chiang Mai valley is exceptionally fertile. Water from the mountains runs into it from all sides. While you get some dryer years, it's absolutely nowhere near the drought level routinely experienced for example in the North East of Thailand, and there are plenty people there. I'd actually be worried about flooding before drought, but flooding has always been a fact of life I suppose, only becoming a major headache with modern housing developments instead of traditional houses on stilts with plenty space around for the water to run off.

Edited February 1, 2016 by WinnieTheKhwai

[dru2]

'I wonder actually why all those people ended up there in those more flood-prone areas, and not in the middle of the old town. So either the old town already had enough people, or these new arrivals were relegated to what would very much have been the outskirts of town. Or maybe it was actually desirable to be closer to the river and the commercial center / markets just North from there?'

The policy was to settle the most trusted deportees on the outskirts of town (Tai Khoen, Yong, Lao and other Tai peoples), with the less well trusted near the centre of power (Burmese, further afield Vietnamese) where they could be watched closely. Hence the four Burmese wats in or near the old city.

[orang37]

Can't you see all the dead people ?

~o:37;