Talk:Ban Chiang

Thailand High‑importance

	Thailand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Southeast Asia High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Image:Museum für Indische Kunst Dahlem Berlin Mai 2006 056.jpg

The image currently accompanying the article is of a specimen determined to be of the Ban Chiang culture, which, while named after the site, refers more broadly to the bronze age culture of the area. In this case, the artefact was discovered at Lopburi, not Ban Chiang. Paul_012 ^(talk) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Chiang??

There's not a single word in this article about Ban Chiang, only about the archeological site located there. I'll thrash around in Google to see what I can turnip, but why has no one noted this article is misnamed until now? --Pawyilee (talk)

A much better article than ours, but still with nothing about the village, is Ban Chiang, Thailand, Bronze Age Village and Cemetery. Even better, but still naught on the modern village, is UNESCO's Ban_Chiang Archaeological Site. And here's a Penn report on significance of the crucibles. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several different administrative subdivisions named Ban Chiang - the subdistrict (Tambon), a subdistrict municipality (Thesaban Tambon) covering part of the Tambon, and a Tambon Administrative Organization (TAO) covering the remaining parts. And then there are at least 4 administrative villages (Muban) named Ban Chiang - Mu 1,2,11 and 12 of this subdistrict. I have no map, but I guess these all cover the settlement Ban Chiang. But even in Thai it's nearly impossible to find anything about these entities except the municipality which has a website of their own. And since the whole subdistrict has just 11,700 citizen, the municipality just 6,453, there is really not much to tell about them anyway, and they are hardly notable except for the archaeological site. andy (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed be notable if the site were abandoned c. 200 AD, and not resettled until the early 19th-C, especially if that was by forced migration from the Mekong valley following the Anouvong Rebellion 1826-27. The site holds clues to what life was like before the Funan Kingdom, and the village to what it has been like since Bangkok began assimilating the Korat plateau into her kingdom. --Pawyilee (talk)

????????????????????

Who changed the name of this article? The info box still says Ban Chiang Archaeological Site, and so does the name in Thai. It still doesn't have a d@mned thing to say about the village! --Pawyilee (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the article's move log via the page history. I felt the full title was unnecessarily overprecise (see WP:PRECISION), since the article should discuss not only the site itself but also the bronze age culture which uses the same name. However, if consensus is that this is disagreed, please revert the move. For now, there's no need to change the infobox, since it refers specifically to the World Heritage Site. If an article about the modern subdistrict does come up we can always rename the article again for the sake of disambiguation. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really all that interested in the modern subdistrict as I am in those who re-settled there. I was in-country in the mid-70's, in the wake of dissension over claims its bronze artifacts predated the Bronze Age. Reports I read then, best as I can recall, was that today's villagers are descended from a group from about 1820 or so, when there was a lot of both forced and voluntary migrations from Laos to re-populate Isan. The group was reported to have been led by two brothers who were former monks, with "Chiang" being a reference to that status. I cannot now, however, confirm that 'chiang' has ever been a Lao reference to ex-monks. Puzzlement was then being expressed on two other regards: why the obviously livable site had apparently been abandoned since about 300 AD and furthermore, to what larger culture had the prehistoric village belonged. The assumption of a larger culture arose from comments that no work by apprentices had been found, only work by journeymen who must have learned their craft somewhere else before returning home. As regards to that, I just added /* See also */ [[Dong Son culture]] & [[Lạc Việt|Luoyue people]]. --Pawyilee (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]