User talk:EsanBanna

Lap Lanna

I really must disagree with calling "Lap Lanna" just a variation. Chiang Mai holds a "Larb Muang Festival" ("muang" in northern Thailand means "of the northern Thai people" besides the standard meaning "city") due to the unique qualities of Lanna style larb compared to the usual Lao style, and Austin Bush is well-known for researching foods extensively. He writes about SE Asian food for Lonely Planet and other food publications, and he is also an advisor for several chefs in Thailand and abroad on Thai food. It seems to be that northern Laotian style larb is influenced by Lanna larb instead of, as you are assuming without any specific reference, the other way around. Just removing a reference that states that northern Thai larb originates from Phrae, doesn't suddenly make it a Laotian original. As for (foreign) sources that state that larb is of Laotian origin, well, these foreigners don't seem to know more than only just the (southern) Laotian/Isan style larb as that is always the recipe that is provided whenever they talk about larb. Chiang Mai University hosts a website with Lanna food, also mentioning different Lanna styles of larb -> CMU Lanna Food. I know it's a very touchy subject for Laotians but denying the people of northern Thailand their own styles of food in the name of Laotian nationalism, goes a bit far. - Takeaway (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Takeaway,

Disagreed. This has nothing to do with nationalism. I am also not a citizen of Laos. Being a child of a product of Thaification, I would call myself Khon Isan. My family is from Nakhon Phanom and I also have relatives living in Chiang Mai. The ethnicity of the people of Lanna can be a subject for another debate, but in that area the origin of “Lap” was, until recently, never been in dispute – it is Lao. In fact, it wasn’t until Thaification was enforced that people started seeing the elimination of Lao descriptor removed and various Thai suffixes or prefixes being added to the food that has always been consider “Lao”. I have also traveled extensively throughout Thailand and Laos but everywhere you go you can have it prepared anyway you like including this style.

The fact that Chiang Mai holds “Larb festivals” does not mean that they created the food. If anything it is a celebration of the popularized Lao food - I have a hard time figuring out how you cannot see this.

As you are probably aware there are probably more som tam stalls, vendors and even som tam contests in Bangkok than any another cities in Thailand, right? Does that means som tam originated in Bangkok? If any authors of a "Thai cookbook" who would claim such an origin, I probably wouldn't take them too seriously. Appealing to authority from a cookbook authors is hard for me to swallow. Similarly, there are many Laotian cookbooks out there that I wouldn’t dare cites as authority on Lao food.

Sorry. The reference, you cited does not states that it is an entirely new/different and its origin was independent from the Lao Larb. The fact that it is a "Larb" should tell you that it is a variation. I cannot make that inference from reading the "blog". Sorry.

I can't see how larb needs to be Lao/Laotian/Isan. If anything, it seems to be so deeply engrained in the sticky rice eating northern Tai peoples, from Shan via Lanna and Sipsongpanna to Laos and into Isan. You state that you are from Isan originally. Can I ask you where in Isan one can actually find a version of larb using the "phrik lap" mixture as is common in northern Thailand? If this particular version were so thoroughly Lao, wouldn't you expect to have it in Isan too? I know that Thaification has removed many Lao designations but this version of lap seems very much a Lanna version, not something that has been "taken away" from Lao people. - Takeaway (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

How do you actually read "the spiritual homeland of the northern-style version of laap"~mentioned in the reference if not as meaning "the origin"? - Takeaway (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Although a Thai-centric website, this should make an interesting read which even divides Larb Lanna into three different variants -> [1] - Takeaway (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I had/seen similar variations, in Laung Prabang, Vientiane and other places, I've visited. Usually, what I noticed is that it is up to the individual/household preferences (some like it raw, others' cooked, some with padak, some with just spices etc.) mostly, depends on what is readily available.

"the spiritual homeland of the NORTHERN-STYLE VERSION OF LAAP" is a version of 'Larb' which has been attributed to be of Lao origin. Anyway,I got to put my kid to bed. You can undo what I did but I would have to respectably disagree with you. I will look over your suggestions at another time. Take care.

According to the food writer and linguist Leela Punyaratabandhu, in her post on larb she writes in the comments "Anon – Thanks. I’m actually thinking of writing a full post on the history of Laab. But for now, here are my main points of argument that pertain to your comment: 1. Laab is not a “name” of a dish as such; it is a method of preparation which has later become a proper name. Laab is an ancient Lanna verb meaning “to chop up (finely)” which is exactly how the meat is prepared for this dish. 2. According to records as early as 18th century, laab originated in the area under the influence of the Lanna Kingdom that flourished from 13th to 18th centuries. The majority of the area formerly known as Lanna is presently Northern Thailand. 3. Etymologically, the verb “to laab” (mentioned above) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Laotian word “lab” which is cognate with the Thai word “lab/labh” meaning “fortune, good luck.” The verb laab comes from the native Lanna language whereas the noun lab (good luck) has entered both the Laotian and Thai languages by way of Sanskrit लभ (labha) meaning gain, profit."

Perhaps you can comment on this reference? - Takeaway (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I will await your comments before changing the article one way or another. Luang Prabang does indeed have a similar version using ma-khwaen, but traditional Vientiane versions should be as those in Isan. Good evening! - Takeaway (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The website "awesomethaifood.com", to me, and as you've said, is very Thai centric but an interesting read nonetheless and being a regional variation that I have no problem acknowledging. Much like a "pizza", anywhere you go you'll get something that is unique to that region but it is generally accepted as being of Italian origin. The problem I have with a lot of Thai sources, like the website, is Thai-centrism. This is what I find to be mostly the case when it comes to common foods we share with our neighbour - Laos. Cambodia something else. Laos itself being landlocked with a very turbulent past and for the longest time had its borders closed off to the outside world. As you know, there are approx. 20M people of Lao descents living in Thailand but these people were made to be ashamed of being Lao. In order for anything "Lao" to get to the rest of the world it has to go through Central Thailand, but by the time Thaification are done with it it become rebranded as Thai or Isan. I personally feel that everything the Lao people have to offer has already been snatched up, its "history" written about and rebranded as Thai then shared with the rest of world and that's what the world knows it to be - Thai. Conveniently, when the Lao are finally able to finally pick themselves out of the gutter and also make the same claim the Thais do everybody gets confused. I have seen with a lot of central Thais and even a lot of Isan when confronted they'll doubled own on their conviction. Still under the same old mentality that their honour and pride would some how be tarnished if God forbid they and everybody else happens to be eating and enjoying "Lao" food. Anyway, this is besides the point but I've had friends, here in Toronto where I currently live, many years go asked if they have som tam, sticky rice or larb on the menu at Thai restaurants and the wait staffs or the owners would flatly say that they are not a Lao restaurant. Funny how things have changed because if you visits these places now they will have it on the menu under 'Northeastern Thai specialties'.

about the Sanskrit and the etymology of the word. I cannot comment as I am not a linguist. But if you want to cite Leela's responses to someone on the comment section of her website as the triumph card over the general understand of the Lao of Laos, Isan, and Northern Thailand etc. then be my guess. Like I said I have both sides of my family from Nakhon Phanom, Nong Khai and even Chiang Mai going back from 'bpu yarr', 'tha yai' who grew up before and during the forced Thaification, they never thought or knew it to be anything but Lao food. In fact, many of the older generation even considered the people from Chiang Mai all the way up to sipsongpanna to be the same. Yes I know they were not educated so we can't take the too seriously etc..I'll leave you with this last point because I don't know if you noticed in Leela's section on Som Tam she doesn't delve into the history of the food but only touched on just the basic and literal meaning of the word "som" and "tam". I wonder why? Anyway, you are asking me to take a leap of faith on this lady, based on her responses to a comment on her website and because she is a linguist who happen to be from Bangkok and loves to write about her country's food? Forgive me if I'm a tittle hesitant and I will wait for her article to come out. P.S Sorry for not signing my post as I'm still new to Wikipedia and haven't figure out how yet. Take care.

I can understand the frustration of things that are originally Laotian being rebranded as Thai or Isan. But in this case, it is not about rebranding something as Thai, but about acknowledging that the type of larb that is made in the area of the former Lanna Kingdom is an original in itself. To be honest, I really don't understand how any country can claim a dish which seems so ancient: (raw) minced meat mixed with local or imported spices, herbs and other flavourings. If anything, its origins lie in an ancient era when Tai tribes probably still lived in Southern China before migrating southwards into what is now Shan State, Laos, and Thailand, or even in a time before that. But if what Leela says is true, and I assume that as a language historian and linguist she would have researched it thoroughly, that the word "larb" comes from a Lanna word that means "mincing meat", its origins might indeed lie in Lanna, or at least with the people who now inhabited these areas. I'm not triumphant about this at all for two reasons: 1. Lanna is not Thai, and moreover, 2. I am not Thai-centric. And in reply to an edit summary you wrote: yes, I too care about the truth.
As for people being called Lao: indeed, Central Thais (with Bangkok people in particular), used the word "Lao" as a collective name for all the different Tai peoples who weren't southern Thai or Central Thai. Similar to how all Caucasians now are collectively called "Farang", be they Greek or Icelandic or anything in between. As far as I know, no one in northern Thailand calls themselves Lao though, as they use the name "Khon Mueang" for themselves. Strangely enough, the usage of "Lao" that came from Central Thai ignorance has become, for certain Lao/Laotians, a reason to claim areas that were never settled by Lao people such as Lanna, which was mainly settled by Tai Yuan. I've encountered this "greater-Laos" idea several times already here on Wikipedia, being used by Laotian nationalists. I have also read research, that this greater-Laos idea is partly an inheritance from the French colonial days, who tried using the incorrect coinage for non-Lao people as a reason for expanding French colonial territory.
Back to "larb" again: there seem to be two very distinct versions of larb, having only the usage of minced meat (the actual "larb") as their common denominator. Claiming that "larb" originated in one country would therefore be like claiming "minced meat" for a certain country. Seeing how there are two distinct types of larb, I have always been a proponent of having two areas of origin: Lao areas for the sour version and the Lanna/Khon Mueang regions for the non-sour version. Because people want to pinpoint a spot on the world as a place of origin, what we now work with is modern countries instead of using name of "tribes" or "peoples" which in my opinion is more precise. The Lao inhabited regions tend to now only be seen as the country Laos, although you and I know that the actual region inhabited by Laotians is much bigger as it includes large parts of Isan too and even extends down into a strip of northern Cambodia. And as we have to work with modern country designations I have no other choice than to use "northern Thailand" instead of "Lanna" for their own non sour variant. - Takeaway (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

PS To sign your user name, just place four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message. - Takeaway (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Takeaway,

I agree with you about the claim that the modern day country of Laos being the birthplace of this dish may not be completely accurate as borders has changed significantly from when the old kingdoms were around and killing each other. And if the Lao want to claim a modern country with its current borders as place of origin then Northern Thailand could also be consider a probable location as well. What they should have claim is that “Larb” is of Lao origin, because then we can actually have a debate about whether Lanna was Lao or not, and if not Lao, whether the Lao migrations to-and-fros through its powerful kingdom of Lan Xang and its sister kingdom of Lanna helped share/spread the food, culture knowledge etc.

I am, however, still shaking my head at all of this. You claim to care about the truth but you actually cited Leela Punyaratabandhu’s response in a comment box to an anonymous commenter who made the claim that “larb” means luck in Lao, on her website as your main justification for changing the content of a Wikipedia article and regurgitating her responses without any substantial evidence to back it up. This is extremely careless and beyond me. If anything, your doing will probably add to the confusion and muddied the water even more as some lazy food bloggers and cookbook authors out there will cites your Wikipedia page and further spread more misinformation. I am not saying that she is wrong because I cannot make that assumption, yet. But if she is correct, then you should let her write her research paper and have it peer-reviewed and published in some recognized linguistics journals or publication first then we can talk about it. You cannot simply cite a comment made on a comment box as your authoritative source.

You, she claimed to be a “language historian and linguist” and that she must “have researched it thoroughly…” No. This is a leap of faith that I cannot make or a claim that I accept gleefully. What you’re doing is appealing to authority (her claim on her website as being a linguist). I even googled her name and there is no mention of her educational background, written research or any published peer-reviewed article (s) on linguistics or etymology anywhere on the web but if you are privy to this information please share it with me.

That being said, I will leave everything you wrote, up, as it is, because you seem to have taken ownership of this Wikipedia page. But you will have to be accountable for it, and I hope this does not ruined your creditability. I also want to make it absolutely clear that by me not pursuing this any further, in no way meant that I conceded to Leela’s word on comment box to be any more reliable than other Thai-centric author(s) of Thai cookbooks (see her posts about som tum).

You also stated: As for people being called Lao: indeed, Central Thais (with Bangkok people in particular), used the word "Lao" as a collective name for all the different Tai peoples who weren't southern Thai or Central Thai…As far as I know, no one in northern Thailand calls themselves Lao though, as they use the name "Khon Mueang" for themselves. Strangely enough, the usage of "Lao" that came from Central Thai ignorance has become, for certain Lao/Laotians, a reason to claim areas that were never settled by Lao people such as Lanna, which was mainly settled by Tai Yuan.

Firstly, your assertion that the Central Thai (Siamese) out of their own ignorance mistakenly labeled everybody else “Lao” is highly suspect. You make it seems as if it were just the common folks who were ignorant about this. In order your assertion to be true you would have to also accept that the Siamese, from its commoners to elites to rulers and kings after millennia of trade/treatises/marriage/conquest/subjugation of Lanna could not tell the differences between Lao and non-Lao (language, culture). As for the Lao who claim Lanna to be a Lao kingdom was for the fact that the people of Lanna and Luang Prabang are culturally related. Lanna and Lan Xang were also considered to be sister kingdoms, its rulers were either related by blood or marriage. For these people, mistakenly or not, their claims were only supported by the fact the Siamese rulers did in fact, called these people “Lao”, and then conveniently wrote Lao out of their history book. This will make anybody suspicious justifiably or not.

Secondly, I would accept that the Northern Thai people you know may not call themselves Lao and it could very well be that they are in fact not Lao, but since the birth of the Thai nation-state and Thaification fully enforced can you blame these people for not wanting to be associated with being “Lao” even if they were? This was not only a northeastern region problem. In fact, I actually do know people in Chiang Mai and further north that do call themselves Lao and they even spelled Chiang Mai with an X instead of the CH as in Xieng Mai (how the Lao would spell it).

Finally, you seem to like linguistics a lot so why don’t you translate “Khon Mueang” or even “Kham Mueang” for everybody? Where is it in your translation do you find any reference to ethnicity or the actual language they speak?

Anyway, that is all I will say about this but I will make a disclaimer on the source you cited. I hope that you will leave my addition alone. EsanBanna (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that those using a X for Xiang Mai instead of Chiang Mai would be refugees from Laos who use the French transcription system for Laotian language, or just Thais who are mistaken with the transcription of the Thai letters into Latin alphabet. To convince you that Lao people are not the same as Tai Yuan people, please have a look at this bit in the article on Southwestern Tai languages. Also, I have in my travels around the north of Thailand noticed that the original people of northern Thailand and northern Laos, the Lawa people, eat larb. Perhaps it is they who are the actual originators of this dish, and not any of the Tai peoples who only much later came into this region and appropriated it, similar to how Tai peoples appropriated their settlements and lands in the valleys, forcing the Lawa to become a hilltribe, and in Laos even having their people's name taken away by the government who now call them "Lao Theung". We will probably never know for sure. As for Leela, she is well respected in culinary circles for researching her food, as well as for being a good cook. I guess you did find that part while googling her name. And as for waiting for a research paper to finally settle this question, that will be fairly difficult as not many research papers are written on food. In the meantime we'll have to do with what food writers write for us. In Leela's defence, she actually mentions that her assertion that "larb" is of northern Thai/Lanna origin, is based on records dating back to the 18th century (which she seemed to have read or how else would she know?) and also on her knowledge as a linguist as to the meaning and origin of the northern Thai word "larb" meaning "to mince". Unfortunately she doesn't mention which records though. On the other hand, the culinary writers that are used as sources that larb is Lao in origin, don't even give us any sources as to their expertise, and they probably do not speak or read Thai, let alone northern Thai, and only (re)state that it is Lao because that is what they had heard. If you were to go to Bangkok, and ask people there what the origin of larb is, most of them would probably also answer Lao for two reasons: 1. northern Thai larb is virtually unknown outside of northern Thailand, 2.A huge amount of Isan people live in Bangkok but not many Lanna people. As for Leela's post on som tum which you keep mentioning, she specifically gives us a recipe for what in Thailand is known as "som tam Thai", meaning that it is the Central Thai version (the sweet "kiddy" version with peanuts that became world famous but is without pla ra/padaek, phu dong or makok). It isn't "som tam Lao/tam Lao/tam som/tam maak hoong" from Laos/Isan. As to why she didn't mention that som tam is supposedly Lao too, I don't know. Perhaps she thought it was common knowledge, perhaps she will spend another post on it in the future, or perhaps she just didn't have the time to delve so deep into that issue. You will have to ask her. I doubt it that she is trying to "hide" the Lao origin of som tam. As for the "millennia" of subjugation of Lanna by Siam, it only happened a bit over 200 years ago, not several thousand, and Lanna was only fully incorporated into Siam in 1884. The Shan of Burma used to also be called Lao by Central Thais, apparently both by the elite as by the common folk. They too are culturally related to the northern Thais. It would seem that anyone who ate sticky rice for their daily diet instead of khao chao was labelled Lao by Central Thais, sometimes correctly in the case of Laotians and Isan people, and sometimes incorrectly in the case of Shan and Lanna people. To use this now archaic Central Thai term for all sticky rice eating Tai peoples as a piece of evidence of their communal descent, is, as I already mentioned before, not reasonable. If it were, than all Caucasians should be viewed as being of Frankish extraction due to the word farang. I'm fine with the comment you made on the source, but normally this is placed after the source, not in front of it. I'll also rephrase it slightly because now it isn't very clear who actually made the comment. - Takeaway (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Holy crap Takeaway, some of the stuff you're saying are so completely outrageous. If I hadn't seen you edited over 10k Wikipedia posts, I would think that you're a troll. Here are a few of your points I want to address:

“I'm thinking that those using a X for Xiang Mai instead of Chiang Mai would be refugees from Laos who use the French transcription system for Laotian language, or just Thais who are mistaken with the transcription of the Thai letters into Latin alphabet.”

No. These are native Chiang Mai. They spell it with the “X” because that’s how they pronounced their city’s name, without the “Ch” sound. Just like they would say Lan “Xang” not Lan “Chang”.

You don’t have to try and convince me that the Lao and the Tai Yuan are different. I never made the claim that they are the same and I could care less. For all I care, the Lao and Tai Yuan can be as different as night and day, or as you like them to be, but you cannot plead exceptionalism to Lanna when we’re talk about the transferring of culture, language, knowledge or food from people traveling to-and-fro between the sisters’ kingdoms. Also I would agree that the Lao are too narrow in their claim, that is, if, they were to assert that Larb originated from the modern country of Laos as we are all aware that territories and borders had been drawn and then redrawn countless times. The Laos of today is not what Lan Xang looked like. As I previously said, their claim might have more grounds for support if they were to assert that Larb (the dish) is of Lao origin not of the country.

(On a side note) But IF I were to make any claim it would only be that Lanna can technically be consider a Lao Kingdom as it was once rule by a Lao king and some Lanna rulers were related to the Lan Xang rulers by blood or marriage. It would seem to me, by the way you’re talking about Lao people, that you probably wouldn’t even entertain this possibility. Can you comment on this article for me? I want to get a sense of where you're at: "Rethinking Tamnan Phutthachedi Siam:The Rise of New Plot within Thai Art History" http://sydney.edu.au/southeast-asia-centre/documents/pdf/prakitnonthakan-chatri.pdf

“As for Leela, she is well respected in culinary circles for researching her food, as well as for being a good cook. I guess you did find that part while googling her name. And as for waiting for a research paper to finally settle this question, that will be fairly difficult as not many research papers are written on food. In the meantime we'll have to do with what food writers write for us. In Leela's defence, she actually mentions that her assertion that "larb" is of northern Thai/Lanna origin, is based on records dating back to the 18th century (which she seemed to have read or how else would she know?) and also on her knowledge as a linguist as to the meaning and origin of the northern Thai word "larb" meaning "to mince". Unfortunately she doesn't mention which records though.”

Yes. I did find many good reviews about her website, recipes and cookbook but nothing to substantiate her claim of being a language historian and linguist (i.e. educational background, degree, research paper(s) written and published etc). You understand what the requirements are for someone to be considered a Linguist or a Language historian, right? – Academic research and peer-review publication.

If I have a BA. In Psychology does that make me a Psychologist? You see where I’m going with this?

See the difference between this guy and Leela?

The problem is that Leela had made a statement of fact. One that could change our general understanding and acceptance of the origin of this food to be something else other than Lao in origin - this is huge! As a “language historian and Linguist” she needs to be held accountable and evidences demanded. We should never just take her word for it neither should we just assume that she knows what she is talking about because her website states that she is a linguist. Most importantly, if you care about the truth as you say, you should not have sourced her comment without having it verified. By ignoring the verifiability test you had committed the fallacy of appealing to authority. I don’t know too much about Wikipedia’s policy but doesn’t it have some sort of rules about sources have to be verifiable?

I brought up her posts about Som Tum to illustrate that her “research” is no different than all the Thai-centric websites, blogs and cookbooks out there. Of any “Thai” recipes, Som Tum, is a perfect example of how any “legit” language historian and linguist, would have jump on the opportunity to expand and educate her audience on why the dish is call "Som Tum" rather than "Tum Som", the former being an anomaly and grammatically incorrect, even in the Thai language. And no, I don’t need to ask her myself why she failed in this regard because I was not the one who made the claim that she is an expert, and I would never cite someone’s comment in a comment box as “reliable”, you did. My point is that her work doesn’t jived with her reputations of being an expert you make her out to be.

If I were to use your logic then any Lao “Linguist” can just as easily claim that ““Larb” is an ancient Lao word originally meant to described the process of “mincing meat” for the purpose of making meat salad to celebrate special occasions but much later evolved to mean “Luck(y)” as meat were scarce and minced meat salad were reserved only for special occasions (i.e. wedding, birth of baby boy, end of rice harvest season etc.). Also according to a 15th century record (no source given), the Lao brought it over to Lanna during king Settathirath’s reign as a Lanna’s monarch (no source given).” Do you see/understand how anybody can just make this claim also?

“On the other hand, the culinary writers that are used as sources that larb is Lao in origin, don't even give us any sources as to their expertise, and they probably do not speak or read Thai, let alone northern Thai, and only (re)state that it is Lao because that is what they had heard.”

This is another fallacy. You don’t have to be able to speak Thai, Northern Thai or Lao to write about Larb being of Lao origin. This is because these people are regurgitating what is already consider to be a generally accepted truth. They’re not telling us anything new and no one has claimed that this is new information. You and Leela on the other hand are making a new claim, contrary to popular beliefs, so the burden of proof is on you guys. Tell me which of the two you would demand evidence from if you were to see it in a cookbook:

Cookbook 1: “Sushi is of Japanese origin.”

Cookbook 2: “Sushi is of Chinese origin.”

“As for the "millennia" of subjugation of Lanna by Siam, it only happened a bit over 200 years ago, not several thousand, and Lanna was only fully incorporated into Siam in 1884.”

I don’t know if this was intentional but how could you an otherwise valid statement, out of context, and turned it into a completely false statement? Here was my original statement in context:

“Firstly, your assertion that the Central Thai (Siamese) out of their own ignorance mistakenly labeled everybody else “Lao” is highly suspect. You make it seems as if it were just the common folks who were ignorant about this. In order your assertion to be true you would have to also accept that the Siamese, from its commoners to elites to rulers and kings after millennia of trade/treatises/marriage/conquest/subjugation of Lanna could not tell the differences between Lao and non-Lao (language, culture).”

The last sentence can get rewritten as follow:

“In order for your assertion to be true you would have to also accept that the Siamese, from its commoners to elites to rulers and kings after millennia of trades or treaties or marriage or conquest or subjugation of Lanna could not tell the differences between Lao and non-Lao.”

You quote-mined it to say:

“In order for your assertion to be true you would have to also accept that the Siamese, from its commoners to elites to rulers and kings after millennia of subjugation of Lanna could not tell the difference between Lao and non-Lao.”

Do you see the dishonesty here?

“The Shan of Burma used to also be called Lao by Central Thais, apparently both by the elite as by the common folk. They too are culturally related to the northern Thais. It would seem that anyone who ate sticky rice for their daily diet instead of khao chao was labelled Lao by Central Thais, sometimes correctly in the case of Laotians and Isan people, and sometimes incorrectly in the case of Shan and Lanna people. To use this now archaic Central Thai term for all sticky rice eating Tai peoples as a piece of evidence of their communal descent, is, as I already mentioned before, not reasonable. If it were, than all Caucasians should be viewed as being of Frankish extraction due to the word farang”

Your assumption about khao chao vs khao niow preferences being the distinguishing characteristic for the Siamese to labelled people "Lao" vs "non-Lao"is extremely weak and unsubstantiated. You seem to completely ignore the most obvious and better method of identifying people's name, place of origin, parents, linages and ethnic group etc., which is by asking questions and talking to them (or their rulers/kings) this simple method is otherwise known as communication! See also

Your "Lao" vs "farang" is a faulty comparison because you’re comparing apples to oranges. You once again failed to take into account the most important factor in all of this: geography. The Siamese, Lao, Tai Yuan, Shan, Burmese and Khmer or whatever, have lived beside and interacted with one another other for, yes, a millennia! And yes. They know exactly who they married/made treaties with/ traded with/ fought against and who they enslaved. Your argument is only plausible if you ignore all the obvious facts and assumed that the Siamese during the time was illiterate, deaf and mute and the only way they can distinguish people apart is by observing their food preferences (sticky rice). This is special pleading and completely unreasonable.

As for the word "Farang", I know very well because my family uses it all the time to describe foreigners. The term "farang" when it was first use (in Siam) was to describe a person of European ancestry or a white person. This is because heavy presence of Europeans in SE Asia was a recent thing and they were all “white”. This is a legitimate misunderstanding for reason of ignorance due to the lack of familiarity with the different European group or sub-groups. However, same reason cannot be said between the Siamese, Lao, Burmese, and Khmer etc.

Also, if you had actually read the link you sent me you’ll notice that there is now a term “farang dtam” or “black foreigner” as well. The term had evolved quite a bit since the Vietnam War. If you're in Thailand you may also hear "farang (tharng dan)" or "foreigner (from a different land)".

A better comparison would be if you could find an instance in the history of the United Kingdom or Great Britain where the English had mistakenly labelled all non-English in the British Isle: "Scots". I don't know how many times you'd use these "reasoning" or I don't know if anybody had called out on it before - but it is very weak.EsanBanna (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You were the one who proposed that using an X for writing Chiang Mai indicated some Lao connection. Why would a transcription into the foreign Latin script of Thai, or Lanna, or Lao, be of any consequence????? My great-grandmother who was born and raised in Bangkok also used the X instead of CH in her transcriptions of Thai, not because she was Lao, but because she was educated by French Catholic nuns. And yes, she strangely enough wrote Thai in transcription, but she also sometimes wrote directly in the Thai script, or used English, depending on the situation. And she was neither Thai nor Lao.

As for turning Lanna into a "technically Lao kingdom" is absurd. Is it because in transcription the original king of the Lanna kingdom, Mengrai, is from a family called "Lao"? Of that it is said that it comes from "Lawa", from the original people of northern Thailand, the Lawa peopl, of which he was apparently a descendant of. Or are we talking about the 3 years that the Lao prince Setthathirath ruled over Lanna? (see: Lan_Xang#King_Setthathirath_and_the_Burmese_Invasions. In that same vein, should we then assume that Laos is technically part of the Sukhothai kingdom as it was under its suzerainty for decades, or even part of Thailand which ruled it for over a century?

You come up with the Leela's som tum recipe time and again where you blame her for not mentioning the Lao roots of this dish. Again I state that she was giving the internationally more well-known Thai version of it. Why she didn't mention the Lao roots? No idea but it's not probable that it is because she is part of a worldwide Thai conspiracy to appropriate the dish from the Lao people. Sometimes, paranoia can go too far. As I said before, the references used as claims in the article for the Lao origin of larb were made by foreigners who don't seem to have any background in Tai languages whatsoever, and I'd be very surprised if they even spoke any of the Tai languages. To use your psychology example: I'd more trust someone with than someone without a BA in psychology to make more correct statements regarding psychology.

Your use of sushi is actually very interesting. Perhaps you should read the article "History of sushi" which traces the origins of sushi to Southeast Asia first, China later, and then Japan last. Interesting yes, but "huge"? Not really unless you want to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Millennia is still not the case here, however you interpret it. Read more on the history of Tai peoples as it is only 1 millennium of there being Tai peoples in this region. I can give you an example of the British: people who live in the Netherlands are called "Dutch" which the Dutch don't do themselves. For Dutch people, someone who is a Duits/Deutsch is German. The Germans also use the word Deutsch as a word to call themselves with. The British call often call the country Holland, after two of its provinces. No one in the Netherlands uses this word to designate the country, except for some reason during international football competitions. Perhaps because it's an international event the use the English word? Even the term "frogs" for French people shifted from first being applied to Dutch to later the French. As you see, how people call their neighbours with whom they have lived side by side for a millennium, is sometimes surprising. A quote from soas.ac.uk: "In the Ayutthya chronicle the reference to Laotians passing through Ayutthya territory may not refer to people of Lan Sang origin at all. The term ‘Lao’ can have much broader applicability and reference and refer to a group from Lan Na or the Shan states instead of Lan Sang. There has always been a “habit of making no distinction among the major Tai-speaking ethnic groups who lived in the Mekong valley and the upper reaches of the Chao Phraya basin.” As with the term ‘Tai Yai’ it has always been common practice to use "the term ‘Lao’ indiscriminately when referring not only to the Lao of the Mekong valley but also to the Shan of Northeast Burma, the Tai dialect speakers of Chiang Mai and Sipsong Panna, the Phuan of Northern Laos, and others" (Mayoury and Pheuiphanh Ngaosrivathana, 2002, 98)." In Lao_History_Revisited, Michel Lorrillard writes: "Another particularly interesting point is that it is not until this period (mid-1400s) that the narrative found in the Chiang Mai Chronicle begins to mention the Lao as a people – thus providing them with recognition on the regional scene – and more precisely the name Lan Xang, which had not previously appeared in any other source." So why would Lanna people call the people of the Lan Xang kingdom Lao, if they themselves (Lanna people) were Lao?

Another interesting read is this paper on the script used in Lao by Japanese researcher Masao Kashinaga. That, together with the aforementioned "Lao History Revisited", give a very strong indication that the Lan Xang kingdom was heavily influenced by Lanna, and less so the other way around.

Both in Lanna and the Lao lands (Laos and Isan) larb is traditionally eaten, with no evidence where exactly in these lands it was that the original Tai person (if even a Tai person and not Lawa) first mixed spices with chopped meat to sustain him or herself. If it's a very old dish, more than 1 millennium old, it might have even come down from China with the wave of Tai tribes migrating into Southeast Asia. So perhaps China could even be the country of origin.... - Takeaway (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

---

“Your use of sushi is actually very interesting. Perhaps you should read the article "History of sushi" which traces the origins of sushi to Southeast Asia first, China later, and then Japan last. Interesting yes, but "huge"? Not really unless you want to make a mountain out of a mole hill.”

Thank you for actually looking it up for me. I have to admit that for a moment there, I was certain that trying to reason with you would be all for naught. In fact, I was reading the exact website you linked and I also verified the claim with other sources. I am fully aware of the Southeast Asia-China-Japan theory and there was a reason why I specifically chose Sushi (the food) and China rather than SE Asia as the counter claim because had I picked SE Asia you might have caught on. Whichever the claim (SE Asia, China or Japan)the evidence and researches are available for anyone to find so yes this is huge! See (“Writing Food History: A Global Perspective” edited by Kyri W. Claflin, Peter Scholliers). This sushi example is meant as a way for me to draw a parallel/comparison/analogy and to teach you that anyone can make what appears to be an outlandish claim contrary to popular beliefs as long as you can back it up – proper discussion can come from it.

Yours and Leela's claim on the other hand:

“Both in Lanna and the Lao lands (Laos and Isan) larb is traditionally eaten, with no evidence where exactly in these lands it was that the original Tai person (if even a Tai person and not Lawa) first mixed spices with chopped meat to sustain him or herself. If it's a very old dish, more than 1 millennium old, it might have even come down from China with the wave of Tai tribes migrating into Southeast Asia. So perhaps China could even be the country of origin...” And “According to records as early as 18th century, laab originated in the area under the influence of the Lanna Kingdom that flourished from 13th to 18th centuries. The majority of the area formerly known as Lanna is presently Northern Thailand. 3. Etymologically, the verb “to laab” (mentioned above) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Laotian word “lab” which is cognate with the Thai word “lab/labh” meaning “fortune, good luck.” The verb laab comes from the native Lanna language whereas the noun lab (good luck) has entered both the Laotian and Thai languages by way of Sanskrit लभ (labha) meaning gain, profit."

Both are contrary to the generally accepted fact. So the onus is on you guys to provide the evidence to back it up (I still have yet to see any). As a rational person your general rule of thumb to follow is: what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

“You were the one who proposed that using an X for writing Chiang Mai indicated some Lao connection. Why would a transcription into the foreign Latin script of Thai, or Lanna, or Lao, be of any consequence????? My great-grandmother who was born and raised in Bangkok also used the X instead of CH in her transcriptions of Thai, not because she was Lao, but because she was educated by French Catholic nuns. And yes, she strangely enough wrote Thai in transcription, but she also sometimes wrote directly in the Thai script, or used English, depending on the situation. And she was neither Thai nor Lao.”

Where in my previous posts did I say that the way people spell their city’s name with an “X” indicate a Lao connection? My statement about people spelling of Chiang Mai with an “X” is a non-issue that’s why it was put in parenthesis. The parentheses indicate an afterthought or an aside. My entire statement in context was a rebuttal to the fallacious statement about “as far as you know no one Northern Thailand call themselves Lao and that they call themselves “Khon Mueang” here is your statement in full context:“As for people being called Lao: indeed, Central Thais (with Bangkok people in particular), used the word "Lao" as a collective name for all the different Tai peoples who weren't southern Thai or Central Thai…As far as I know, no one in northern Thailand calls themselves Lao though, as they use the name "Khon Mueang" for themselves. Strangely enough, the usage of "Lao" that came from Central Thai ignorance has become, for certain Lao/Laotians, a reason to claim areas that were never settled by Lao people such as Lanna, which was mainly settled by Tai Yuan.”

I then shot down your false claim by telling you that I do know people from Chiang Mai and people further north that do call themselves Lao and as a side note I added that they even spell their city’s name with an “X” as in Xieng/Xiang Mai (the way it is pronounced) like the Lao. Here was my exact post in context:“Secondly, I would accept that the Northern Thai people you know may not call themselves Lao and it could very well be that they are in fact not Lao, but since the birth of the Thai nation-state and Thaification fully enforced can you blame these people for not wanting to be associated with being “Lao” even if they were? This was not only a northeastern region problem. In fact, I actually do know people in Chiang Mai and further north that do call themselves Lao and they even spelled Chiang Mai with an X instead of the CH as in Xieng Mai (how the Lao would spell it).”

You talk about “making a mountain out of mole hill”. But this is all you’ve been doing, so far, in our discussion. Instead of sticking to the point you keep on deviating from the main point of the argument, opting to focus on the non-issue.

“As for turning Lanna into a "technically Lao kingdom" is absurd. Is it because in transcription the original king of the Lanna kingdom, Mengrai, is from a family called "Lao"? Of that it is said that it comes from "Lawa", from the original people of northern Thailand, the Lawa peopl, of which he was apparently a descendant of. Or are we talking about the 3 years that the Lao prince Setthathirath ruled over Lanna? (see: Lan_Xang#King_Setthathirath_and_the_Burmese_Invasions. In that same vein, should we then assume that Laos is technically part of the Sukhothai kingdom as it was under its suzerainty for decades, or even part of Thailand which ruled it for over a century?”

Your repeated attempts at straw man fallacy is what’s absurd here. The Laos – Sukhothai comparison is wrong and faulty on so many levels. (1) This example completely ignores and violates the laws of space- time. Laos, gain its independence around 1954 and Sukhothai ceased to exist in the 1400 century. Laos is not and cannot be “technically part of the Sukhothai kingdom”. (2) Laos, the modern country, was never under Sukhothai’s suzerainty, nor was it ever part of Thailand…Unless Sukhothai is a magical kingdom that can transcends space and time (Joke).

As for your proposed questions which I thought I had already made clear with this (my) post: “You don’t have to try and convince me that the Lao and the Tai Yuan are different. I never made the claim that they are the same and I could care less. For all I care, the Lao and Tai Yuan can be as different as night and day, or as you like them to be, but you cannot plead exceptionalism to Lanna when we’re talk about the transferring of culture, language, knowledge or food from people traveling to-and-fro between the sisters’ kingdoms..."

“But IF I were to make any claim it would only be that Lanna can technically be consider a Lao Kingdom as it was once rule by a Lao king and some Lanna rulers were related to the Lan Xang rulers by blood or marriage. It would seem to me, by the way you’re talking about Lao people, that you probably wouldn’t even entertain this possibility. Can you comment on this article for me? I want to get a sense of where you're at: "Rethinking Tamnan Phutthachedi Siam:The Rise of New Plot within Thai Art History" http://sydney.edu.au/southeast-asia-centre/documents/pdf/prakitnonthakan-chatri.pdf “

If you still want me to answer your three questions: (1)A: Not sure. I never claimed that he was. Nor do I care. (2)A: Not sure. Nor do I care. (3)A: Yes and more. See Ong Kham (1727–59), see marriages between the rulers:

“Lao” being the broad category into which the Siamese lumped the kingdoms to their north and northeast, including those at Lamphang, Lamphun, Nan, Luang Prabang, Vientiane, etc. These peoples shared the Lan Na (or khon muang) dialect, and had a long history of exchanging women in marital alliances; they thus shared much more culturally with each other than they did with the Siamese. Thanet Charoenmuang [ธเนศวร์ เจริญเมือง]. People of the Muang [คนเมือง]. Chiang Mai: Center for the Study of Social Issues, 2001. This was taken from Princess Dara Rassami of Chiang Mai in King Chulongkorn’s court for detail:http://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tap/7977573.0002.202/--concubines-with-cameras-royal-siamese-consorts-picturing?rgn=main;view=fulltext#N45

“You come up with the Leela's som tum recipe time and again where you blame her for not mentioning the Lao roots of this dish. Again I state that she was giving the internationally more well-known Thai version of it. Why she didn't mention the Lao roots? No idea but it's not probable that it is because she is part of a worldwide Thai conspiracy to appropriate the dish from the Lao people. Sometimes, paranoia can go too far.”

Can you please find where I kept bringing up “Leela's som tum recipe time and again where you blame her for not mentioning the Lao roots of this dish” and where is the “paranoia can go too far”? The “paranoia” is not coming from me (please re-read all your posts and you’ll see). I don’t know how many times I have to say this but I hope that this will be the last. I will repost my exact statements, in context, for you. The first mentioning of Som Tum was in a completely separate instance and totally unrelated to Leela’s Som Tum. It was a counter to your claim about Chiang Mai having larb festivals, which you somehow insinuate that Lanna must be the birthplace of Larb.

This is what you wrote: “I really must disagree with calling "Lap Lanna" just a variation. Chiang Mai holds a "Larb Muang Festival" ("muang" in northern Thailand means "of the northern Thai people" besides the standard meaning "city") due to the unique qualities of Lanna style larb compared to the usual Lao style, and Austin Bush is well-known for researching foods extensively.”

My response was: “As you are probably aware there are probably more som tam stalls, vendors and even som tam contests in Bangkok than any another cities in Thailand, right? Does that means som tam originated in Bangkok? If any authors of a "Thai cookbook" who would claim such an origin, I probably wouldn't take them too seriously. Appealing to authority from a cookbook authors is hard for me to swallow. Similarly, there are many Laotian cookbooks out there that I wouldn’t dare cites as authority on Lao food.”

You then copied and pasted a comment from “the food writer and linguist Leela Punyaratabandhu” (in which she responded to an anonymous commenter on her website) and asked me to make a comment that’s when her Som Tum posts was mentioned. This came after I visited her website, googled her name and tried to authenticate her claim of being a “linguist” (which I found none) that I noticed that her works (i.e.Som Tum) does not jived with her reputation of being a “linguist”.

Here was my exact statement:“about the Sanskrit and the etymology of the word. I cannot comment as I am not a linguist. But if you want to cite Leela's responses to someone on the comment section of her website as the triumph card over the general understand of the Lao of Laos, Isan, and Northern Thailand etc. then be my guess. Like I said I have both sides of my family from Nakhon Phanom, Nong Khai and even Chiang Mai going back from 'bpu yarr', 'tha yai' who grew up before and during the forced Thaification, they never thought or knew it to be anything but Lao food. In fact, many of the older generation even considered the people from Chiang Mai all the way up to sipsongpanna to be the same. Yes I know they were not educated so we can't take the too seriously etc..I'll leave you with this last point because I don't know if you noticed in Leela's section on Som Tam she doesn't delve into the history of the food but only touched on just the basic and literal meaning of the word "som" and "tam". I wonder why?..."

You then responded: “As for Leela's post on som tum which you keep mentioning, she specifically gives us a recipe for what in Thailand is known as "som tam Thai", meaning that it is the Central Thai version (the sweet "kiddy" version with peanuts that became world famous but is without pla ra/padaek, phu dong or makok). It isn't "som tam Lao/tam Lao/tam som/tam maak hoong" from Laos/Isan. As to why she didn't mention that som tam is supposedly Lao too, I don't know. Perhaps she thought it was common knowledge, perhaps she will spend another post on it in the future, or perhaps she just didn't have the time to delve so deep into that issue. You will have to ask her. I doubt it that she is trying to "hide" the Lao origin of som tam."

I finally qualified what I meant by bringing up her som tum posts as you didn’t seem to make the connection:"I brought up her posts about Som Tum to illustrate that her “research” is no different than all the Thai-centric websites, blogs and cookbooks out there. Of any “Thai” recipes, Som Tum, is a perfect example of how any “legit” language historian and linguist, would have jump on the opportunity to expand and educate her audience on why the dish is call “Som Tum” rather than “Tum Som”, the former being an anomaly and grammatically incorrect, even in the Thai language. And no, I don’t need to ask her myself why she failed in this regard because I was not the one who made the claim that she is an expert, and I would never cite someone’s comment in a comment box as “reliable”, you did. My point is that her work doesn’t jive with her reputations of being an expert you make her out to be."

I don’t know how much more clearer, I could be, because you still make ridiculous statement such as this:“You come up with the Leela’s som tum recipe time and again where you blame her for not mentioning the Lao roots of this dish. Again I state that she was giving the internationally more well-known Thai version of it. Why she didn’t mention the Lao roots? No idea but it’s not probable that it is because she is part of a worldwide Thai conspiracy to appropriate the dish from the Lao people. Sometimes, paranoia can go too far.”

“As I said before, the references used as claims in the article for the Lao origin of larb were made by foreigners who don't seem to have any background in Tai languages whatsoever, and I'd be very surprised if they even spoke any of the Tai languages. To use your psychology example: I'd more trust someone with than someone without a BA in psychology to make more correct statements regarding psychology.”

Your ad hominem attacks on the people who claim that Larb is of Lao origin as being, “foreigners who don’t seem to have any background in Tai languages whatsoever…” in an attempt to discredit their creditability is very ironic because you seem to have no problem citing these same ‘foreigners who don’t seem to have any background in Tai languages whatsoever and I'd be very surprised if they even spoke any of the Tai languages.” When they say what you wanted to hear.

“Millennia is still not the case here, however you interpret it. Read more on the history of Tai peoples as it is only 1 millennium of there being Tai peoples in this region.”

This is an excellent example of making a mountain of a mole hill. The word choice of “Millennia” was purposely selected to be a generous approximation of time to cover the history of these people existing and living side by side. This still does not explain why you distorted my statement. Please explain the mental processes you took to take an otherwise valid statement and twisted it to be a completely false statement? Even if I were to accept it to be exactly 1 millennium (on the dot) of these people interacting with one another, are you saying that they still can’t figure each other out? By focusing on my word choice you are losing focus on the main argument - which clearly shows in your responses.

“I can give you an example of the British: people who live in the Netherlands are called "Dutch" which the Dutch don't do themselves. For Dutch people, someone who is a Duits/Deutsch is German. The Germans also use the word Deutsch as a word to call themselves with."

Assuming that you’re only referring to the “native” inhabitants of the country and not the immigrants from Africa, Asia, Middle East and the Indian Sub-Continent etc…Your example is factually wrong and your reasoning is still faulty. (1) People in the Netherlands do call themselves “Dutch”. This is not a labelled the British gave them. They speak the Dutch language and they are part of the Germanic tribe of people. This would explain why the German also call themselves Deutsch, meaning German people. (2) And, yes, they also refer to themselves as “Netherlander” or “Nederlander” both meaning “low" and "near the sea". This is like the Lao people in the Isan region referring to them as “khon Isan” as being the “people of the northeast”. (3) I guess you could say that the British and the Dutch do live “side by side” if you completely ignore the North Sea that separates them!

“The British call often call the country Holland, after two of its provinces. No one in the Netherlands uses this word to designate the country, except for some reason during international football competitions. Perhaps because it's an international event the use the English word? “

It is true that “Holland” is not the official name of the country, but the provinces of North and South Hollands are the Netherlands’ most populated and influential. It may not be technically correct to refer to the country as Holland as opposed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. But it is false to claim that “No one in the Netherlands uses this word to designate the country.” Dutch people do, in fact, sometimes use Holland when referring to their country. See www. Holland.com and see also CGP Grey video for clarification: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc

“A quote from soas.ac.uk: "In the Ayutthya chronicle the reference to Laotians passing through Ayutthya territory may not refer to people of Lan Sang origin at all. The term ‘Lao’ can have much broader applicability and reference and refer to a group from Lan Na or the Shan states instead of Lan Sang. There has always been a “habit of making no distinction among the major Tai-speaking ethnic groups who lived in the Mekong valley and the upper reaches of the Chao Phraya basin.” As with the term ‘Tai Yai’ it has always been common practice to use "the term ‘Lao’ indiscriminately when referring not only to the Lao of the Mekong valley but also to the Shan of Northeast Burma, the Tai dialect speakers of Chiang Mai and Sipsong Panna, the Phuan of Northern Laos, and others" (Mayoury and Pheuiphanh Ngaosrivathana, 2002, 98).”

I can’t help but shakes my head every time you cite something like this to insinuate (or prove) that the Lao, Tai Yuan, Shan, Phaun etc., are different. The most ironic thing about this is that you fail to comprehend what the author is saying. The Siamese (prior to Prince Damrong) considered, if anything, these people to be culturally related; not only were the people of Lan Xang are call Lao but the people of Lan Na and the Shan of Burma are also considered to be” Lao”. The term was used interchangeably.

See this statement again for clarification:“Lao” being the broad category into which the Siamese lumped the kingdoms to their north and northeast, including those at Lamphang, Lamphun, Nan, Luang Prabang, Vientiane, etc. These peoples shared the Lan Na (or khon muang) dialect, and had a long history of exchanging women in marital alliances; they thus shared much more culturally with each other than they did with the Siamese. Thanet Charoenmuang [ธเนศวร์ เจริญเมือง]. People of the Muang [คนเมือง]. Chiang Mai: Center for the Study of Social Issues, 2001

" In Lao_History_Revisited, Michel Lorrillard writes: "Another particularly interesting point is that it is not until this period (mid-1400s) that the narrative found in the Chiang Mai Chronicle begins to mention the Lao as a people – thus providing them with recognition on the regional scene – and more precisely the name Lan Xang, which had not previously appeared in any other source." So why would Lanna people call the people of the Lan Xang kingdom Lao, if they themselves (Lanna people) were Lao?”

(1) Did you actually read the article you cited? Michel was making an observation about how the area of Lao studies up to now is incomplete and that “the historiography of what is now the country of Laos has remained relatively underdeveloped since the colonial period…Particularly worth exploring are the cultural and artistic connections between the Lao kingdom of Lan Xang and the northern Thai Kingdom of Lanna” (it is right there in the abstract). In the article he outlined some obstacles and problems encountered in researching Lao history from the lack of archaeological, philological, linguistic, anthropological and geographical etc., but then gave renew hope in that “the political and economic changes that have occurred in the last 15 years in Lao do, however, now allow us to make a fresh with on-the-ground studies that were interrupted decades ago.”

(2) The quote you presented has to be read in context of Michel’s entire article (see my summary). And it came from David K. Wyatt and Aroonrut Wichienkeeo (1995), The Chiang Mai Chronicle, Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai, p 99.

And yes, it is very interesting that the Chiang Mai Chronicle would only mention the Lao as a people around that time. If the Chiang Mai Chronicle is correct then there is a major problem with the historiography of the entire region (Thailand) because the Chiang Mai Chronicle would completely contradict the Ramkhamheng Inscriptions. ). Either the Ramkhamheng inscription is a forgery or it’s the Chiang Mai Chronicle that is a fake or has been tampered with. I have my suspicion and I would caution anybody from taking these documents too literally. The Chiang Mai Chronicle, a document which was supposedly written around 1827, is another and separate issue that has to be scrutinized as with all other Chronicles (Sukhothai, Autthaya, Chiang Mai, Lan Xang. Burmese etc).

See “The Bangkok Recension of Chiang Mai History” p. 88

http://www.siamese-heritage.org/jsspdf/1991/JSS_087_0h_Renard_ImageOfChiangMai.pdf

Also:

http://sydney.edu.au/southeast-asia-centre/documents/pdf/prakitnonthakan-chatri.pdf

http://www.laomanuscripts.net/downloads/literaryheritageoflaos29_mcdaniel_en.pdf

See Michel own statements:

“The most recent Mon artefacts found in Laos are clearly from the tenth century at the latest, while firm archaeological proof of Lao settlement in the Vientiane region does not appear until the beginning of the fifteenth century, although the Ramkhamheng Inscription of Sukhothai may show that they were present by the late 1200s. It is true nonetheless that the Lao settled on the exact sites that had been occupied by the Mon much earlier, and that they were aware of this earlier presence, for they discovered its archaeological remains, as we still do today. (To take a very concrete example, a few Mon steles were re-used for Lao inscriptions.)" p 398

“The study of Sukhothai epigraphy dealt with only in the work of Alexander Griswold and Prasert na Nagara, and still holds a great wealth of potential information for us.15 This is even more true for the epigraphy of Lanna, which is still at the stage of being published without any analysis. Much work also remains to be done in the field of philological research, since the mechanisms of traditional historiography can only be understood through an exhaustive comparative study of the numerous local chronicles, and also of other literary genres that have influenced them: religious texts, popular stories, astrology manuals, treatises on customary law and so on.” p393

So the answer to your question is: I don’t know. If the experts in the field are still scratching their heads around this topic, I don’t know how you purport to know or how you expect me to know is beyond me.

“Another interesting read is this paper on the script used in Lao by Japanese researcher Masao Kashinaga. That, together with the aforementioned "Lao History Revisited", give a very strong indication that the Lan Xang kingdom was heavily influenced by Lanna, and less so the other way around.”

Yes. But I never claimed that Lan Xang was exclusively the epicentre of knowledge and influences in the region. You were the one applying special pleading and exeptionalism to Lanna. See my comment about Lanna and Lan Xang being sisters’ kingdoms and people travel to -and-fro, exchanging and sharing knowledge. See also http://www.laomanuscripts.net/downloads/literaryheritageoflaos29_mcdaniel_en.pdf

EsanBanna (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)