Ian G. Baird

Contested History, Ethnicity, and Remembering the Past: The Case of the Ay Sa Rebellion in Southern Laos

AbstractPre-colonial histories in Southeast Asia are generally dependent on a very limited number of written sources. Most information originates from the elites among dominant ethnic groups or Westerners. These centralized his-tories are frequently uncritically treated as the ‘truth.’ This is especially true in countries like Laos, where historical documents are rare. But different ver-sions of widely accepted histories also exist, and these often-contested histories remain prominent in the minds of people from different ethnic groups. This paper demonstrates the contested nature of history in Laos and the importance of ethnicity in social memory, using a well-known histori-cal event that occurred in southern Laos—the Ay Sa Rebellion of the early nineteenth century. Lao, Siamese, and Western versions of the history of this rebellion are reviewed, followed by oral histories obtained from ethnic Brao people who maintain memories of the events that transpired. I hope to dem-onstrate the importance of considering ethnicity in relation to histories, and to encourage others to investigate alternative versions of histories in Laos.

In Southeast Asia, generally accepted histories from the pre-colonial era are largely dependent on the very few written sources available, most originating from elites among the dominant ethnic groups and Westerners or other travelers who happened to pass through particular areas. In most cases, these histories are not seriously scrutinized, and are frequently accepted as being close to what actually happened. This is particularly the case in countries like Laos where written records from the past are few and far between. However, the reality is that people from various ethnic groups contest these mainstream histories. Paul Ricoeur (1978), in line with the thinking of Michel Foucault, argued that there is no lived reality that is not affected or mediated in some way by ideology. In other words, there is no social space that is free from the subtle and sometimes not so subtle influences of

117

Crossroads, Vol. 18:2. ISSN: 0741-2037. © 2007 Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University. All rights reserved.

Baird

118 CROSSROADS 18:2

power. Although Ricoeur recognized the role of individual agency, he believed that it can never be total, and that “it is condemned to remain partial, fragmentary, insular” (1978:59). Bevir (1999:358), on the other hand, has argued for more emphasis on the importance of human agency, a position that has become increasingly popular among scholars in recent years, even while acknowledging the criti-cal role of power. He stated that, “[t]o deny that subjects can escape from all social influences is not to deny that they can act creatively for reasons that make sense to them. On the contrary, we must allow for agency if only because we cannot individuate beliefs or actions by reference to social context.” Fentress and Wickham (1992) make an important contribution to assessing the question of social memory, grappling with ques-tions surrounding group and individual memory. They point out that scholars have long thought memory to be a product of collective groups, without adequately considering the roles of individuals in the creation of social memory. While they agree that “much memory is attached to membership of social groups of one kind or another” (1992:ix), they also stress the role of individual consciousness in the creation of memory, thus taking a more balanced approach to ques-tions of memory. However, they point out that individual memories become socialized through being talked about, and that memories shared with others are those of importance to one’s social group. That is why certain memories are talked about among particular groups. Thus, even private memories contain much that is social in origin. Fentress and Wickham do touch on questions of oral history, but are not primarily interested in the reconstruction of history through oral accounts. For them, “the issue of whether or not a given memory is true is interesting only in so far as it sheds light on how memory itself works” (1992:xi). They point out that social memory is often selec-tive, distorted, and inaccurate, but they also recognize that it can be extremely precise, especially when it is socially relevant to remember an event in the way it was first experienced. They think that the argu-ment about the accuracy of memories is sterile, and will always be so, as long as memory is separated from social context. They argue that,

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 119

“[W]hat distorts memory is not some inherent defect in the process of mental recall, but rather a series of external constraints, usually imposed by society—the constraints are the issue, not the accuracy” (1992:xii). Furthermore, memory is not just about transmitting truth; there are other social functions associated with it as well. The focus of this paper is ethnicity. Following recent scholar-ship, I see ethnicity as being part of a complex make-up of identities that are multiple, flexible, and frequently deployed in different ways, depending on the circumstances. Politics has an important bearing on the construction and consolidation of one’s identities, as do socio-cultural issues. For example, the political implications of referring to oneself as ‘indigenous’ are very different from using categories such as ‘ethnic minority.’ Local and global histories also play an important role in the construction of identities, and are frequently intertwined and deployed for political purposes. Grant Evans’ book, The Politics of Ritual and Remembrance: Laos Since 1975 (1998), represents an important contribution to the study of social memory and politics in Laos. Evans skillfully shows how history and associated rituals have been recreated and reconstituted by the state to meet the political needs of the socialist government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic since it came to power in 1975. Yet, as important as Evans’ book is for establishing the theoretical framework for looking at questions related to memory and identity politics in Laos, he has mainly focused on the ethnic Lao, particularly the elites of the past, including the royal families of Laos’ different regions. This is also the case for other scholars like Tanabe and Keyes (2002), whose views also tend to privilege lowlander views. Vatthana Pholsena (2003, 2004, 2006) has also recently inves-tigated the relationship between memory and politics in Laos, but unlike Evans, her focus has been on comparing national historiog-raphies with local histories as expressed by ethnic minorities from a more peripheral part of the country. In fact, her work has dealt with Austroasiatic language speakers living in close geographical and cul-tural proximity to the peoples in whom I am particularly interested, the ethnic Brao of southern Laos and northeastern Cambodia. She

Baird

120 CROSSROADS 18:2

argues that the historical narratives of these peoples are “the structur-ing expression of these individuals’ consciousness, both reproducing and contesting the state’s nationalist discourse” (2003:1). She effec-tively demonstrates both the accepted and contested nature of history, and the influence of individual and group politics on memory and the production of history. She rightly emphasizes the importance of power in the creation of history, in line with Foucault’s argument that ideas are internalized as “an effect of power” (1980:98), but she also clearly acknowledges the push and pull of human agency. In this paper, I demonstrate the contested nature of history in southern Laos, and the importance of ethnicity in social group remem-brance, using a particular well-known historical event that occurred in southern Laos—the Ay Sa Rebellion of the early nineteenth century, approximately 1817 to 1821. Thus, this paper stretches further back in history than Pholsena’s work and focuses on history that is at least a few generations beyond the living memory of any person. Yet, as will be demonstrated, the events that took place were important enough for oral histories to be remembered to this day by the ethnic Brao—a people who have never relied on written sources of history. In most cases, they are either unaware of, or refuse to accept, the mainstream version of events. To begin, Lao, Siamese, and Western versions of this rebellion will be reviewed, followed by oral histories obtained from Brao peo-ple who maintain social memories of the events that transpired. As with Pholsena, my main purpose is not to point out that previously recorded versions of history are necessarily incorrect, or to refute any of the already generally accepted facts (although I do believe that these facts have been too uncritically accepted in the past), since the events in question took place too long ago to verify what actually happened. Instead, I hope to show the importance of ethnicity in transforming and shaping group histories.1 I also argue that the best way to esti-mate the truth of histories like this one is to analyze different sources, as well as highlight the sociopolitical reasons for the development of particular social memories.

1 I also wish to encourage others to investigate alternative versions of histories in the region.

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 121

The Brao and HistoryThe Brao are generally classified, and classify themselves, as a peo-ple who speak various dialects of Brao, an Austroasiatic language in the Western Bahnaric branch of the Mon-Khmer family. There are approximately 55,000 Brao worldwide, with approximately half liv-ing in Champasak and especially in the Attapeu provinces of southern Laos, and the other half in Stung Treng and especially Ratanakiri provinces in northeast Cambodia (fig. 1). There is also one Brao vil-lage in Vietnam, and small migrant communities of Brao people living in the United States, France, and Thailand (Baird 2007a). The Brao are historically animist swidden cultivators who mainly live in remote mountainous areas2 and are highly dependent on forests and non-timber forest products (Baird and Dearden 2003; Baird 2007b). There is very little written documentation specifically referring to the Brao people in any language, and what does exist, especially from the pre-colonial and colonial eras as well as Lao, Thai, and Western scholars, have—over time—written virtually everything available about the Brao, and other highland groups for that matter. In this study, I intend to demonstrate that Lao and Thai versions of history, which are commonly relied upon by Western scholars of Laos, are often contested histories while the Brao, almost 200 years after the Ay Sa rebellion, maintain memories of events drastically different from previously published or oral versions. Throughout history, the Brao have rarely ever been able to influence how people refer to them. During the pre-colonial and colonial periods, the Lao and ‘outsiders’ generally referred to highland peoples, including the Brao, collectively, using the pejorative Kha. Sometimes the French who came to Laos from Vietnam referred to them as Moi, the equivalent of Kha in Vietnamese. In Cambodia, they were often referred to as Phnong, another collec-tive pejorative for highlanders. In Laos, they have also frequently been referred to as Lave,3 a term that ethnic Lao people coined for them.

2 In recent years, however, a large number of the Brao in Laos have been subjected to government-initiated internal resettlement to the lowland areas and along major roads, and many are now involved in lowland wet-rice paddy cultivation (Baird and Shoemaker 2007).3 Also frequently spelled Lov���� and Lavae.

Baird

122 CROSSROADS 18:2

Fig. 1

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 123

More recently, the Brao and other highland groups have often been referred to collectively as Lao Theung or Khmer Leu, or Son Sat Son Phao or Chun Chiet, generalized terms, developed by the Lao and Khmer respectively, which are politically oriented and more polite. Highland groups have rarely had the chance to record history from their own perspectives. Instead, the center and the elites have dominated, often at the expense of views of peripheral groups like the Brao and subsequently their lands (see Baird 2007b). However, this does not mean that they do not have social memories that differ from those of the elite, including the ethnic Lao. In fact, history in Laos is frequently contested, especially at the local level where oral histories sometimes conflict with recorded histories. Here, I hope to offset some of the inherent imbalances in the recording of history, which favors non-Brao perspectives, by col-lecting oral histories from the Brao themselves. It is important to recognize that Brao oral histories are as vulnerable to social and political manipulation as other histories. Because there are no written sources to document changes to oral histories, they are potentially even more vulnerable to drastic manipulations. Yet, these oral histo-ries remain extremely valuable and can provide considerable insights with regard to the ethnic consciousness of generally marginal groups like the Brao. Apart from potentially clarifying factual historical events, oral histories can also provide insights regarding the social and political positions and interactions of different peoples. While I will try to include the Brao point of view via my observa-tions and discussions with them, and by documenting some of their oral histories, I would be naive and arrogant to suggest that it would be pos-sible for me to record history from the Brao point of view. I am not Brao, and I make no claim to be able to represent them. However, I do believe that my ability to speak Brao, and the relationships that I have developed with Brao people over many years, are significant. Also, in acknowledg-ing my limitations, I hope that I have already moved closer to achieving a more balanced perspective.4

4 The research for this paper was conducted as part of the author’s doctoral stud-ies, and was done between December 2003 and February 2007. Fieldwork involved

Baird

124 CROSSROADS 18:2

I have chosen the example of the Ay Sa Rebellion to demonstrate the issue at hand for a couple of reasons. First, it is the oldest historical event recorded that clearly identifies the Brao as being involved, and because I am studying the Brao as part of my doctoral studies, the events surrounding this event are of interest to me. Secondly, because of the close link between the Ay Sa affair and the war between Chao5 Anouvong (generally referred to as Chao Anou) of Vientiane and Siam that followed soon after—and is considered to be a hugely sig-nificant event in Lao history—this latter story has received relatively more attention than other aspects of history related to the Brao. For the Lao, the Chao Anou Rebellion against Siamese domi-nance is extremely important, as it represents the last attempt by the Lao to unite ethnic Lao people within a single kingdom, and also repre-sents the last strong challenge to Siamese hegemony in the region. The events that followed the 1826–28 wars fought between forces aligned with Chao Anou and the Siamese are also very significant, as Vientiane was destroyed after its monarch’s final defeat and much of the popula-tion was relocated west of the Mekong River into present-day Thailand. The sociopolitical landscape of the region was thus transformed. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) government has also continued to emphasize the importance of Chao Anou in official his-toriography, thus ensuring continued attention on the part of people living in Laos (Mayoury and Phieuphanh 1998; Turton 1998). I am not attempting to rewrite the history of Ay Sa or the rebellion he led, but it is important for the reader to recognize that part of what I intend to do is to decenter the view of the events in question. So often the views of the center cultures (i.e., Lao, Thai, Khmer, Vietnamese) have been adopted by Western scholars with-out adequately considering the views of the other peoples, who were as much a part of events as the center, but whose views have

staying in dozens of Brao villages included in all Brao subgroups in Ratanakiri and Stung Treng provinces in northeastern Cambodia, and the Champasak and Attapeu provinces in southern Laos. Elders in Brao villages were frequently asked during both informal situations and semi-structured interviews if they had ever heard of the Ay Sa Rebellion. The author has worked with the Brao in Laos and Cambodia regularly since 1995.5 Chao is a Lao designation for royalty.

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 125

remained obscured by not having been privileged to be at the center of power—virtually the only lens used to investigate the past. As we know from Benedict Anderson (1991), the written language and the printing press have a great deal of power, and in Laos and Siam the dominant groups have long controlled this medium. Essentially, I hope to refocus the view of events so as to allow for the creation of the space required for the presentation of history as seen by some Brao. I do not pretend that my own filter has not been added, but I should at least be able to present views quite different from those emanating from the center.

The Ay Sa RebellionWhile the Chao Anou-initiated rebellions against Siamese hegemony were a watershed in Lao history, the Ay Sa affair can be considered to be a watershed in Brao history. According to most written sources (i.e., Archaimbault 1961; Bourotte 1955; Wilson 1992, 1997; Toem 1987; Wyatt 1963), Ay Sa was an ethnic Lao Buddhist monk from Siam who led an army of thousands of followers—mainly ethnic minorities of highland origin—against the Kingdom of Champasak in about 1819. There has long been confusion regarding the name of the rebel by those who have recorded history. Ay6 Sa, Sa, Asa, Seuk7 Ay Sa, Seuk Asa, Khou Ay Sa, Sa Kiet Ngong, Asa Khiet Ngong, Pha Sa Kiet Ngong, Phra Sa, Pha Sa, Saket Ngong, Khou Ba Sa, or even Ya Pu are all names that have been used by various authors (Phouthong 2004; Anonymous 2004; Ministry of Information and Culture 2000; Sanprasit 1995; Bourotte 1955; Wilson 1992, 1997; Archaimbault 1961; Simms and Simms 1999; Chatthip 1984; Mayoury and Phieuphanh 1998; Grabowsky 1997; Manich 2000; Rathie 2006). During this period, the Kingdom of Champasak was the primary center of power near Brao populated areas. They sometimes collected tribute from the Brao, initially as representatives of independent or semi-independent principalities, and later as a vassal of Siam. The Lao were also the principal lowland power behind the slave trade in Brao

6 Ay refers to ‘elder’ in Lao, so ‘Ay Sa’ means the elder Sa.7 Seuk refers to war or armed conflict in Lao.

Baird

126 CROSSROADS 18:2

areas. The Brao were both frequent victims of slave raids organized by the Lao, Siamese, and other highland groups, and were also some-times active agents in the slave trade, since Brao villages occasionally attacked other Brao villages as well as the villages of other nearby eth-nic groups. The majority of Ay Sa’s followers were apparently people who are today ethnically classified as Brao, with the ethnic Halang8 peoples also being mentioned as important followers of Ay Sa. The Brao themselves confirm their major involvement in the rebellion, as do other Lao and Western sources (Phouthong 2004; Bourotte 1955; Rathie 2006).

Different Memories of the Past: The Lao ViewMy initial attempts to learn about the history of Phou Asa (Asa Mountain) were not very successful. In early 2005 an ethnic Lao teacher from the Pathoumphone district told me that he thought Chao Anou had fled to the temple from Siam long ago, but he could not provide many additional details, and he was not very confident about his knowledge of the history of the area. The ethnic Lao village of Kiet Ngong is the closest community to the temple, but none of the villagers were very clear about the temple’s origin. One elder who apparently knew more than others told me that the wife and son of Chao Anou stayed at Phou Asa after being defeated by the Siamese. They appar-ently stayed together with Khou Ba Asa, a Buddhist monk who could not be shot or stabbed. Later, however, the Siamese came to look for Chao Anou’s wife and son. The importance of Chao Anou in Lao his-toriography probably influenced the construction of this account. An ethnic Lao man originally from the Pathoumphone dis-trict—but now living in Canada—told me in November 2006 that “Asa” originated from the Pali language word Asanai, which means horse. The Lao man, who was previously a Buddhist monk for many years, heard that Phra Lam’s horse9 had died and was buried on Phou Asa Mountain. He was confident in his assessment, but he could not

8 The Halang are a Bahnaric Mon-Khmer language-speaking group adjacent to the Brao in Laos and mainly Vietnam.9 Phra Lam is one of the characters from the Ramayana, or Ramakhien in Lao, a story that originated from India, but has now been adapted into Thai and Lao.

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 127

provide any additional details. We can see here how Buddhism has influenced his understanding of history. A Lao version recorded on an original palm-leaf manuscript10 from Attapeu, which was transmitted to me via a local ethnic Lao his-torian who has lived in Attapeu all his life, Bounthanh Chanthakhaly,11 told me in February 2006 that Ay Sa was a Buddhist monk who came from Siam (present-day northeastern Thailand). He apparently arrived in southern Laos in 1817, long before the French gained any influence in the region. He is said to have first traveled to Phou Ay Sa (presently known as Phou Asa) in present-day Pathoumphone district, in Champasak province, where he is believed to have organized the building of the mountain temple there. Ay Sa is said to have acquired a “special gem” (keo phiset in Lao) after praying on a mountain (prob-ably Phou Asa). When light shined on the gem, Ay Sa said that he could direct it to kill animals and people, burn down houses, or cause other forms of destruction. Many believed in his power and his fol-lowing grew. Ay Sa boasted that he had attained enlightenment, so he gathered together an army made up of people from many differ-ent ethnic groups who respected his power. He then sent his army to attack the principality of Champasak, located on the west side of the Mekong River in present-day Champasak province. The principal-ity was unprepared for the onslaught. Champasak was sacked and all the captured children were killed. The King of Champasak, Chao Phom Manoi (commonly known as Chao Manoi), who reigned from 1813 to 1820, escaped. Chao Anou, the King of Vientiane at the time (r. 1804–28), was called in to suppress the rebellion, and he sent an army and his son Chao Nyo to subdue Ay Sa’s rebel army. Chao Nyo captured Ay Sa at Phou Ya Pou, a mountain in present-day southeast-ern Attapeu province, where he had taken refuge with his followers. After being apprehended, Ay Sa was, according to this version, sent to Bangkok, where he was imprisoned and eventually died.12

10 The exact date that this palm-leaf manuscript was created is unclear, but it was probably in the late nineteenth century.11 He inherited the palm-leaf manuscript from his father-in-law. 12 After the affair was settled, the King of Siam elevated Chao Nyo to be King of Champasak in 1821 (Maha Sila 1964). Upon taking power, Chao Nyo immediately

Baird

128 CROSSROADS 18:2

The two Lao historians, Mayoury and Pheuiphanh Ngaosyvathn (1998), provide a different perspective of events, and their version comes much more from the view of Vientiane with abso-lutely no mention of Attapeu, despite the fact that Ay Sa eventually retreated there and was finally captured. Their version demonstrates the importance of the politics of regional differences in Laos, even when coming from different people from different regions but osten-sibly belonging to the same ethnic group. Mayoury and Pheuiphanh (1998) begin their reporting of events from 1819, two years later than the Attapeu version. They wrote that the rebellion was led by Sa Kiet Ngong, and according to them, was started in response to increased slave raiding sponsored by the Siamese. The uprising apparently spread quickly from its origins in Champasak, threatening Bangkok’s domination of southern Laos. Chao Anou and the Yokkrabat (royally designated leader) of Khorat were called upon by the King of Siam to crush the rebellion. The Yokkrabat of Khorat, who was respon-sible for managing the slave trade for Bangkok, apparently tried to manipulate the situation and attempted to extend his power over Champasak and eventually over areas to the east, by allowing Chao Anou, “enough rope to strangle himself.” However, Chao Anou

ordered a census to support the raising of taxes and forcibly recruiting corv��e labor for constructing a protective perimeter around the new capital. Apparently Chao Nyo’s rapid rise to power met with some resistance in Champasak. For one, he was said to be very strict with local officials (Anonymous 2004), and his attempts to impose Vientiane customs on Champasak also apparently met with resistance (Stuart-Fox 1998). But before long, Chao Anou and his son Chao Nyo, upset with increasing Siamese influence in Lao affairs (Wyatt 1963; Mayoury and Pheuiphanh 1998), rebelled against the Siamese, seeking an independent Lao in the vision of the Lan Xang era of Chao Fa Ngum (reigned 1353–74). Although Chao Anou’s forces got close to sack-ing Bangkok, they were defeated near Khorat (at present-day Nakorn Ratchasima in Thailand) and then decisively at Nong Boua Lamphu in 1827 (Hall 1981). Chao Anou fled to Vietnam, but his son Chao Nyo was captured and executed in Bangkok by the Siamese. People unhappy with Chao Nyo’s installment to the Champasak throne apparently betrayed him. Chao Nyo was caught as he tried to escape from Champasak to the Bolaven Plateau. In 1828, Chao Anou returned to Laos, but was again defeated by the Siamese. He was captured by the Siamese and died in prison in Bangkok (Stuart-Fox 2001; Hall 1981). The Kingdom at Vientiane ceased to exist, and Champasak was weakened significantly. After Chao Anou’s defeat, the Siamese decided to destroy and depopulate Vientiane, moving tens of thousands of people to present-day Thailand (Turton 1998).

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 129

sent his son Chao Nyo to advance against the eight thousand fol-lowers of Sa Kiet Ngong, who claimed to be invulnerable to bullets. Traveling by boat from Vientiane to Champasak with his men, Chao Nyo apparently won the nickname khi none (worm excrement) as he forced his soldiers to paddle day and night without rest. Although his men’s hands became swollen as a result of excessive paddling, Chao Nyo was able to eventually capture Sa Kiet Ngong and quell the unrest. According to Mayoury and Pheuiphanh (1998), Chao Anou took Chao Manoi, the King of Champasak, and Sa Kiet Ngong to Bangkok, hoping that his son’s success in quelling the rebellion could be used to ask for justice from Bangkok with regard to trade relations. However, his efforts were apparently in vain, although the King of Siam provided Chao Anou with ritual honors and elevated Chao Nyo as the new King of Champasak. Still, Chao Anou was apparently enraged with the King of Siam’s apparent willingness to support the Khorat Yokkrabat’s plans to expand his influence east of the Mekong River (Mayoury and Pheuiphanh 1998). One undated version of the chronicles of Champasak (Phongsavadan Nakhone Champasak in Lao) recently found and tran-scribed in Champasak tells yet a different story (Anonymous 2004). This version of the chronicles states that in 1817 a monk named Sa from Luplaotaopun village in Saraburi, Siam, traveled to Phou Khiet Ngong in Champasak where he constructed a temple on top of the mountain. Sa claimed to be a phou viset (special person), and attracted many followers. According to this version, people were fearful of Sa’s power, and the Kha from Attapeu, Khamthong, and Salavan in southern Laos were said to have come under Phra Sa’s influence. Sa’s army took boats up the Mekong River from the mouth of the Tapoung stream in present-day Khong district, Champasak province. Chao Manoi, the King of Champasak, learned of Sa’s approach and fled in 1819, fearful of Sa’s large army. However, the Pha-nya (noble) of Khorat managed to arrange for an army to be drafted from Khong to retake Champasak, causing Asa Khiet Ngong to flee to Phou Nya Pou in Attapeu. The Pha-nya of Khorat was then called to Bangkok, and so he assigned Pha-nya Maha-Amnat and Pha-nya Samdeng to appre-

Baird

130 CROSSROADS 18:2

hend Asa Khiet Ngong, but they could not find the monk. Therefore they took Chao Manoi and his family to Bangkok, where Manoi died. Chao Anouvong Viengchan was then called upon to appre-hend Sa, who by then had lost his powers due to having copulated with many Kha young women. According to this version, Chao Anou’s men set a trap for Sa, convincing the Kha to get him drunk at a party, capture him at Phou Nya Pou and send him to Bangkok. In recognition of the success of Chao Nyo in quelling the rebellion, he was elevated as the new King of Champasak by the King of Siam in 1821 (Anonymous 2004). Phouthong Phutthavong (2004), a native of Attapeu now living in France, also presents an important Lao version of the history of Ay Sa. He claims that the forest monk, Phra Sa, lived at Nong Boua village near Tao Poun in Muang Champasak in about 1815 before moving to Khiet Ngong Mountain. Phra Sa declared himself to be divine with magical powers, and gathered many followers among the Brao (Lave) and Halang (Salang), along with thousands of others from Champasak, Attapeu, Sithandone, Saravane, Khamthong, and elsewhere. As Phouthong puts it, “[They] followed him, listened to him, and formed a big army with a common belief or because of the megalomania of a guru, anyway incompatible with the Buddhist religion” (2004:19). Phouthong (2004) reported that in about 1818, Phra Sa’s army attacked and plundered Muang Champasak, killing inhabitants and dignitaries. Chao Manoi apparently escaped with his family. Therefore, the Siamese authorities ordered the troops of Pha-nya Ammat Pom and Pha-nya Sone Samdeng from Muang Khong, to intervene and stop the bloody attacks of Phra Sa’s army. Phra Sa’s army was unable to resist and escaped with their leader from Phou Khiet Ngong to Attapeu, plundering and murdering as they retreated. Many villages were burnt down in Attapeu, including Don Pouy Phay, Hom, Saphao, Tha Hin, Tek, Muang May, Hatsadi, Sakhe, Keng Say, Cheng, Kasom, and tens of others. The inhabitants of Attapeu ran away in disarray in all directions to escape to the

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 131

forest, caves, and mountains, where they took refuge alongside the highlanders. Villages and towns were emptied. Phouthong (2004) reported that Chao Anou in Vientiane was asked by the Siamese in 1818 to intervene. Thus, he designated his son Chao Rachabout Nyo and his troops to hunt down Phra Sa at Nya Pou Mountain. They succeeded in apprehending Sa, and gave him over to the Siamese in 1819, who executed him. After Phra Sa was apprehended, some people in Attapeu returned to their villages soon after, while others preferred to stay in their new location. This version is focused on Attapeu. Representing the view of the Na Champasak family of south-ern Laos, Sanprasit (1995) reported that Khou Ba Sa stayed at Khiet Ngong in 1815. He reported that he claimed to be a “special person” with great powers, and that he was able to gather many villagers behind him. Sanprasit did not, however, mention the ethnicity of these followers, but he did write that these followers were trained for warfare. They attacked and plundered Muang Champasak. Chao Manoi could not resist and ran away. When Asa Khiet Ngong saw Chao Manoi retreating, he took advantage of the situation and ordered that the Muang (principality) be burnt down. Phra Ya Maha Ammat and Phra Sone Sam Deng were therefore called in to solve the problem (Sanprasit did not mention Siamese involvement in issuing this order). Ay Sa therefore fled to Attapeu, according to Sanprasit (1995). Chao Manoi apparently died in 1817, and Chao Nyo was sent to apprehend Ay Sa, which he accomplished. Grateful for the sup-port, Chao Nyo was made King of Champasak in 1819. The Ministry of Information and Culture (2000), in the offi-cial Lao PDR history book, Pavatsat Lao, provides another important account of the Ay Sa affair. They report that Pha Sa Kiet Ngong organized an armed revolt against the Kingdom of Champasak and Siam. According to this version, Pha Sa was of Vientiane ancestry, but his parents had been moved to Louplaotaopoun in Salabouli. Taking a political stance against royalty and Siam, the authors state that Pha Sa could not stand the oppression of Siamese royal rule, and so became a Buddhist monk, apparently with the specific intention of

Baird

132 CROSSROADS 18:2

using his position to fight against the Siamese royals. He apparently traveled by foot (thou dong) from Salabouli, passing various muang in Nakhone Ratchasima (called Khorat at the time) and Champasak. During his journey, he is said to have specifically worked to “raise the awareness of the people to hate and fight against the Siamese and to rise up and snatch independence” (2000:392–3). In this revolution-ary version, Pha Sa is resurrected as a national hero of Laos. Because of his knowledge and great abilities, he is said to have attracted a great following from Champasak, Attapeu, Khamthong, Salavan, and elsewhere. He based himself at Kiet Ngong Mountain in 1817, from which he strengthened his army. The Ministry of Information and Culture (2000) commented that people still believe that Pha Sa had merit like Thao Cheuang, who is said to have been born as a millennium savior of the people. During this period, Pha-nya Nakhone Ratchasima Thong In, the representative of Siam, forcibly recruited people as laborers, and subjected them to extreme oppres-sion. This version also mentions that Thong In’s soldiers attacked the Lao Theung (highlanders) from the Samet kanxa and Palai nop Palai tang tribes in Muang Khong, who refused to pay tribute. This event apparently triggered great anger, and led large numbers to join Pha Sa. His army started attacking soldiers and the agents of Thong In who were working in Laos. But Thong In tricked Pha Sa by getting people aligned with him to encourage the monk to lead his forces against Muang Champasak. Like Mayoury and Phieuphanh (1998), the authors promote the idea that there was a plan to attack in order to weaken both the Kingdom of Champasak and Pha Sa’s forces, thus opening an opportunity for Thong In to take control of Champasak, and also privileging Siamese control over Lao control. In 1819, Pha Sa led his army to boats on the Mekong River at the mouth of the Tapoung Stream, and prepared to launch their attack on Champasak from Thong Nava, which was on the east side of the Mekong, three days walk from Champasak. Chao Manoi of Champasak called up his deputies and led a force against Pha Sa, but Pha Sa’s eight thousand troops decimated Chao Manoi’s forces. Thus, Pha Sa’s army was able to cross the Mekong River and get closer to

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 133

Champasak. Chao Manoi was not ready for the impending attack, and fled with his family. Thus, Pha Sa’s forces were able to easily take Champasak and “declare independence” from Nakhone Ratchasima in 1819. When news of Champasak’s defeat reached Thong In, he quickly contacted Bangkok to ask for military support to put down the rebellion. He also got soldiers from Muang Khong to attack Pha Sa’s forces. He succeeded in chasing Pha Sa and his troops away, and also apprehended Chao Manoi and sent him to Bangkok, where Manoi was relieved of his title and executed (Ministry of Information and Culture 2000). In 1821, Bangkok ordered Khorat and Vientiane to jointly track down Pha Sa’s group in Attapeu. Two forces were sent from Vientiane. One was led by Chao Anou’s son Chao Nyo. It traveled first to the south by boat. Chao Anou’s forces followed. Thong In also sent an army to support the campaign, but before they arrived, Pha Sa’s troops had already given up to Chao Nyo without a fight. Pha Sa and some of his soldiers were taken to meet Chao Anou, who was by then in Champasak. Chao Anou took Pha Sa and the others from there to face their punishment in Bangkok. According to this account, Chao Anou was able to save Pha Sa from being executed, and Pha Sa was allowed to reside in Bangkok. His soldiers were ordered to look after the King of Siam’s elephants. Chao Nyo was rewarded for the “cleverness of the Lao army,” and was made “the owner” of Champasak (2000:395). One of the most interesting things about this version is that eth-nicity is excluded from critical parts of the account, and the readers are led to believe that “all the people” followed Pha Sa, not just the minorities. The highlanders are mentioned, but are called Lao Theung in order to link them with the Lao nation. The authors play down conflicts among those in Laos, while tending to blame Siam for the upheaval. The Ministry of Information and Culture clearly sees the primary political purpose of its history as a tool to strengthen national loyalty toward the nation-state of the Lao PDR. Mentioning ethnic and regional differences within Laos and associated conflicts detracts from the message that the authors want to give. Pha Sa is said to have

Baird

134 CROSSROADS 18:2

“loved the nation,” and thus Chao Anou is spared criticism by ensur-ing that he is not executed in Bangkok (2000:393). Local ethnic Lao histories about Ay Sa’s army plundering their villages are sacrificed for the sake of building up historical opposition to Thailand.

Thai Versions of HistoryThe Thai versions are in many ways similar to the Lao versions, but there are some significant differences. Manich (2000) claims that Ay Sa used his keo phiset (special glass) as a magnifying glass, focusing it in the sun to make fire when at Kiet Ngong, and that this impressed many. According to Manich, Ay Sa said that “he could conjure up the fire to burn towns and villages with his magical powers” (2000:178). Manich (2000) maintains that in 1817 Ay Sa was living in Ludlaotaopoun in Saravane, but that he traveled to Kiet Ngong Hill. Manich ethnicized the conflict to a certain degree, stating that, “People in those days were mostly ignorant Khas and flocked to wor-ship him” (2000:178). Ay Sa’s army invaded Champasak, looting it and then setting the town on fire, while the unprepared Chao Manoi fled to the forest. The Chao Muang (chief of the local principality) of Khorat chased Ay Sa’s troops out of Champasak and to the east to Ya Pu Mountain in Attapeu, but they could not apprehend the rebel monk. Therefore, Chao Anou sent his son Chao Nyo, who was eventually able to detain Ay Sa (Manich 2000). Toem Wiphakphachokij, in the 2004 reprint of his Thai language book, Prawatsat Isan (History of Northeast Thailand), reported that Ay Sa Kiet Ngong had gained his name Kiet Ngong because he had scales and long legs like a type of frog (khiet in Lao).13 Ay Sa was said to be a monk from Luplaotaopun, in Saraburi, Thailand. According to Toem (2004), Ay Sa wanted to boast about his power and did not fol-low Buddhist precepts. He walked to the mountain called Phou Kiet Ngong in present-day Pathoumphone district, Champasak province, where he erected a temple. According to this version of events, Ay Sa claimed that he could become invisible and that he was a phou viset (special person). He used a piece of glass to magnify and start

13 He probably had a skin disease.

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 135

fires, which impressed his followers. He boasted that he could call fire to burn down houses and even the Kingdom of Champasak. Like Manich, Toem (2004) wrote that most of the Kha of the area were “stu-pid” and thus followed the monk. Ay Sa’s armies got into boats at Tapoung Stream in present-day Khong district, Champasak province, and moved north up the Mekong River to attack Champasak. Chao Manoi, the King of Champasak, fled as Ay Sa’s approaching army prepared to attack. Thus, in 1819 Ay Sa’s forces sacked Champasak, looting all the town’s valuables and burning it down. Thong In, from Khorat, was busy suppressing a rebellion in present-day Khong dis-trict, Champasak province, for the Thais, but was able to organize the drafting of enough soldiers to retake Champasak, forcing Ay Sa to flee to the Ya Pu Mountains in Attapeu. Maha Amnat Pom and Phra-nya Son Samdeng were then sent to apprehend Ay Sa, but they were unsuccessful. Then Chao Anou sent his son Chao Nyo to capture Ay Sa, which he accomplished. Ay Sa was sent to Bangkok where he died in prison. The Kha who had followed him were apparently enslaved and forced to look after elephants in Siam. Toem (2004) claimed that a replacement for Chao Manoi, who died in Bangkok, could not be found, so Chao Nyo (reported to be “Yo” by Toem), was elevated as the new King of Champasak in 1821, with Chao Khamphong (also from Vientiane) becoming his deputy or Opharat. The authors of the above Thai versions are not shy to declare that the Kha, who followed Ay Sa, were ignorant, and this negative portrayal of the Kha differs from other versions. Chatthip Nartsupha (1984) has, however, contributed a more balanced Thai version of events. Drawing mainly on the Phun Wiang Chronicles, Chatthip reports that Sakiatngong was not from Siam, but from Nong Bua village, adjacent to Taopun village in Champasak. According to Chatthip, Ay Sa claimed to be a reincarnation of Cuang (Cheuang), the messianic figure of the Brao known as Groong in Brao language (see below), and who was also depicted as a “a legendary hero of (one or some of) the minority peoples” (1984:114). As with other Thai versions, Chatthip wrote that Ay Sa claimed that he could

Baird

136 CROSSROADS 18:2

“burn things by putting sunlight to a lens,” and call up fire to burn towns, humans, and animals everywhere (1984:114). Chatthip reports that the people who had been subjected to Siamese taxes, control, and slave raiding were receptive to Ay Sa’s claims that he was able to emancipate them from their suffering, and they joined Ay Sa in large numbers. Chatthip mentions that the chron-icles contain a passage that says, “Our prince has now been born, our sufferings will be no more” (1984:114). Ay Sa apparently told his followers that he had been born three times and had built cities at Kiatngong Mountain during each of his previous lives, including the one when he was Cheuang. After many people came to follow him, the mountain apparently had its name changed to Sakiatngong, and the messiah arranged for “young girls to dance day and night.” Ay Sa “watched the girls attentively,” as Chatthip puts it, and “acquired three wives” (1984:115). Providing more details than past authors, Chatthip (1984) mentions that the attack on Champasak took place on January 28, 1820, and involved six thousand of Ay Sa’s followers. Chatthip (1984) provides a different perspective of the Ay Sa story that others have glossed over. He mentions that the chronicles claim that the governor of Nakhon Ratchasima persuaded Ay Sa to sponsor the attack on Champasak, suggesting that Ay Sa might have been subject to political manipulation, at least from the local ruling class. Chatthip maintains that Ay Sa probably adopted the story that he was reincarnated from Cheuang on his way to Champasak, and that this enabled him to gain tremendous support from the people. In fact, it might all have been a ploy by the governor of Nakhon Ratchasima to destabilize Champasak so as to justify intervention and his takeover of the principality. Chatthip mentions that after being driven from Champasak, Ay Sa retreated to Yapu Mountain in Attapeu, “the core area of the minority peoples” (1984:115) (at least the Brao). He apparently ascended the mountain and then ordered all paths to the peak to be destroyed. Chatthip does not mention Chao Nyo, Chao Anou’s son, but claims that Chao Anou’s army clashed for many days with Ay Sa’s army until Ay Sa’s followers were finally defeated, and Ay Sa, his

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 137

family, and followers were captured and sent to Bangkok. According to Chatthip, Ay Sa was imprisoned for life, and his family and follow-ers were settled in Bon village, Thonburi Province, where they were required to serve the royal elephants. Other versions do not mention such a battle, or that he was imprisoned for life and not executed. Finally, Chatthip writes that the suppression of the Ay Sa revolt was brutal, and that the Siamese reduced the minorities from a population of 300,000 to only a few thousand in a “terrible massa-cre” (1984:115). This massacre is not recorded in other versions of the story. According to Chatthip, “the peoples legends still recall the rice fields running with blood, streams choked and valleys piled high with corpses” (1984:115). Those who survived were apparently sold as slaves to the Siamese and Lao.

The Western ViewThe Lao, and especially the Thai, versions of history have heavily influenced most of the Western versions (see Bourotte 1955; Wilson 1992, 1997; Wyatt 1963; Archaimbault 1961; Stuart-Fox 1998; Simms and Simms 1999; Grabowsky 1997; Rathie 2006; Anonymous 1911), but there are differences between them all. For example, Bourotte (1955) refers to Ay Sa as Ya Pu, a Lao term used to refer to a Buddhist monk, and the present name for the mountain where Ay Sa took ref-uge. He never mentions his name as being Ay Sa or Sa. He wrote that:

Around 1820, urged to action by a Laotian bonze, Ya Pu,14 the Blao [Brao] of Xekong River sacked Attapeu and the land of the Halang. The Laotian authorities, temporarily thrown off balance by the suddenness of the attack, finally managed to isolate the leader of the revolt on an inaccessible peak, which has been known as Ya Pu ever since. There, in return for provisions that were brought to him by willing supporters,

14 According to Guilleminet (1952), the Ya was a hero, half-god, half-human, and had lived on earth for several hundred years. He was invulnerable and had powerful magic.

Baird

138 CROSSROADS 18:2

the rebel distributed miraculous water. The police forces eventually succeeded in storming his retreat: Ya Pu was taken captive and beheaded. Many similar risings ensued; the farther the mountain people sink in their misery, the more they tend to look for a “messiah” who will restore their good fortunes. (Bourotte 1955, unofficial translation from French)

Constance Wilson (1992, 1997) reports that Sa was ethnic Lao originally from Saraburi in Siam, and that the Siamese had settled his parents there from Laos. Sa built a temple and a couple of shrines to the devata at Kiet Ngong Mountain. He claimed to have magical powers and that he could make himself invisible, thus attracting a large number of followers, “especially among the aborigines of Champassak and Attapeu” (Wilson 1992:27). Wilson (1997) wrote that Sa used a glass disc to create a flame, boasting that he was able to start a fire that would annihilate everything. Wilson (1992) also claims that in 1820 after sacking Champasak with his army (believed to have included 6,000 people), Chao Anou in Vientiane was called upon to put a stop to Sa and his followers. According to Wilson, “Intoxicated with power, Sa had lost his magical skills and was engaging in behavior unsuitable for a monk” (1992:28). Here we see how Wilson’s sensibilities, possibly influenced by culture, resulted in her not explicitly explaining that Ay Sa was having sex with young highland women. However, Chatthip (1984) was also similarly vague about this aspect of the story. In any case, Wilson (1992, 1997) reported that Chao Anou was able to capture Sa, and as a reward, his son Chao Nyo was appointed the new King of Champasak, after Chao Manoi reportedly died in the forest. David Wyatt (1963:28), in his now classic article, “Siam and Laos, 1767–1827,” emphasized the Champasak aspects of the Ay Sa affair. He reported that Sa used a mirror to create fire in order to dem-onstrate his power, and he also reported that a revolt broke out in 1819 among the “Kha peoples” in Champasak, led by “a renegade monk named Sa,” and that his followers marched on and gained control over Champasak with little resistance from Chao Manoi. However,

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 139

troops from Ubon and Khorat quickly retook Champasak. They were unable, however, to capture Sa, who was later captured by a force from Vientiane, led by Chao Anou’s son, Nyo (referred to as “Yo” by Wyatt, reflecting his Thai sources). Charles Archaimbault (1961) reports at least three versions of the Champasak chronicles maintain that in 1817 a monk from Siam with magical powers arrived in Champasak. He built a temple that included altars for making sacrifices to the gods. The monk, named Sa, was able to become invisible at will, and the Kha feared his supernatural pow-ers. People from Attapeu were gathered under his control. Chao Manoi sent Chao Khamsouk, the son of the old dignitary Thammathevo, to gather information about Sa’s army. The messenger said that he saw a fleet of rebels in boats, and heard the shrill calls of warriors. He returned and told Manoi, who quickly decided to put all the families of the dignitaries into safe places before countering the rebellion. Thus, he fled to the forest immediately after meeting with his family, and Sa’s forces moved on Champasak, burning it to the ground. Then Pha-nya Nakhone Ratchasima ordered forces from Khong to attack the rebel, which they did. Sa was forced to escape to Napu Mountain in Attapeu. Manoi was imprisoned and sent to Bangkok. Bangkok then ordered Chao Anou in Vientiane to apprehend Sa. According to Archaimbault, “His [Sa’s] power having com-pletely gone to his head, the monk lost his supernatural talents for fornicating with young Kha girls” (1961:565). Chao Anou used the strategy of getting Sa drunk, and then Sa’s own followers turned on their leader and took him from Napu Mountain to Chao Nyo, who in turn handed him over to Bangkok. Stuart-Fox (1998) provides few details about the Ay Sa Rebellion, and does not even mention the monk by name, but he does maintain that Chao Nyo was elevated to the throne of Champasak as a result of his role in suppressing the rebellion and bringing the rebel leader to Bangkok. He also mentions that the event was related to the “revolt of Lao Thoeng against Chau Manoy” (1998:119). Simms and Simms (1999) refer to Ay Sa as “Saket Ngong” and report that he arrived in Laos from Siam in 1817. He tamed the

Baird

140 CROSSROADS 18:2

sun’s rays to make flames and boasted that if he wished, he could burn down the town of Champasak. He also claimed to be able to become invisible at will, and according to Simms and Simms, “[B]y some clever artifice [he] seems to have been able to create this effect” (1999:174). Many people followed him, especially the Austroasiatic people from the Attapeu region. Simms and Simms claim that Sa’s army took pirogues to Khong, prompting Chao Manoi and other nobles who were residing there to flee, much to the displeasure of Bangkok, who expected more bravery from their vassals. The Siamese army thus took over the job of regaining control of Champasak. In the meantime, write Simms and Simms, “Saket Ngong had become so overconfident that, by one account, he has used up his magical powers through overindulgence with young girls” (174). Again, Ay Sa’s indiscretions are not explicitly mentioned, perhaps reflecting Anglo-Saxon sensitivities in relation to sex. Simms and Simms then report that Ay Sa fled to the eastern hills, but that he was tricked by Chao Nyo’s troops and captured, and sent to Bangkok for execution. Later King Rama II of Siam, who had a close relationship with Chao Anou, granted the Vientiane king’s request to make his son, Chao Nyo, the new King of Champasak. Grabowsky (1997:148) discusses the Ay Sa uprising briefly, and then mainly in a more regional context. He provides no details about the upheaval, and chooses not to mention Ay Sa by name, instead simply calling the uprising the “Kha revolt.” Martin Rathie (personal communication, January 2006), an Australian historian specializing in northeast Cambodia and southern Laos, told me that Ay Sa developed a cult with the Halang and Brao who opposed interference in the Xekong valley’s traditional economy between 1815 and 1817. He believes that Siamese interference in Lao-Khmer trade and their support for an expanded slave trade created the conditions for the uprising to take root. He also mentions that Ay Sa’s group led his forces from Attapeu to Khong Island and then up to Champasak, prompting Chao Manoi, the King of Champasak, to flee to the forest. He concurred with others who have mentioned that later Chao Anou’s son Chao Nyo became King of Champasak, after he

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 141

apprehended Ay Sa and stopped the rebellion. However, the people of Champasak were apparently not happy with Chao Nyo becoming King, as he imposed Vientiane customs in order to try to develop a Vientiane identity. He also apparently extracted corv��e labor from the local population, and this increased local grievances. It is unclear whether Anonymous (1911) was French or a Lao writing in French. He discusses Ay Sa, referring to him as an eth-nic minority from Kiet Ngong. He claims that Ay Sa gathered the Kha sons of certain villages in Ban Nam Kong, which paid tribute to Champasak. Concentrating on the events that occurred in Attapeu, he mentions how Ay Sa’s army killed a senior Buddhist monk and came up the Xekong River, burning down Somkhot village. The people from Ban Non, Sakhe, Hatsadi, and Muang Sok fled Ay Sa’s army (all were ethnic Lao villages). Phya15 Nyommalat from Khorat was then, according to this account of events, called upon to stop Ay Sa. Anonymous (1911) claims that Ay Sa was eventually caught and taken to Bangkok, and that the people gradually returned to their previously abandoned villages. This early version is interesting, as it presents Ay Sa as a highlander, and not as an ethnic Lao, an idea that is propagated by many Brao.

Through a Different Lens: The Brao ViewMost of the Brao versions of the history of the Ay Sa Rebellion do not closely resemble those from ethnic Lao palm-leaf manuscripts in Attapeu, or other Lao, Thai, or Western versions. According to an interview in February 2006 with an elder Brao Ka-nying man from Houay Le village, Phou Vong district, Attapeu province, Laos, a “special small person” called “Phaxay,”16 who stayed at the Brao village of Phya Tha, fought against Seuk Asa, who was Thai. The Brao said this event took place about 20 years before the arrival of the French (in the second half of the nineteenth century). A Brao man named Phya Noi from the village had found Phaxay, who was

15 Phya is a designation of power given to powerful local representatives of higher powers.16 It appears likely that this Phaxay owes his name to the famous Phaxay Xetthathirath, who established Attapeu during the sixteenth century (Bounthanh Chanthakhaly, Attapeu, personal communication, 2006).

Baird

142 CROSSROADS 18:2

said to be the equivalent of Gre A-dai, the great spirit of the sky. It is clear that this story is linked to the legend of Pha Keo Khao (the Crystal Buddha), as like the Buddhist image in that fable, Phaxay was also said to have protected rice drying in the sun from being eaten by chickens, who did not dare to come near him (Toem 2004). This version is also clearly linked to the story of King Xetthathirat I of Vientiane (r. 1548–71), and his son Phaxay. Later, after Phaxay had defeated Seuk Asa and captured his followers, he is said to have taken his new slaves and sold them to the ethnic Jarai and Sedang in the Central highlands of Vietnam. The same informant also told me

Fig. 2: Ethnic Brao participating in an animist sacrifice related to the planting of rice. (Photo by Ian G. Baird)

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 143

that Seuk Asa was the General of the Army (Nai Phon) that Phaxay fought against. I was also told that when Seuk Asa arrived, some Brao fled to Champasak. Once Phaxay had defeated Seuk Asa, he disappeared. In January 2007, Brao Umba elders from Keng Mak Kheua village in Saysettha district, Attapeu province, told me that Ay Sa was Thai and lived in the lowlands. Ya Kanteuay17 was, however, said to be Brao Kavet. Ay Sa’s power was apparently dependent on Kanteuay’s power with the Brao. Ay Sa did not like it that Kanteuay was accumulating a lot of gongs and beer jars by looting villages and taking his bounty to Ya Pou Mountain. When Kanteuay learned of Ay Sa’s opposition, he was not happy and wanted to kill Ay Sa. According to the Brao elders who told me this version of events, Kanteuay took many things from Ay Sa and betrayed him. In the end, Kanteuay was offered a set of special flat gongs (tha in Brao Umba) and a valuable phalang rice beer jar if he would hand over Ay Sa to the Lao. He delivered. This version of events politically sal-vages Ay Sa’s reputation because Ay Sa is depicted as having not done anything terribly wrong. Instead Kanteuay betrayed him. Sithon, a 75-year old Brao Hamong elder now living in the district capital of Phou Vong district, also told me that Ay Sa was a “special person” (baneuh viset in Brao). More significantly, how-ever, the elder said that Ay Sa was not Lao or Siamese, but Brao! He gathered many followers—mainly ethnic minorities and especially ethnic Brao people—at a mountain at the headwaters of the Nam Kong River in present-day Phou Vong district called Phou Ya Pou in Lao or Jundoo Ya Kra in Brao, a place still considered sacred for the Brao—the domain of a powerful spirit. It is still taboo, or da-ah in Brao, for the Brao to hunt, fish, or collect forest products there. Sithon explained that the Americans could not bomb the mountain because of the magical power of the mountain (Arak jundoo in Brao). He said that wild cucumbers and chilies grow on the mountain, but that it is taboo to take them home, although they could be eaten on the mountain. Sithon said that Ay Sa had a representative called

17 Phya Kanteuay also appears in the epic story, Groong Yoong, in Brao.

Baird

144 CROSSROADS 18:2

Fig. 3: A Brao Umba elder who has lived in both Laos and Cambodia during different periods of her life. (Photo taken by Ian G. Baird in 2003 at Bang Geut village, Taveng Leu commune, Taveng district, Ratanakiri province, Cambodia)

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 145

Phya Kanteuay, and that Ay Sa asked Kanteuay to go out and find people to study with him. Although Kanteuay said that he would do as Ay Sa asked, once he went to the villages he misrepresented Ay Sa, and demanded tribute in the name of Ay Sa. He took payment in valuable things, like rice beer jars and sets of metal gongs for playing music, as well as male and female slaves. The people were fearful of having to pay large amounts of tribute, hence there was tremen-dous upheaval and many communities fled to the forests. Although the people were afraid and panicked, in fact, the elder said, they had nothing to fear from Ay Sa. The ethnic Halang people and the Hamong from Tra-oum were among those who fled. Eventually the people became very angry with Ay Sa because of the acts of his rep-resentative, Kanteuay, and rose up against him and went en masse to Ya Kra (Ya Pou in Lao) Mountain and killed Ay Sa for crimes the elder claimed he never committed and apparently knew nothing about. According to Sithon, it was all a terrible miscarriage of justice, and that in reality Ay Sa was a great man worthy of respect for his special powers. “He is a Brao hero,” commented Sithon. Once again, local politics has helped to reinstate Ay Sa as a savior of the Brao. Sithon is not the only Brao who believes Ay Sa was Brao. Brao elders from the Jree subgroup in Vieng Xai village in Phou Vong also said that Seuk Asa was Brao, but they did not know any details. Another version of the story came from a male elder from the ethnic Brao village of Halang Nyai, in Samakhixay district, north-ern Attapeu province, in December 2005. He said that Ay Sa came here before people did. He reportedly led 10,000 or 100,000 people, and according to Brao oral history, there were so many people that if everyone threw a single small stone into the Xekong River, there would have been enough rocks for people to cross the river on without getting wet. Ay Sa led his group with a long rope, and everyone held onto it as they traveled upriver. But parts of the rope broke along the way, resulting in people being left behind, and various communities being established along the Xekong. The elder said that this happened during a period known as Kha Sam Sen (300,000 Kha people in Lao),

Baird

146 CROSSROADS 18:2

because 300,000 Kha migrated during this period. These people also believe that Ay Sa was Brao. Another Brao version came from Ya Ka-nyem, an ethnic Kavet elder from La Meuay village, in Veun Say district, Ratanakiri prov-ince, northeastern Cambodia. He said that Asa was Kavet,18 and that he was a hero of the ethnic minorities who fought against Lao oppression. He said that the Lao wanted to bring him down because of his power, but they could not get him. Therefore, the Lao asked him to join them, but he did not agree. Asa had Brao soldiers with him, and his soldiers attacked and plundered every ethnic Lao vil-lage that they came across. “Only Lao villages were attacked,” insisted the elder. The elder said that Asa apparently lost his power because his warriors—not him—had sexual intercourse with the dead body of a beautiful young girl that they had killed in battle. This was apparently incorrect for Khou Ay Sa.19 Once again, Ay Sa’s personal reputation is protected, since it is his soldiers who defiled the young women, not Ay Sa himself. The same elder also said that Asa’s father’s younger brother was Phya Kanteuay. This is interesting, as Groong, the hero of the Brao epic story called “meut mooan Groong Yoong” in Brao, or “lam Cheuang” in Lao, has an uncle named Phya Kanteuay. Therefore, in the minds of the Kavet, Asa had apparently become the equivalent of Groong, their messianic hero, someone who is believed to be able to free them from being oppressed by lowland groups20 (see Chamberlain 1986, 1990, 1998; Nakkavilanam 2000). The Khmu in northern Laos (Proschan 1998) and the Stieng in eastern Cambodia (Gerber and Malleret 1946) also have their own versions of “lam Cheuang.” In fact, the origin of

18 It is noteworthy that the same Kavet elder also told me in April 2006 that Ong Kommadam was also Kavet and from Lalay (Heulay) village, in Kok Lak Commune, Veun Say district, Ratanakiri, and that Yang Khamawm, a Thai, was his father. In fact, we know that Ong Kommadam was not Brao, and was from the Bolovan Plateau (Pholsena 2006). The story does, however, indicate that Kommadam’s legend has influenced the Kavet to at least as far south as the Sesan River. 19 It is unclear whether the Brao believed Ay Sa lost his powers, based on Brao taboos against having sex with dead people, or if the Brao internalized ideas about the pre-cepts of Buddhist monks not allowing sex for monks, especially with dead people.20 More details about “meut mooan Groong Yoong” are included in my forthcoming PhD thesis.

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 147

“lam Cheuang” is highly contested, with both the Lao and the Khmu claiming ownership over it (Proschan 1998), and some Brao believing (apparently erroneously) that they may have originated from northern Laos, because they practice lam Cheuang like the Khmu (LFNC 2005). In fact, it is unclear if there is any actual link between the origins of Brao and Khmu, other than that both promote epic stories that deal with emancipatory attempts by ethnic minorities to deploy messianic heroes to free them from being oppressed by those more powerful than them. The Kavet elder also said that once Asa had lost his powers, Lao people killed him at Jundoo Ya Kra. After he was dead, his soldiers reportedly surrendered. Each of the leaders of the villages that had followed Asa also surrendered, including two headman named Dao (Mr.) Ti and Dao Daw. However, Kanteuay did not give up, but was captured anyway, and plans were made to execute him. He was put in a jail at Jundoo Ya Kra and was to be killed the next day, but a party was organized that night to celebrate the impending execution, and during the party Dao Ti and Dao Daw helped Kanteuay to escape. Once the Lao heard he had gotten away, they did not bother to do anything to recapture him as they recognized his power; Kanteuay was never captured, and there were no more wars between the Brao and the Lao. In Taong village, Pathoumphone district, Champasak province, I asked Brao elders about the origin of Phou Asa in April 2006. They were not sure of the details, but some were convinced that Groong, the hero in the “meut mooan Groong Yoong,” built the temple. They said it was made during the era when people were eight soke (length from elbow to tips of fingers, in Lao) tall. One within the group said that Yoong, the younger brother of Groong, built Vat Phou temple in Champasak. Later, another Brao elder from Taong told me a dif-ferent story. He said that the Phou Asa was built by groups of men and women, who were responsible for building different parts of the temple. The groups of women decided to leave their breasts bare when working, and this attracted the group of men, who wanted to work with the bare-breasted women. As a result, the women’s side of the temple was completed and the men’s side never was. In fact, this

Baird

148 CROSSROADS 18:2

story is surprisingly similar to the legend surrounding the construc-tion of That Phanom (or pa nom—to leave one’s breasts uncovered) on the Thai side of the Mekong River and a similar but unfinished temple on the Lao side, in Khammouane province. Therefore, it came as little surprise that Brao elders from Houay Ko village in Pathoumphone said that there was a competi-tion between men and women to build two temples, That Phanom in Nakorn Phanom province, Thailand (by the women), and the temple of Phou Asa (by the men). According to them, That Phanom was completed when the women showed their breasts and got the men to help them, while the temple at Phou Asa was never completed. In Ban Na, another Brao village in Pathoumphone district, a Brao elder woman told me in January 2006 that Asa was a woman, and she also suspected that the person named Asa was associated with Phou Asa. She was not sure of the details, but thought that Asa existed during the time of Groong Yoong. She also thought that Asa was somehow associated with the Kingdom of Champasak, but she was not sure how. She did not think Asa had anything to do with a Brao uprising. She did say that during the time of Asa the Kingdom of Champasak had brought some Brao people to the Champasak area, and that many of those people have since become assimilated as ethnic Lao. Another Brao woman said that Groong built Phou Asa, she also mentioned that Dao Meng, the servant of Nang (Ms.) Jieng, the wife of Groong, was also involved in making Phou Asa. The same woman mentioned Dao Ang, the husband of Groong’s younger sister, Nang Doong. According to the story, Nang Doong respected Buddhism, and so convinced her husband to build the temple for her. There are certainly many versions of this story, but it is interesting how frequently Groong is somehow involved in the events surrounding Ay Sa in the minds of the Brao. But it would be wrong to suggest that the Ay Sa Rebellion forms an important part of the identities of all Brao people. For example, the Brao village of Houay Ko, in Pathoumphone district, Champasak province, is located just a few kilometers from Phou Asa, the moun-

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 149

tain where Ay Sa and his followers built an unusual rock temple that is presently a popular tourist attraction.21 The people of Houay Ko are well on their way to being assimilated into the surrounding ethnic Lao population of the area, and they have no collective recol-lection of why they relocated to the area where they presently live; they do know that they migrated from Attapeu province to the east many generations ago. While it seems quite likely that their move to the area was precipitated by the Ay Sa affair, the event is not signifi-cant to them at present, even though their ancestors were probably amongst the original followers of Ay Sa.

ConclusionIt will probably never be possible to definitely know which details regarding the Ay Sa Rebellion are accurate and which ones are not, but we can clearly improve our assessment of the events that transpired by considering alternative ideas about historical events, including contested histories held by particular social groups, as well as those belonging to people of the same ethnicity, like the Brao. A balance between considering the bigger picture through looking at the histories of centralizing and dominating groups and looking at local sources needs to be found if one expects to understand the identity (including ethnicity) issues surrounding contested histories. In addition, it is useful to develop an understanding of the role of identity and cultural differences that contribute to the development of different oral histories, including analyzing and comparing oral histories. Identities shape the way histories are understood, and the histories themselves affect the identities that are a part of their con-struction. Here I have tried to emphasize the significance of ethnicity in the politics of remembrance and the production of histories, and to recognize that these factors have frequently become intertwined with memory in relation to the Ay Sa Rebellion. It is not that others have never critically compared differ-ent versions of history in Laos. Archaimbault (1961), for example, compared various versions of the Champasak chronicles, trying to

21There are presently frequent elephant rides for foreign tourists up the mountain.

Baird

150 CROSSROADS 18:2

reconcile various versions of history with each other and other rel-evant literature, but few have looked at history in the region with the particular intention of assessing the role of ethnicity and identity in the interpretation and presentation of history, which is the purpose of this paper. Nor have written histories been frequently compared with the oral histories of marginal ethnic groups, like the Brao. While we are mainly given access to versions of history created by the elites of dominant groups and foreigners, it is important to recognize that there may well be other versions of the same events, suppressed or uninvestigated ones that exist only as the oral histories. The Brao versions of the Ay Sa Rebellion are very different from other versions, and appear to have been developed based on the Brao desire to remember Ay Sa as a powerful messianic figure who sup-ported their efforts to teach their lowland oppressors a lesson, much like Groong is so important in the Brao epic story, “meut mooan Groong Yoong,” which is also linked with messianic ideas. In other words, the Ay Sa Rebellion both fits the messianic beliefs of the Brao22 and helps to reinforce these tendencies through the creation of local histories, which are themselves closely linked to politics. The Brao certainly saw Ay Sa’s efforts as noble, and the importance of his emancipa-tory efforts to the Brao—and his link to the messianic Groong—are probably a big part of the reason why many Brao oral histories have transformed Ay Sa from being ethnic Lao to being a local Brao, and why the Brao frequently tell a story about Ay Sa that does not blame him for problems. This indicates the importance of ethnicity in the identity politics of the Brao, and their sense that only another Brao would fight for their freedom.23 In fact, differences in identity poli-tics between the Brao and other groups have certainly contributed to

22 Some have suggested that the Brao understanding of Ay Sa could be related to the Lao understanding of Chao Anou’s struggles with the Siam, due to some similari-ties in the stories, but for the Brao, the influence of Groong Yoong seems much more important.23 It should, however, be recognized that while the Brao often view the ethnic Lao as their oppressors, that does not mean that they have not interacted with them in the past, or that they have not been interdependent in various ways at different times, including cooperating in the slave trade. The Brao, for example, frequently paid trib-ute in slaves prior to the French colonial period (Long 1969 [1890]).

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 151

the major differences in the story of Ay Sa based on ethnicity. For the Brao, the story of Ay Sa is very much linked to the messianic ideas of the Brao, which are certainly very much linked to Brao identities. The Lao and Thai do not share these characteristics. However, the Lao, Thai, and Westerners have also been influ-enced by the identities of various authors, although undoubtedly in different and subtle ways. But, unlike the Brao, they largely saw Ay Sa as a dangerous power-hungry quack, and with two exceptions (Mayoury and Pheuiphanh 1998; Chatthip 1984), no one mentioned the influence of the expanding slave trade at the time in creating condi-tions suitable for a highland uprising,24 a factor that was much more evident from the Brao versions I heard. Few of the non-Brao consid-ered that Ay Sa might have intended to free highlanders from being dominated by oppressive lowland powers. In history, omissions are often as significant as what is included, and this is a good example of that. Of course, I too must accept my own role in filtering what has been presented. Each version of the Ay Sa Rebellion has certainly been influ-enced by the identities of the presenters. For some, like Mayoury and Pheuiphanh (1998), the politics surrounding Siam and Laos is criti-cal to their perspective, while other Lao are more concerned with the localized histories of Champasak or Attapeu, or the creation of his-toriographies that support the strengthening of the nation state. The Thais, with the exception of Chatthip (1984), however, emphasize the ignorance or stupidity of the Kha peoples who followed Ay Sa, possi-bly as a way of making the slave trade instigated by the Siamese more justifiable. While neither Manich (2000) nor Toem (2004) specifically mentioned the slave trade in the context of Ay Sa, both were prob-ably well aware of it. The Westerners who have presented versions of the Ay Sa Rebellion have also certainly been influenced by ethnicity

24 Mayoury and Phieuphanh (1998) present their history within a political context that emphasizes the role of the slave trade instigated by the Siam, probably because they are particularly interested in stressing the wrongs committed by the Siamese against the Lao. It is noteworthy that they make no mention of the involvement of Lao themselves in the slave trade, and the injustices committed against the Austroasiatic peoples by the Lao in southern Laos.

Baird

152 CROSSROADS 18:2

and identity politics. For example, Anglo-Saxon and Thai sensitivi-ties toward sex probably explain why Ay Sa’s sexual relations with minority women are depicted by some authors and not others (Wilson 1992; Simms and Simms 1999; Chatthip 1984). The point is that these drastically different accounts are not simply an accident. They are not just based on each of the “mediums of history” having access to differ-ent sources of information. Instead, ethnicity and other identities have clearly played important roles in the construction of social memories, even though the events are beyond any person’s actual memories. This paper indicates that history is never stagnant, and that changes can occur based on shifts in identities, and the privileged views of particu-lar peoples during certain periods in time. Finally, this paper demonstrates the importance of various types of discourses in the creation and recreation of history. As Elizabeth Tonkin (1992) has argued, social conditions and political discourses model people’s identities, with neither the social, the nation-state, the personal, nor the local being able to completely dominate. We must recognize that the effects of state power and individual agency are both critical in the production and reproduction of history. While national discourses and individual agency are clearly two important factors in the production of history, social group memory based on ethnicity is also clearly important. While there are individual dif-ferences between the versions of the Ay Sa Rebellion as told by the Brao, there are also similarities that indicate the role of ethnic iden-tity in social group memory, even over relatively wide geographical areas, from northern Attapeu province in southern Laos to Ratanakiri province in northeastern Cambodia. For example, most of the Brao recognize Ay Sa as being Brao, not Lao or Thai, and almost all empha-size the emancipatory efforts of Ay Sa to lead the Brao against the lowlanders who were oppressing them. While it is difficult to know what Ay Sa’s true intentions were, it seems likely that the Brao joined his rebellion to become free from lowlander oppression. n Ian G. Baird is a PhD candidate in human geography at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Originally from

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 153

Victoria, Baird has spent most of the past twenty-one years living and working in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia. He speaks Lao, Thai, and Brao fluently. Co-editor of the recently published edited volume, Fishers’ Knowledge in Fisheries Science and Management (UNESCO 2007), he has published widely on Mekong River fisheries and other natural resource management issues in mainland Southeast Asia. His current interests include questions surrounding identity, devel-opment, natural resource management, and spatial organization among the ethnic Brao people of southern Laos and northeastern Cambodia. The author wishes to thank the two anonymous reviewers, and editor Naimah Talib, all of whom provided useful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and substantially contributed to improving it. He would also like to thank Martin Rathie and Bounthanh Chanthakhaly for their assistance, and especially all the Brao and Lao people who patiently explained their versions of the Ay Sa Rebellion. Without them, this paper would not have been completed. The author takes responsibility for any mistakes that may remain. He may be reached at ianbaird@shaw.ca.

References

Anderson, Benedict .1991. Imagined communities: Reflections on the ori-gin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso.

Anonymous. 1911. Historique de la Province d’Attapeu. [Unpublished handwritten document.] Attapeu, Laos.

Anonymous. 2004. Phongsavadan Nakone Champasak. [Unpublished manuscript. In Lao.] Champasak.

Archaimbault, Charles. 1961. L’histoire de Campasak. Journal Asiatique 294(4): 519–95.

Baird, Ian G. 2007a. The case of the Brao: Revisiting physical bor-ders, ethnic identities and spatial and social organisation in southern Laos and northeastern Cambodia. Forthcoming in Recherches nouvelles sur le Laos, eds. Yves Goudineau and Michel Lorrillard. Paris: Ecole francaise d’Extreme-Orient (EFEO), Etudes Thematiques.

Baird

154 CROSSROADS 18:2

―――. 2007b. Controlling the margins: Nature conservation and state power in northeastern Cambodia. Forthcoming in Facing Development: From Interference to Survival Among the Indigenous Populations in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, ed. Frederic Bourdier.

―――. and Bruce P. Shoemaker. 2007. Unsettling experiences: Inter-nal resettlement and international aid agencies in the Lao PDR. Development and Change 38(5): 865–88.

―――. and Philip Dearden. 2003. Biodiversity conservation and resource tenure regimes: A case study from northeast Cambodia. Environmental Management 32(5): 541–50.

Bevir, M. 1999. Foucault, power, and institutions. Political Studies 97:345–59.Bourotte, Bernard. 1955. Essai d’historie des populations montagnards

du Sud-Indochinois jusqu’a 1945. Bulletin la Societe des Etudes Indochinoises 30(1): 1–116. [English translation commissioned by United States Agency for International Development.]

Chamberlain, James R. 1986. Remarks on the origins of Thai Hung or Cheuang. In Papers from a Conference on Thai Studies in Honor of William J. Gedney, eds. R J. Bickner, T. J. Hudak, and P. Peyasantiwong, 59–70. Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, No. 25. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies.

―――. 1990. Thao Hung or Cheuang: A Tai epic poem. Mon Khmer Studies 18–19:14–34.

―――. 1998. A critical framework for the study of the Thao Houng or Cheuang. In Tamnan Kieu Kap Thao Hung Thao Cheuang Nitithang Pravatsat le Watanatham, 1–20. Bangkok: n.p.

Chatthip Nartsupha. 1984. The ideology of holy men revolts in north east Thailand. In History and Peasant Consciousness in South East Asia, eds. Andrew Turton and Shigeharu Tanabe, 111–34. Osaka, Japan: National Museum of Ethnology.

Evans, Grant. 1998. The politics of ritual and remembrance: Laos since 1975. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.

Fentress, James, and Chris Wickham. 1992. Social memory: New per-spectives on the past. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 155

Foucault, Michel. 1980. Two lectures. In Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977, ed. Colin Gordon, 78–108. Brighton: The Harvester Press.

Gerber, Theophile, and L. Malleret. 1946. Quelques legendes des Moi de Cochinchine. L’origine des Stieng. Bulletin de la Societe des Etudes Indochinoises, 2nd semester: 1–7.

Grabowsky, Volker. 1997. Lao and Khmer perceptions of national sur-vival: The legacy of the early nineteenth century. In Nationalism and cultural revival in Southeast Asia: Perspectives from the centre and the region, eds. S. Kuhnt-Saptodewo, Volker Grabowsky, and M. Grobheim, 145–65. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Guilleminet, Paul. 1952. La tribu Bahnar du Kontum (plateaux de l’Indochine centrale). Contribution a l’etude de la societe montagnarde du sud Indochinois. Bulletin de l’Ecole Francaise d’Extreme-Orient 45(2): 393–561.

Hall, D. G. E. 1981. A history of South-East Asia. 4th ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Lao Front for National Construction [LFNC]. 2005. The ethnic groups in Lao P.D.R. Vientiane: by the author.

Long, T. 1969 [1890]. Kham hai kan reuang Muang Attapeu. In Prachum Phongsawadan (Collected chronicles), ed. Khurusapha, 188–90, part 70, vol. 44. [In Thai.] Bangkok.

Maha Sila Viravong. 1964. The History of Laos. New York: Paragon Book Reprint Corporation.

M. L. Manich Jumsai. 2000. History of Laos (including history of Lannathai and Chiangmai). 4th ed. Bangkok: Chalermnit.

Mayoury Ngaosyvathn and Pheuiphanh Ngaosyvathn. 1998. Paths to conflagration: Fifty years of diplomacy and warfare in Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, 1778–1828. Ithaca, NY: Southeast Asia Program Publications, Cornell University.

Ministry of Information and Culture. 2000. Pavatsat Lao (in Lao). Vientiane: Ministry of Information and Culture.

Nakkavilanam Nakhonexiangthon. 2000. Thao Hung Thao Cheuang epic: Adaptation to modern prose. [In Lao.] Vientiane: Toyota Foundation.

Baird

156 CROSSROADS 18:2

Pholsena, Vatthana. 2003. Narrative, memory and history: Multiple interpretations of the Lao past. Working Paper Series, No 4. Singapore: Asia Research Institute.

―――. 2004. The changing historiographies of Laos: A focus on the early period. Journal of Southeast Asia Studies 35(2): 235–59.

――― . 2006. Post-War Laos: The politics of culture, history and identity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Phouthong P. Phutthavong. 2004. Province d’Attapu Muangmay, Muang Samakhixay et ses environs survol geographique et histo-rique. [Unpublished manuscript.] Lyon, France.

Proschan, Frank 1998. [2538] Cheuang in Kmhmu folklore, history, and memory. In Tamnan Kieu Kap Thao Hung thao Cheuang Nitithang Pravatsat le Watanatham, 175–209. Bangkok: n.p.

Rathie, Martin. 2006. Personal communications in Attapeu, Laos, January 2006.Ricoeur, Paul. 1978. Can there be a scientific concept of ideology. In

Phenomenology and the social Sciences: A dialogue, ed. J. Bien, 44–59. The Hague, Boston, and London: Martinus Nijhoff.

Sanprasit Na Champasak. 1995. Phavat Nakhonekalachambak Nakhabouri Sisattanakhanahout (Nakhone Champasak). [Unpublished man-uscript. In Lao.] Paris.

Simms, Peter, and Sandra Simms. 1999. The Kingdom of Laos. Richmond, Surrey, UK: Curzon.

Stuart-Fox, Martin. 1998. The Lao Kingdom of Lan Xang: Rise and decline. Bangkok: White Lotus Press.

―――. 2001 Historical dictionary of Laos. 2nd ed. Asian/Oceanian Historical Dictionaries Series No. 35, Lanham, MD, and London: The Scarecrow Press.

Tanabe, Shigeharu and Charles F. Keyes, eds. 2002. Cultural crisis and social memory: Modernity and identity in Thailand and Laos. New York and London: Routledge Curzon.

Toem Wiphakphachonkij. 1987. Prawattisat Isan. [Reprint of Song Fang Khong, 1970. In Thai.] Bangkok: Munnitthi Khrong Kan Tamrasangkhomsat le Manutsat.

Tonkin, Elizabeth. 1992. Narrating our pasts: The construction of oral history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Contested History

CROSSROADS 18:2 157

Turton, Andrew. 1998. Thai institutions of slavery. In Formes extremes de dependance: Contributions a l’etude de l’esclavage en Asie du Sud-Est, ed. Georges Condominas, 411–57. Paris: L’Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales (EHESS).

Wilson, Constance M. 1992. Champasak in the nineteenth century: The survival of southern Lao culture. Paper presented at seminar on the cultural crossroads of Asia, Southeast Asian Studies Summer Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, July 24–26.

―――. 1997. The holy man in the history of Thailand and Laos. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 28(2): 345–64.

Wyatt, David K. 1963. Siam and Laos, 1767–1827. Journal of Southeast Asian History 4(2): 13–32.