19:52.docx · Web viewPhra Pathom Chedi and Thai Visitors’ Knowledge . Ka Tat Nixon Chen*...

Phra Pathom Chedi and Thai Visitors’ Knowledge

Ka Tat Nixon Chen*

Mahidol University International College,

999 Phutthamonthon Rd 4,

Salaya, Nakhon Pathom

73170 THAILAND

[email protected]

Roberto B. Gozzoli




73170 THAILAND

[email protected]

Suwadee Talawanich




73170 THAILAND

[email protected]

*corresponding author

Acknowledgment:

This research was supported by a research grant from Mahidol University International College.

1

mailto:[email protected]


PHRA PATHOM CHEDI and THAI VISITORS’ KNOWLEDGE

Ka Tat Nixon Chen




73170 THAILAND

[email protected]

Roberto B. Gozzoli




73170 THAILAND

[email protected]

Suwadee Talawanich




73170 THAILAND

[email protected]

2



Abstract:

Analysis of heritage management in Thailand and Ayutthaya, Sukhothai and Ban Chiang as UNESCO listed World Heritage Sites in Thailand demonstrates that education and heritage are part of an Authorised Heritage Discourse centred over nationhood. Using event based history, mostly focused on king’s deeds, history learnt in the school environment is transferred verbatim in the information present in those parks. Discussion about the knowledge of foreign visitors to Thai heritage sites has been already attempted, denoting that the Thai visitors know more than the foreign counterparts, who are extraneous to the artistic aspect of Thai heritage, as well as the cultural background of Southeast Asia art. As the focus of previous research was about heritage and history, knowledge of Thai art and history of Thai visitors at Phra Pathom Chedi, the highest chedi in Thailand, was measured through 10 knowledge questions in a questionnaire. The results demonstrate the wide gap in knowledge for site artistic assets and history, with the latter being the major loser, as well as it offers suggestion for the possibilities of alternative information offered to the visitors.

Keywords:Interpretation; Thailand; education; Phra Pathom Chedi

3

Introduction

Visitors’ knowledge and Thai heritage

Knowledge of heritage in Thailand – specifically heritage knowledge in Thai context relatively to the cultural heritage they visit – is the main topic of the paper. It aims to fill the gap in the academic literature relative to Thai heritage management and tourism, as scholars have mostly focused on its historical or anthropological aspect.1

The question and the relative discussion are a continuation of a discourse started a decade ago in the pages of this journal: a thesis dealing with the problem of knowledge by Western visitors at the UNESCO World Heritage site of Ayutthaya Historical Park (Saipradist, 2005), appeared a couple of years later (Saipradist and Staiff, 2007).2 That paper highlighted the different knowledge between Thai visitors, imbued in the Buddhist culture and with many years of schooling about the importance of Ayutthaya as historical capital, and Western visitors’, who were from a completely different cultural environment and never exposed to Buddhist religion and Thai culture.

The problem of cross-cultural translation of Thai architecture was raised in that paper, but such a statement in that paper had to be obviously generic, as there were no studies to verify the level of knowledge of Thai visitors.

As a sort of continuation of such earlier research, the level of knowledge of Thai visitors relatively their own history, traditions and culture, using the temple of Phra Pathom Chedi in Nakhon Pathom – a city roughly 50 km from Bangkok – as study site is the focus of this paper. The choice of the site was dictated by the fact that the temple is famous, it is the biggest chedi (temple tower) in Thailand, but most of its history or artistic features are not part of the national educational curriculum. Following Timothy and Boyd (2003, p. 14), Phra Pathom Chedi can be considered as a national site, without reaching the level of importance of Wat Phra Kaeo/Grand Palace, nor being a UNESCO World Heritage site, such as Sukhothai and Ayutthaya.3 Moreover, Phra Pathom Chedi is not a temple exclusively employed by the royal family as it is the case for Wat Phra Kaeo, nor it is part of a national – and nationalistic – discourse as it happens for Sukhothai and Ayutthaya. Thus, Phra Pathom Chedi represents a good case study to measure the level of knowledge of Thai visitors relative to the cultural heritage they visit.

As it will also be seen in the next pages, a full comprehension of cultural heritage requires at least knowledge coming from two academic disciplines: history and history of art. The iconography of sculpture and paintings points to artistic styles as well as the building history refers to specific events and personages, usually of royal or upper class origins in general. Thus, the study is also a comparison of knowledge and attitudes of Thai visitors toward the academic disciplines of history of Buddhist art and history.

1 Just summarizing by topics: Thai heritage its origins and actual status (Peleggi, 1996, 2002a, 2002b, 2004, 2011, 2013, 2015), stakeholders’ participation (Herzfeld, 2013, 2014, 2016; Prakitnonthakan, 2013) or general issues about cultural tourism in Southeast Asia context (Hitchcock et al., 1993, 2010).

2 In Thailand, most of these studies were originated as PhD theses at the International Programme of Heritage Management at Silpakorn University in Thailand, as the thesis cited above. Cross cultural interpretation problems, this time referred to Sukhothai, have been more recently discussed in Staiff (2014, pp. 144-147).

3 While escaping the magniloquence of Sukhothai and Ayutthaya, in favour of a more accentuated religious importance, Phra Pathom chedi was ventured to be another UNESCO World Heritage site in Thailand, if the local community would not have challenged such registration (Gozzoli, forthcoming).

4

Throughout this paper, the topic will remain information, not interpretation. In fact, interpretation, as Tilden (1957) defined in his book, has never existed in Thailand.4 At most, education was the theoretical framework for which the Heritagescape (Di Giovine, 2009) as reconstructed at Sukhothai and Ayutthaya was based on, both historical sites to be considered not much differently from a historical theme park, in which historical awe should lead to a sober and proper behaviour in contemporary society.5

Literature Review

Arts, history, heritage and Thai visitors

Saipradist and Staiff (2007) started over a quite significant assumption: that interest toward the past by Thai visitors at their own temples was at similar levels to those found in Europe. Differences however exist: within Western cultural horizon, ancient Rome and Greece created the cultural background through which the European Renaissance rose in the fifteenth century CE. Then during the Enlightenment Period, archaeological ruins and cultural heritage were rediscovered once more: Goethe, Nietzsche, Wagner in German culture, Byron and Shelley in England, the French Encyclopedie cannot be understood without getting into the Classical background they still lived in (Schnapp, 1996, pp. 258-266).

Passing to Southeast Asia, the interest toward antiquities (moradok in Thai) was very limited: firstly, the concept of anicca, the Buddhist disinterest for any worldly attachment lessened any relevance toward preservation of tangible heritage in Thai context (Peleggi, 2011, p. 57; Chapagain, 2013, p. 50; Byrne, 2014, p. 85). Thus, ancient temples were left decaying, while new temples were built alongside them (Askew, 2002, pp. 222-223).

Such scarce attention toward “old ruins” has also consequences about the motivation of Thai visitors, as they do not go to temples for enriching their cultural background, but exclusively for merit making and religious experiences (Burr, 1978; Peleggi, 2007, pp. 175-176; Gozzoli, 2011; Chapagain, 2013, p. 58). Knowledge might not be a prerequisite for worshippers, who go to a Christian church or to a Thai temple simply for praying or making merits. But understanding what you see makes you feel more integral part of the temple surroundings you fit in; as Moscardo (1999) has pointed out, if you know what you see, you are more mindful of the heritage – which religion is a fundamental component – you live in (Knudson et al., 2003, pp. 54-55). Moreover, heritage is the background for any community (Silberman, 2012, p. 8):

‘Whether the information relates to an ancient site beyond the living memory of any contemporary community or a monument for which the oral and written interpretation is rich, empirical evidence and accurate representation of collective traditions are essential for informed public participation in the cultural heritage life of the community’.6

4 Staiff (2014, p. 9) however notes that education was already part of Tilden’s principles, and interpretation was only a practical mean to achieve such intent.

5 In fact, the historical theme park of Muang Boran (Anonymous, 1990), at south of Bangkok, grew up based on similar concepts of Heritagescape. The statement that ‘Knowledge about the past and cultural heritage is considered as a very important portion of social and economic development plans in the country’ (Lertcharnit, 2010, p. 280), is a sort of understatement. Social uses of heritage are the most relevant use of it, and the economic importance is a sort of afterthought.

6 Italics as in the original quotation.

5

Therefore, the issue of understanding remains. Italian kids for instance were obliged to sit down at the weekly Saturday classes to learn the precepts of the Catholic faith: as they learnt about events from Old and New Testament writings, they were able – partially or totally – to recognise the imagery as present in the church paintings and statues. And at least until recent times, compulsory schooling about Catholic religion as well history of arts gave the basics to understand church styles and architecture features. Thus, Western religious tourists are/were in the position to appreciate the artistic features of St Peter’s Church in Rome whenever they go there for a Jubilee, the weekly mass or simply a visit. As they admire Michelangelo’s Piety, they understand that the sculpture refers to the moment of Jesus Christ brought down from the cross with his mother Mary embracing him last time, fully immersed in her grief. From the historical point of view, portraits of Popes spread within the St Peter clarify who commissioned the church and its decoration.

In Thailand, the situation is quite different: the episodes of Buddha’s life are limited into learning some of the episodes, and the Thai educational curriculum does not really work over the concept of religious art for instance, but simply over a relationship between styles and history (Appendix 1).7 Outside compulsory education, history of art is a discipline strictly confined to very specific universities like Silpakorn University, by definition – sillapa means Arts in Thai language – the University of Arts in Thailand.8

While the Thai educational curriculum does not emphasise about history of art, history as discipline receives much greater attention, mostly due to the importance of the past for supporting various aspects of Thai view of the nation (Appendix 2). Even numerically, the number of topics devoted to history contrasts with the smaller amount of information for history of art.

There are historical reasons for such a relevance of history over visual arts. Going back at the times of the foundation of the capital Bangkok in 1782, King Rama I (1782-1809) and Rama II (1809-1824) actively pursued a policy of continuing traditions inherited from the previous capital Ayutthaya, which was destroyed by the Burmese army in 1767. Continuation of immediately previous traditions is certainly nothing unusual for new ruling families, as they need to establish their own legitimacy into a continuation of the previous royal ancestors.

But a new attention to the past started almost immediately after the foundation of the Chakri dynasty – the name of the actual Thai royal dynasty – as it went further back to the origins of the country and its ideological underpinning. Both elements are part of archaeology – and here the term archaeology means ‘discovery of the origins’ following the original ancient Greek usage – of the country, then called Siam: Prince Mongkut, later to become King Rama IV (1851-1868), when he was a monk, he travelled extensively throughout the country (Krairiksh, 1991; Peleggi, 2002a, p. 14).9 He went to Sukhothai in 1833 where he found King

7 The Thai curriculum does not have any Religious History of Art element in its curriculum, but simply Fine Arts in general (Ministry of Education Thailand, 2008, pp. 236-237). A classification of Buddha’s gestures exists, from the pen of Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, cf. Rajanubnab (1973). See also Peleggi (2015) for the classification of Thai arts and its national implications.

8 As noted by (Peleggi, 2015, p. 81): ‘“Art History” as a scholarly concept was imported from Europe and localized in the Thai intellectual landscape in the early twentieth century, but it did not achieve the status of academic discipline until 1960s’. This delay in being embraced art history as academic discipline may explain its virtual absence from Thai compulsory education curriculum.

9 In the Western world, the king is mostly known from the books of Anna Leonowens, and the movie The King and I, both completely misrepresenting the royal figure. See now Habegger (2014) for a reconstruction of Anna Leonowens’ life. All the dates in this paper follow the Western calendar.

6

Ramkhamhaeng’s inscription, the most important testimony relative the “First Siamese capital”, as well the same throne King Ramkhamhaeng of Sukhothai used (Terwiel, 2010). The Ramkhamhaeng inscription itself recounts of King Ramkhamhaeng stone substantially inventing Thai alphabet, as well acknowledging his duty to serve the needs of his people. Relatively to Phra Pathom Chedi, King Mongkut still as a prince re-discovered Phra Pathom Chedi.

His son, King Rama V (1868-1910) continued similar policies toward the past, as the King and his entourage visited ruins around the country, in the sort of antiquarianism typical of the period.10 A push toward heritage as fundamental aspects of national unity prevailed over the simple antiquarianism in the first decade of 1900s – not differently from what was happening in contemporary Europe. Under King Rama VI (1910-1925), heritage became relevant as tool for national unity.11 The same king coined the three Thai – then Siamese, as the country was called until 1939 – pillars of nationhood: King, Religion and People. And during his reign, one of King Rama IV’s children, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab (1862-1943) helped to promote visions of heritage conforming to those views of nation (Peleggi, 2004).12

It is fair to say that history and heritage have been the playing fields of upper classes: other levels of Thai society have not pursued the royal initiatives and interests. Only in the last 20 years, there has been an increasing interest by Bangkok middle classes toward Thai heritage (King and Parnwell, 2011, pp. 394-395).

Aiming for keeping those value of the past, as well as the three pillars of Thai nation, Thai history has received more attention within the Thai compulsory educational curriculum. The vision up to now has been essentially monolithic: Sukhothai and Ayutthaya historical parks were artificially reconstructed aiming to magniloquent temple restorations, as well heritage was an educational tool towards national values and traditions (Peleggi, 2002b, pp. 27-33). The connection between education and heritage in Thailand is not casual, as heritage and nation building were part of the same Authorised Heritage Discourse (Smith, 2006) in Siam and later Thailand.13

A further reinforcement of the connection between Thai heritage and education happened during 1970s and 1980s, as Thailand felt surrounded by the communist threat within and outside the country, and heritage became an instrument for restoring old values. And the same pattern continues up to now, as a recent exhibition to Bangkok National Museum and relative catalogue demonstrate.14

10 Early 1900s saw the foundation of the Siam Society (1904), which since its inception has been under royal patronage. For the history of the Society, see Baker (2004).

11 As noted (Sattayanurak, 2002, p. 112): ‘[…] King Rama VI focused his attention on “the Thai identity”, which had remained unchanged through history and would remain so now as well as in the future’.

12 Most of Prince Damrong’s bibliography can be found in (Breazeale, 1971, 2008). The only exception about history and its interest in Thai society was during 1970s, in the so-called Thammasat Interlude (1973-1976). Such a period saw non-military governments in the country, as well as a period of opening in the cultural and social environment (Gozzoli, forthcoming). Heritage and history had a strong politicisation of their contents and approaches anyway, as already highlighted by Nora (1997).

13 For Thai nationalism and heritage, see Vella (1978, pp. 202-242).

14 The Thai National Curriculum issued in 2008 says about History, objective no. 3 (Ministry of Education Thailand, 2008, p. 192): ‘Knowledge of the historical development of Thailand as a nation; culture; Thai wisdom; cherishing, pride in and preservation of Thai nationalism’. See also appendix 2, at the end of this paper. For some aspects of National Museum in Bangkok and nationalism in Southeast Asia context, see

7

Considering history and heritage as cornerstones of the nation also explains how the debate over Ramkhamhaeng inscription’s originality as a thirteenth century CE product or a later fabrication was hotly debated during late 1980s and early 1990s (Chamberlain, 1991; Wongthes, 2003; Gozzoli, 2016).15 The discussion initially confined within academic circles became a national issue, with a generated feeling that national security was threatened.

From the educational point of view, the history of the country is much more detailed than the visual arts curriculum, promoting historical events, historical characters and periods among the curriculum, what has been labelled as event based history. But as said by Poria et al. (2009, p. 94):

‘Most studies on the relationship between power and heritage presentation argue that heritage settings provide a single, monolithic interpretation supporting a particular ideological framework (Hall 1994). However, literature dealing with heritage and its construction (e.g., Azoulay 1993; Bruner 1996) indicates that individuals are interested in diverse interpretations, in accordance with the various meanings assigned to the experience of a heritage site.’

Phra Pathom Chedi and national heritage

Phra Pathom Chedi temple in the Nakhon Pathom Province is famous for having the highest stupa/chedi of Thailand (figure 1).16 Nakhon Pathom is situated near the west bank of the Ta Chin River in the central part of Thailand. Archaeological remains found at Nakhon Pathom define the site as one of the major centres of the Dvaravati civilisation (Indrawooth, 2004). One of the most important discoveries were two silver coins engraved with the Sanskrit words Sridvaravati Svarapunya that mean “meritorious deeds of the King of Dvaravati” (Indrawooth, 2004, p. 129; Indrawooth, 2008, p. 36). Within Thai academic scholarship, it is identified with the semi-mythical Suvaṇṇabhūmi kingdom (Assavarirulakarn, 2010, p. 63; Revire, 2011).

Indian King Asoka of the Maurya Dynasty sent missionaries to spread the doctrines of Buddhism (Assavarirulakarn, 2010, pp. 59-65). In this context, the Mahāvaṃsa, the book of the Chronicles from Sri Lanka, refers to the mission in such a wording (Geiger, 1964, pp. 86 [XII. 44-45]): ‘Together with the thera Utthara the thera Soṇa of wondrous might went to Suvaṇṇabhūmi’. The story continues listing the defeat of the female demon killing any royal children. 17 Based on this tradition, the province can be considered as an important centre for the diffusion of Indian culture in Thailand, whatever Dvaravati might have been at the time – a kingdom or a collection of city states (Saraya, 1999, p. 55; Coedés, 1968, pp. 76-77).

As for Phra Pathom temple, it has been assumed that the temple had three different building stages (Fine Arts Department, 2005, pp. 24-25). The oldest one was a mound structure, typical of the same style as the Great Stupa at Sanchi, built during the reign of King Asoka (Gosling, 2004, p. 41 and plate). The date and even the shape of such early stupa is still debated however (Chulalongkorn, 2002, p. 187).18

(Thompson, 2012). For the exhibition at the Bangkok National Museum, see Fine Arts Department (2015).

15 Staiff (2014, pp. 152-153) still notes how the topic is still taboo for Sukhothai historical park officials.

16 Stupa or chedi are names for the central tower of a Thai temple, usually containing Buddha’s or king’s relics. For the importance of the stupa as cultural emblem, see Byrne (1995, pp. 268-274).

17 See also Woodward (2014, pp. 23-24) for the mission of Asoka, and its historical reliability.

8

The second stage, the one visible up to 1853, had a Khmer style stupa at the top of it, which may date to the 14th century CE (Woodward, 2014, p. 25).19 When he was in the monkhood, Prince Mongkut came to Nakhon Pathom, and he found the temple having this structure at the top, now visible in some models around the temple, as well as in the Fine Arts Department Museum. The then Prince interpreted the name as derivative from the Pali word Pathama, which means “the first”, thus making the stupa as the oldest in Siam (Woodward, 2014, p. 24).

After becoming king, Rama IV started to build the actual temple in 1853 following the Ayutthaya style of the period.20 More interventions and restorations were later done by his successors King Rama IV, Rama V and Rama VI (Fine Arts Department, 2005, pp. 68-73), each of them contributing to set statues, paintings or votive objects within the temple compound. The temple complex contains:

1. The stupa (120 m high), the largest stupa of Thailand (Chulalongkorn, 2002, pp. 187-188).

2. The ubosot (ordination hall) ordered by king Rama VII to replace an older one fallen into ruins.

3. Eighty statues surrounding the temple, placed in 1983-1984, with 66 of them representing the different positions of Buddha (Khaisri, 1996, pp. 19-20).

4. Seated statue of Buddha, in Dvaravati style, in white stone (Fine Arts Department, 2005, p. 107).

5. Four major viharas (assembly halls), along the four cardinal points.a. Northern vihara: standing statue of Buddha, originally from Si Sitchanalai, which

King Rama VI restored. It contains the ashes of king Rama VI in its base. b. Eastern vihara: the interior chamber has the walls covered with a painting of the

original temple, as well as images of celestial figures and hermits. c. Southern vihara: a statue of Buddha preaching to five disciples is in the first

chamber. In the last decade, the walls were decorated to present the history of the temple, from Asoka times to the present (Phra Sri Sudhamvedhi, 2010) .

d. Western vihara: a reclining Buddha is in the external chamber, while King Rama IV dedicated a statue of Buddha entering Nirvana in the inner chamber (Chulalongkorn, 2002, pp. 188-189).21

The Survey

A questionnaire survey was distributed at the temple in 2016.22 The original questionnaire was written in Thai language by one of the authors and distributed to the temple visitors. Visitor’s motivations to visit the temple, as well as satisfaction of temple services were mixed 18 The reconstruction in three stages substantially reflects King Rama IV’s original statement, as given in the

Chronicles of his reign (Flood, 1965, pp. 497-499).

19 Khmer style in Thailand was called Lopburi syle from one of the major sites in Thailand central region (Peleggi, 2013, pp. 1541-1542; Rajanubnab, 1973, pp. 11-12).

20 King Rama IV’s deeds in relation with Phra Pathom Chedi are narrated in Flood (1965, pp. 496-518). See Byrne (2014, pp. 83-84) for a cultural history of the Phra Pathom Chedi reconstruction, as enhancing the magical value of the chedi itself.

21 For the various terminology of Thai temples, see Stratton (2010).

22 The questionnaire ran between May and July 2016, and later in October-November 2016.

9

with 10 questions about knowledge of the temple and its historical or artistic features. Some questions were relative to general knowledge about the temple and its assets, as well as the temple most famous artistic elements. Other questions instead were more specific about history or religion, and they required knowledge of Buddhist art or historical events related to the temple, and some questions were supplemented by a photo or image. The answers to the 10 knowledge questions were double checked with academic books and references to the temple itself.

On-site knowledge was not expected: the temple has only one small booklet on sale (20 Thai Baht) about the temple in general, and a more expensive one (500 Thai Baht) relative to the temple paintings in the southern vihara, but no other information material is present on site. While some digital format interpretation tool was planned at the temple site, none of them was present at the time of the survey.

The questionnaires were distributed within the temple compound through convenience sampling, in proximity of the major standing Buddha, as well at the southern vihara, which is close to the Dvaravati seated statue, one of the most visited places within the temple complex. While 589 Thai visitors filled the questionnaire, but only 438 could be employed for the research, as quite a few were incomplete.

Two aspects were analysed, through statistical means, frequencies and Chi-square texts:

1. Educational level and motivation to visit the temple;2. How much it was known about the temple, also looking whether different levels of

education were an influential element for the given answers.

Results

Education and motivation

Among the people interviewed, 64% of the respondents had a BA degree or higher, divided in BA degree (53.7%) and Master or Higher (11.0%), while the second group as educational level was made of Secondary/Technical School degree holders, with 29.2% of the respondents. Many of them had already visited the temple in previous occasions – only 19.4% of the visitors were first time visitors, while 41.4% of the visitors had visited the temple in the last 5 years, and another 13.5 between 5 to 10 years, and 25.8% more than 10 years.

As for the frequency on visiting temple and historical site (Table 1), most of the respondents visited temples and historical sites with a certain frequency (2-5 times the year), while 39.8% of the respondents declared they were going to temples at least one time a month. Such rarity on visiting temple might be looking odd from the perspective of the other major world religions, as Muslim, Christian and Jewish believers have a sacred day of the week. From the Buddhist point of view however, such a weekly prescription is absent, and Buddhist followers crowd the temple in occasion of the various festivals spread during the year.

10

Table 1: How often do you visit temples?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Less than once a year 30 6.8 6.8 6.8

Once or twice a year 102 23.3 23.3 30.1

2-5 times a year 132 30.1 30.1 60.3

Every month 115 26.3 26.3 86.5

Several times a month 59 13.5 13.5 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

As for the reasons to come to Phra Pathom Chedi, making merit was the most important factor (4.39 in 1-5 scale), immediately followed by visiting the temple (4.32), while in the way to my destination was the least important (3.16).

Visitors’ knowledge

As noted above, the most relevant part of survey was about measuring the knowledge of the visitors through the ten questions. In this case, the analysis through frequencies works over the division in questions between general and specific. Within each sets of questions, the right answer is written in italics.

a) General questions Two questions (tables 2-3) required knowing the name of the king who discovered the temple and the king erecting the major cultic statue. Many respondents gave the right answer. The connection between Phra Pathom Chedi and Rama IV is known since the primary school, as well as King Rama IV has various portraits in the western vihara in proximity of the reclining Buddha, which act as reminder of the king’s importance. As for the question about the standing Buddha (table 3), Rama VI was known – with a smaller percentage, it is fair to say – as the king setting it.23 As for the wrong answers, a pattern is also visible for both questions: Rama V was the second most chosen king, who is certainly is the most respected royal figure among the Thai society, especially for the middle class (Stengs, 2009). Thus, in the case the Thai visitors did not really know the answer, King Chulalongkorn was their guess. As the two answers were considered among the general questions, as they referred to two major architectural or cultic elements of the temple, the number of respondents giving ‘I do not know’ as answer certainly demonstrates that more information should be provided to the visitor.

In relation to the educational level, the first question has the BA and higher degree having the highest percentage among those giving the right answers, with 53.2% respectively. The same kind of results was also present for the second question, as BA and Master degree holders had 37.0% and 32.6% respectively.

23 At the time part of the questionnaire was run (2016), the centenary of the statue erection was just celebrated (November 2015). Thus, the royal connection was even more remarked.

11

Table 2: Who discovered Phra Pathom Chedi?

Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid King Rama I 39 8.9 8.9 8.9

King Rama II

23 5.3 5.3 14.2

King Rama IV

216 49.3 49.3 63.5

King Rama V

125 28.5 28.5 92.0

King Rama IX

4 .9 .9 92.9

I do not know

31 7.1 7.1 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

Table 3: Who Built the big Buddha statue in the Northern Vihara of the temple?


Valid King Rama IV

97 22.1 22.1 22.1

King Rama IX

18 4.1 4.1 26.3

King Rama VII

26 5.9 5.9 32.2

King Rama VI

137 31.3 31.3 63.5

King Rama V

113 25.8 25.8 89.3

I do not know

47 10.7 10.7 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

12

As for the question of fame (table 4), the fact that the temple is the highest chedi in Thailand was well known. Yet, the second most chosen answer (it contains the ashes of previous kings) remains questionable whether it was simply given out of respect, or based in some knowledge that King Rama VI’s ashes are really contained in the standing Buddha’s base. As for education, BA and Master degree holders had the highest percentage with 70.2% and 83.6% respectively.

Table 4: What is the temple famous for?


Valid Biggest standing Buddha

30 6.8 6.8 6.8

Highest chedi 296 67.6 67.6 74.4

Most beautiful temple in Thailand

15 3.4 3.4 77.9

It contains the ashes of the previous kings

90 20.5 20.5 98.4

I do not know 7 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

In the specific case of this answer (table 5), three was assumed as the right one. While the ambiguity of the possible answer was recognised – someone might have thought about the simple changes of the chedi (only three), while others might have assumed that all the interventions should be considered (more than four). As hint however, the temple courtyard as well as the adjacent Phra Pathom National Museum have reconstruction of the previous two stages of the temple, so they might even suggest the right answer. Apart from the brisk lowering of the right answers in comparison with the previous question, in this case, there was there was no difference about level of education and the choice of the answers.

13

Table 5: How many renovations - original included - has the temple sustained?


Valid None 6 1.4 1.4 1.4

One 21 4.8 4.8 6.2

Three 161 36.8 36.8 42.9

Four 75 17.1 17.1 60.0

More than four

158 36.1 36.1 96.1

I do not know 17 3.9 3.9 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

As discussed above, the statue itself is one of the most visited parts of the temple, especially for merit making (table 6). The statue does not have any sort of information around the statue; thus, the style of the statue itself is recognized, without any difference about the level of education.

For the painting in one of the vihara (table 7), the right answer was given with the highest percentage of correct answers, as it can be seen, as well as well there is no difference for the level of education.

Table 6: What is the Buddha style?


Valid Srivijaya 83 18.9 18.9 18.9

Dvaravati 254 58.0 58.0 76.9

Ayutthaya 37 8.4 8.4 85.4

Sukhothai 42 9.6 9.6 95.0

Rattanakosin 16 3.7 3.7 98.6

I do not know

6 1.4 1.4 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

14

Table 7: Who are the seated figures?


Valid Angels 261 59.6 59.6 59.6

Ghosts 10 2.3 2.3 61.9

Divinities 55 12.6 12.6 74.4

Kings 50 11.4 11.4 85.8

All of those above

53 12.1 12.1 97.9

I do not know 9 2.1 2.1 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

b) Specific questions As noted above, the second sets of questions were dealing more with specific knowledge of the temple itself. The first question was the reasons the temple was famous for (tables 8a-b). As a multiple choice question, Nakhon Pathom was considered as the capital of the legendary reign of Suvarnabhumi, as well as it was the place where the missionaries sent by King Asoka came to the modern Thai territory (Subhadradis, not given, pp. 7-9). In this case, most people simply ignored the importance of the city in antiquity, both from the historical or religious point of view. For the education level, Asoka’s missionaries answer was given correctly mostly from the BA and Master degree holders, but for Nakhon Pathom as possible capital of the reign of Suvarnabhumi, there was no significant difference among the various educational levels.

15

Table 8a: The temple is important because: King Asoka send Buddhist missionaries here


Valid No 295 67.4 67.4 67.4

Yes 143 32.6 32.6 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

Table 8bThe temple is important because: It was the capital of Suvarnabhumi


Valid No 329 75.1 75.1 75.1

Yes 109 24.9 24.9 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

The second question was about a specific image from the canonical position of Buddha, relative to one episode of his life (table 9): after three months at the top of Mount Meru, Buddha came back to stop the action of his replacement figure, carved from sandalwood, which wanted to come close to him and adore him (Khaisri, 1996, p. 31 no. 37; Matics, 2008, pp. 102-103). The position itself is very like one much more known – stopping the relatives from fighting (Matics, 2008, p. 99 [no. 23]), in which Buddha’s pose has both hands at the level of the chest - which was most chosen for the occasion. As the answer demonstrates, the various positions of Buddha’s statues were not really known, and the most famous one was chosen as best guesswork. Interestingly, mostly Secondary school degree holders gave the right answer

Among the various answers relative to the styles of the temple as visible in the painting (tables 10a-c), Dvaravati was the most chosen. The reasons for the choice might be wondered, but the fact that one of the statues was in such a style might have influenced the choice as well. Lopburi and Ayutthaya however, there were not chosen, despite the fact they were the other two major architectural styles visible. The level of knowledge of the same for all the levels of education, on the question about Ayutthaya demonstrated that Secondary school and BA degree holders were those who knew most.

16

Table 9: What the Buddha gesture means?


Valid Stopping the ocean 51 11.6 11.6 11.6

Stopping the relatives from fighting

345 78.8 78.8 90.4

Stopping the sandalwood image

23 5.3 5.3 95.7

Bidding farewell to Wisali

11 2.5 2.5 98.2

I do not know 8 1.8 1.8 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

Table 10a: Can you identify the Chedi style? Dvaravati


Valid No 168 38.4 38.4 38.4

Yes 270 61.6 61.6 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

Table 10b: can you identify the Chedi style? Lopburi


Valid No 404 92.2 92.2 92.2

Yes 34 7.8 7.8 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

17

Table 9: What the Buddha gesture means?


Valid Stopping the ocean 51 11.6 11.6 11.6

Stopping the relatives from fighting

345 78.8 78.8 90.4

Stopping the sandalwood image

23 5.3 5.3 95.7

Bidding farewell to Wisali

11 2.5 2.5 98.2

I do not know 8 1.8 1.8 100.0

Table 10c: can you identify the Chedi style? Ayutthaya


Valid No 347 79.2 79.2 79.2

Yes 91 20.8 20.8 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

The last question (table 11) had a redoubling of a similar question, with only the change of the title of the enemy from Burma, once as Prince and once as king. The re-doubling of the entry was done as Naresuan, the King of Ayutthaya fighting against the Prince of Burma is the most famous and celebrated battle in Thai history, when Ayutthaya freed itself from the Burmese yoke.24 The painting instead narrated the battle between Phya Phan and Phya Kong, an event that is known from an early 19th century collection: Phraya Kong, ruler of Kanchanaburi, a locality west of Nakhon Pathom, is predicted by astrologers that his son would kill him. Therefore, he sent his son away to live in a different province. As the son named Phya Phan grew up, he joined the army of the king of Ratchaburi, another locality around Nakhon Pathom, to fight against Phraya Khong, completely ignoring that Phraya Kong is his father. After having killed his own father in the mentioned battle, and having discovered his fault, Phraya Phan built the temple of Phra Pathom Chedi to purify his karma (Woodward, 2014, pp. 24-25). On a bigger picture, the trend implies that royal based history is still the most known and referred to set of events. Again, for the education level, Technical, BA and Master degrees have the highest level of knowledge.25 24 The importance of the King of Ayutthaya and the epic battle from the Burmese yoke has been celebrated in

very recent movies, as well as it is part of a classroom historical readings.

25 Some readers out of curiosity might want to know whether any of the visitors was able to know the correct answers to the knowledge questions. The answers to it is negative: no one of the interviewees gave the

18

Table 11: Who are the warriors fighting each other?

Frequency PercentValid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid King Naresuan and Prince of Burma

175 40.0 40.0 40.0

Phya Phan and Phya Kong

112 25.6 25.6 65.5

King Narai and the Prince of Burma

30 6.8 6.8 72.4

King Naresuan against the King of Burma

105 24.0 24.0 96.3

I do not know 16 3.7 3.7 100.0

Total 438 100.0 100.0

Knowledge level: some conclusions

As a discussion of the answers above, the groups of general and specific questions have similar patterns: for the general questions, those relative to styles of the seated statue, the highest chedi and the angels are on one side, and the historical questions relative to the discoverer, the restorer and the number of restorations are on the other. The former are known, for the statue, the question of fame is the most possible answer; the angels are a common element of different Thai temples. As for the highest chedi, it is common knowledge, surely derivative from compulsory schooling.

For the latter, the historical questions, fame or not fame, only the question about King Mongkut as the discoverer was quite generally known. The simplest statement is that history of the temple is not as known as much as some of the cultural assets. Even if we exclude the question about the highest chedi, cultic aspects are far more recognised than their historical counterparts. Cultic questions have the highest percentage of correct answers, as well as they also have a smaller percentage of “I do not know” answers.

For the specific questions, the three questions relative to the history of the temple (Asoka missionaries, Suvarnabhumi, the Phya Kong battle) were not known, despite the paintings and the references to the temple itself. As for the cultic or history of art questions, relatively to the styles of the temple or the Buddha position, again, the lack of general education about it is evident. Whatever is known about the temple comes from the compulsory education system, not any higher-level degree: there are substantially no differences about the level of education.

As general conclusion, while history of arts is the great absent of Thai educational curriculum, history is the great defeated subject in this context, but the event based history is part of the national curriculum. The problem is known: history is not the most favourite

correct answers.

19

subject of Thai students, as they listen to an endless list of deeds (Prachathai English Edition, 2013).26 The major heritage sites of Sukhothai, Ayutthaya and Bangkok National Museum repeat similar patterns, giving the name of the king building or restoring the edifice (tables 12a-b). Those boards both assume that those historical figures are known, as well as the various styles mentioned are full understood. As for the information in the National Museum in Bangkok, I give here the board relative to Lopburi period, the message is quite clear:

‘The term ‘Lopburi” derives from the town or state’s name ‘Lavapura’ or ‘Lavapuri’ that emerged in Thailand in the seventh century CE. This term refers to a typical style of Hindu and Mahayana Buddhist sculptures and architectures found in central, east and northeast regions of Thailand during the seventh to thirteenth century CE (800-1,400 years ago). There had been long cultural relations and interaction between the ancient states of Thailand and those of Cambodia. The style was comparable with those styles of Khmer sculptures and architectures in Cambodia, therefore, ‘the Ancient Khmer Style of Thailand’ is used as an alternative form for ‘Lopburi Style’. Nevertheless, the artworks of the ancient Cambodia and those of the regions had their own distinctive features.’27

Table 12a: Sukhothai interpretation board, Wat Mahahat

Sukhothai interpretation board, Wat Mahahat

Situated in the heart of the city, it is the most important temple as the principal temple of Sukhothai. This significant temple comprises the main chedi (stupa), assembly halls (vihara), mandapa, an ordination hall (ubosoth) and 200 subordinate chedis

The main chedi has the graceful shape of a lotus bud, which characterizes the art of Sukhothai. Surrounded by 8 chedis, the four at the corner belong to the Hariphunchai-Lanna style and the four in between have Prang-shaped chedis, which were influenced by the Khmer art. The base of the main chedi is decorated with relief-stucco of 168 Buddhist disciples walking with their hands clasped together in salutation. At both sides of the main chedi is situated with two standing Buddha images called Attharot, 12 metres in height. There is a huge bronze Buddha image or golden Buddha image in stone inscription No. 1 enshrines in the royal vihara in front of the main chedi. The image was removed to Suthat temple in Bangkok by King Rama I and it was later named Phra Si Sakkayumi.

Table 12b: Ayutthaya interpretation board, Wat Wora Pho

Ayutthaya interpretation board, Wat Wora Pho

War Wora Pho is located on the west of Cha Krai Ya (Klong Toh) canal. No evidence has been found to indicate when it was built. According to some part of Ayutthaya annals, Phra si Sin who later became King Somg Tham (1610-1628 CE) was a former highly ranked monk at this temple. So the temple was undoubtedly built before the reign of King Song Tham.

26 The problem is not confined to Thailand, see for instance the various contributions in Symcox and Wilschut (2009), for similar problems worldwide. See Winichakul (1995) for the variants of Thai histories since 1973. In the last 20 years, no comparable research has been attempted.

27 Italics by the authors.

20

Formerly, the temple was known as Wat Ra Kang or temple of Bell. In the reign of King Borom Ma Kot (AAD 1732-1758), the name of the temple was changed as Wat Wora Pho. This is because of Phra Si Maha Poho Tree was sent to be king from Ceylon and it was planted at this temple.

The main shrine here is the main Prang locating within the square gallery. On the norht of the main Prang locating with a Vihara building, a stupa and the Vihara of the Buddha's footprint on the south. All the buildings in the temple face to the east.

Note: Text transcribed from the original

The first sentence in italic highlights the concept of state, at times, when Thailand and Cambodia were far from being national entities, but superregional empires, such as the Khmer ruled over extended parts of Southeast Asia. Thus, the second statement is whether Lopburi as style can be considered something different from the main Khmer arts, but the existence of regional arts becomes expression of independence from Khmer/Cambodian arts (Peleggi, 2007, p. 159). Yet, the information is simply not “informative”, as the characteristics of the Lopburi style are taken for granted, so there is no information about what Lopburi style is.

Conclusions: space for new interpretation(s)

Thai visitors at Phra Pathom Chedi have a shallow level of historical or artistic knowledge. As the paper initially assumed that visitors needed to be informed, as they would understand better the place they visit, an empirical demonstration can be offered. At the time of the questionnaire survey, as each questionnaire was distributed inside the western vihara with the paintings relative to the history of the chedi itself, a few visitors went back to see the scene of Phya Phan and Phya Kong once the questionnaire was filled. Other visitors questioned themselves about the level of knowledge, despite having visited the temple a few times.

Having ascertained that these visitors are willingly to be educated, it remains to see what should be supplied to them. In this respect, the major shortcoming of heritage management and interpretation in Thailand is the absence of any discussion about the message. In the last decade, most of the contributions about interpretation in Thailand target new technologies applied to interpretation: different universities and institutions cooperate with historical parks and Fine Arts Department to supply smartphone applications or audio visuals for Thai historical parks and museums, such as the National Museum in Bangkok and Ayutthaya Historical Park.28 Those applications are only a tool, as new as it might be, to give information about a temple or historical building.29

28 Up to now, computer applications targeting Ayutthaya are known; as well QR codes are employed at the National Museum in Bangkok.

29 Computer in a museum exhibition was the first experience by one of the authors in late 1980s, at the time of an exhibition about the Phoenicians at Palazzo Grassi, Venice, Italy. As still remembered, the attraction was the tool itself, more than the contents. Thirty years later, the tool is not a novelty any longer, but it should provide different levels of information.

21

But the issue about quality and quantity of information remains.30 Moreover, as the Fine Arts Department deals with the information and the external providers supply the tools, the information is essentially conservative.31

Again, the information given – whatever is the tool employed – is substantially the same: most of Thai heritage information is centred on the notions to be first, the greatest, or the most outstanding, both visually through restorations, and notionally through information material. Ban Chiang, Sukhothai and Ayutthaya play on this concept at different levels and situations: Ban Chiang was the first bronze smelting place in Southeast Asia, Sukhothai was the foundation of Thai wisdom, and Ayutthaya was the fighting capital.32 While the concept of being the first for Ban Chiang has been reconsidered in more recent times, at the light of new discoveries, it still resists for Sukhothai and Ayutthaya. But “Being the first” concept overemphasises only one aspect at the expense of any other possible interpretation.

Thus, a new approach to history as discipline is certainly needed: as experienced by the authors of this paper at different levels, history remains substantially static, and transferred as such generation after generation. It results on an unappealing list of names and deeds, both undoubtedly important, but inherently making the subject static and quite dull to any reader. It also goes together with the need of alternative/complementary information, as event based information can be supplemented with reconstructions of social/religious and alternative aspects of history:

‘The systematic excavations at Ban Chiang village have revealed traces of the culture of prehistoric population who permanently settled here. The population produced their own food through rice growing and animal rearing. They also produced their own pottery, cloths and implements as well as ornaments of bronze and iron. Their burial practice comprised burying the death along with grave goods mainly pottery and other objects. Pottery of population is quite unique. The living style of the population that was represented by archaeological materials found at this village is a component of the “Ban Chiang Culture”.33

In this case, Ban Chiang Museum offers an alternative interpretation, and gives more information about the culture itself, something to be possibly followed for creating alternative information. But Ban Chiang Museum is the exception; it escapes the three pillars of King, Religion and People, as Ban Chiang culture was before a unified Thai kingdom, before Buddhist religion and before any concept of Thai people.34

As this paper is somehow a reply to the decade old paper about Ayutthaya, it can be stated that surely Thai people have better knowledge about their own cultural heritage than Western visitors. Again, as not as much as the original writers might have expected, with all the

30 Reasons of space preclude a full discussion of the problem of the message in Thai Heritagescape, but the relevant research is now forthcoming by the authors.

31 The reasons for such a compartmentalization will extend the limits of this paper. See for the moment Peleggi (2002b; Ravi (2004; 2013)

32 For a reevaluation of Ban Chiang culture, see now Higham (2014, pp. 131-137).

33 Panel at the Ban Chiang National Museum.

34 For the possible multiple views of Thai heritage, see now (King, 2017).

22

waring that we are dealing with two different heritage sites. Only further research may help completely clarify the picture.

23

Appendix 1

Strand 1: Visual Arts

Standard AR1.2: Understanding of the relationship between the visual arts, the history and the culture; appreciating visual art works that represent the cultural heritage, the local wisdom, and Thai and universal wisdom

Grade 7

1. Specify and describe the characteristics and the forms of the national and the local visual art works from the past to the present time.

2. Specify and compare the visual art works in various regions of Thailand.

3. Compare the differences of the objectives in creating visual art works of Thai and universal cultures.

Grade 8

1. Specify and describe various cultures reflecting the visual art works at present time.

2. Describe the changes in Thai visual art works in each period with the concepts and the contents of the works.

3. Compare the concepts in designing works of art of Thai and universal cultures.

Note: (Ministry of Education Thailand, 2008, p. 237)

24

Appendix 2

Grade-level Indicators

Strand 4: History

Standard SO4.3: Knowledge of the historical development of Thailand as a nation; culture; Thai wisdom; cherishing, pride in and preservation of Thai nationalism

Grade 1

1. Explain the meaning and the significance of the important symbols of Thai nation and conduct themselves well.

2. Tell the important cultural places in the community.

3. Specify what in the local area they cherish and be proud of.

Grade 2

1. Specify the benefactors of the local area or the nation.

2. Cite examples of culture, tradition and Thai wisdom that should be preserved.

Grade 3

1. Specify the names and brief the achievements of the Thai kings who founded the Kingdom of Thailand.

2. Explain in brief the life and the achievements of the current king.

3. Relate heroic deeds of the Thai ancestors who participated in defending the nation.

Grade 4

1. Explain in brief the development of the Sukhothai kingdom.

2. Tell the lives and the achievements of the important people of the Sukhothai period.

3. Explain important Thai wisdom of the Sukhothai period that should be preserved.

Grade 5

1. Explain in brief the development of the Ayutthaya and Thonburi kingdoms.

2. Explain the factors contributing to economic prosperity and the administrative achievements of the Ayutthaya kingdom.

3. Tell the lives and the achievements of the important people of the Ayutthaya and the Thonburi periods.

4. Explain the important Thai wisdom of the Ayutthaya and the Thonburi periods that should be preserved.

Grade 6

1. Explain in brief Thailand’s development during the Rattanakosin period.

2. Explain the factors contributing to Thailand’s economic prosperity and the administrative achievements during the Rattanakosin period.

25

3. Cite examples of achievements of the important people in various respects during the Rattanakosin period.

4. Explain the importance of Thai wisdom of the Rattanakosin period that should be preserved.

Grade 7

1. Explain in brief the historical development of the Thai territory during the pre-Sukhothai period.

2. Analyse various aspects of development of the Sukhothai kingdom.

3. Analyse the influence of culture and Thai wisdom of the Sukhothai period and of the present Thai society.

Grade 8

1. Explain various aspects of development of the Ayutthaya and the Thonburi kingdoms.

2. Analyse the factors contributing to security and prosperity of the Ayutthaya kingdom.

3. Specify Thai wisdom and culture of the Ayutthaya and the Thonburi periods and the influence of such wisdom on the development of the Thai nation in the subsequent period.

Grade 9

1. Analyse various aspects of Thailand’s development during the Rattanakosin period.

2. Analyse the factors contributing to Thailand security and prosperity during the Rattanakosin period.

3. Analyse Thai wisdom and culture of the Rattanakosin period and their influence on the development of the Thai nation.

4. Analyse the roles of Thailand in the period of democracy.

Grades 10-12

1. Analyse the important issues of Thai history.

2. Analyse the importance of the monarchy to the Thai nation.

3. Analyse the factors conducive to creation of Thai wisdom and Thai culture that affect the present Thai society.

4. Analyse the achievements of the important people, both Thai and foreign, who have contributed to creating Thai culture and Thai history.

5. Plan, set guidelines and participate in preservation of Thai wisdom and Thai culture.

Note: (Ministry of Education Thailand, 2008, pp. 192-195)

Bibliography

Anonymous. (1990). Muang Boran. City with a cultural conscience. n.d.: n.d.

26

Askew, M. (2002). Bangkok. Place, practice and representation. London and New York: Routledge.

Assavarirulakarn, P. (2010). The ascendancy of Therav♯da Buddhism in Southeast Asia (1st ed. ed.). Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books.

Baker, C. J. (Ed.). (2004). The Society of Siam. Bangkok: Siam Society.

Breazeale, K. (1971). A transition in historical writing: the works of Prince Damrong Rachanuphap Journal of the Siam Society. JSS, 59(2), 25-49.

———. (2008). The writings of Prince Damrong Rajanubhab. Bangkok: Toyota Thailand Foundation.

Burr, A. (1978). Merit-Making and Ritual Reciprocity: Tambiah’s Theory Examined. JSS, 66, 102-108.

Byrne, D. (1995). Buddhist Stupa and Thai social practice. World Archaeology, 27(2), 266-281.

———. (2014). Counterheritage. Critical perspectives on heritage conservation in Asia (5). New York and London: Routldge.

Chamberlain, J. R. (Ed.). (1991). The Ram Khamhaeng controversy. Bangkok: Siam Society.

Chapagain, N. K. (2013). Heritage conservation in the Buddhist context. In K. D. Silva & N. K. Chapagain (Eds.), Asian heritage management.Contexts, concerns, and prospects (pp. 49-64). London; New York: Routledge.

Chulalongkorn, University Continuing Education Center. (2002). A survey of Thai arts and architectural attractions. Bangkok: Continuing education center.

Coedés, G. (1968). The Indianized states of Southeast Asia. Honolulu: East-West Center.

Di Giovine, M. A. (2009). The heritage-scape. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Fine Arts Department. (2005). Phrapathom Chedi National Museum. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department.

———. (2015). Thailand’s Past. Bangkok: Office of National Museum, Fine Arts Department.

Flood, C. K. (1965). The dynastic chronicles, Bangkok era, the fourth reign. Tokyo: Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies.

Geiger, W. (1964). The Mahāvaṃsa or, the Great Chronicle of Ceylon, transl. into English by W. London: Published for Pali Text Society by Luzac & Company.

Gosling, B. (2004). Origins of Thai Art. Bangkok: River Books.

Gozzoli, R. (forthcoming). UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Thailand: Master Plans and Local Stakeholders.

———. (2016). Ambiguities of Heritage. Ayutthaya Historical Park, Thailand. In V. T. King (Ed.), UNESCO in Southeast Asia. World Heritage Sites in Comparative Perspective (Vol. 55, pp. 169-198). Copenhagen: NIAS Press.

Gozzoli, R. B. (2011). Ayutthaya. Past, Present and Future of a Heritage City. Final Report.

27

Habegger, A. (2014). Masked: The Life of Anna Leonowens, Schoolmistress at the Court of Siam (1 ed.). Chiang Mai: Silkworm.

Herzfeld, M. (2013). The Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island. In C. J. Baker (Ed.), Protecting Siam’s Heritage (pp. 209-223). Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.

———. (2014). Heritage and corruption: the two faces of the nation-state. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 1-14.

———. (2016). Siege of the Spirits. Community and Polity in Bangkok. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Higham, C. (2014). Early Mainland Southeast Asia: From First Humans to Angkor. Bangkok: River Books Press.

Hitchcock, M., King, V. T., & Parnwell, M. J. G. (1993). Tourism in South-East Asia: introduction Tourism in South-East Asia. In M. Hitchcock, V. T. King, & M. J. G. Parnwell(pp. 1-31). London; New York: Routledge.

(2010). Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.

Indrawooth, P. (2004). The Archaeology of the early Buddhist kingdoms in Thailand. In I. Glover (Ed.), Southeast Asia. From prehistory to history (pp. 120-148). RoutledgeCurzon.

———. (2008). Un antique royaume urbanisé de Thaïlande. In P. Baptiste & T. Zéphir (Eds.), Dvāravatī: aux sources du bouddisme en Thaïlande (pp. 31-45). Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux.

Khaisri, S.-A. (1996). Les statues du Buddha de la galerie de Phra Pathom Chedi (Nakhon Pathom, Thailande). Krung Thēp: Prince of Songkla University.

King, R. (2017). Heritage and identity in contemporary Thailand: Memory, place and power. Singapore: NUS Press.

King, V. T., & Parnwell, M. J. G. (2011). World Heritage Sites and domestic tourism in Thailand. South East Asia Research, 19(3), 381-420.

Knudson, D. M., Cable, T. T., & Beck, L. (2003). Interpretation of cultural and natural resources, second edition ((1892132397)). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Krairiksh, P. (1991). The Date of the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription. In J. R. Chamberlain (Ed.), The Ram Khamhaeng Controversy (pp. 257-272). Bangkok: Siam Society.

Lertcharnit, T. (2010). Heritage values and meanings in contemporary Thailand. In G. S. Smith, P. Mauch Messenger, & H. A. Soderland (Eds.), Heritage Values in Contemporary Society (pp. 279-285). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Inc.

Matics, K. I. (2008). Gestures of the Buddha. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.

Ministry of Education Thailand. (2008). Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). Retrieved 11 February 2017, from http://academic.obec.go.th/web/doc/d/147

Moscardo, G. (1999). Making Visitors Mindful (2). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Nora, P. (1997). Les Lieux de mémoire (3). Paris: Gallimard.

Peleggi, M. (1996). National Heritage and Global Tourism in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 432-448.

28

———. (2002a). Lords of Things. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

———. (2002b). The Politics of Ruins and the Business of Nostalgia ((9747534959)). Bangkok: White Lotus Press.

———. (2004). Royal Antiquarianism, European Orientalism and the Production of Archaeological Knowledge in Modern Siam. In S. Ravi (Ed.), Asia in Europe, Europe in Asia (pp. 133-161). Leiden and Singapore: International Institute for Asian Studies Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

———. (2007). Thailand. The Worldly Kingdom. London: Reaktion Books.

———. (2011). The unbearable impermanence of things. In P. Daly & T. Winter (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia (pp. 55-68). London, New York: Routledge.

———. (2013). From Buddhist Icons to National Antiquities: Cultural Nationalism and Colonial Knowledge in the Making of Thailand’s History of Art Modern Asian Studies. Modern Asian Studies, 47(05), 1520-1548. doi:10.1017/S0026749X12000224

———. (2015). The Plot of Thai Art History. In M. Peleggi (Ed.), A Sarong for Clio. Essays on the Intellectual and Cultural History of Thailand Inspired by Craig J. Reynolds (1 ed., pp. 79-93). New York: Southeast Asia Program Publications.

Phra Sri Sudhamvedhi. (2010). The Mural Paintings of Phra Pathom Chedi. not given: Wat Phra Pathom Chedi Rajavoramahavihara.

Poria, Y., Biran, A., & Reichel, A. (2009). Visitors’ Preferences for Interpretation at Heritage Sites Journal of Travel Research. 48(1), 92-105.

Prachathai English Edition. (2013). Thongchai: Thai-style history education makes Thais ignorant and narcissistic. Retrieved 26 February 2017, from http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3649

Prakitnonthakan, C. (2013). Rattanakosin Charter: The Thai Cultural Charter for Conservation. In C. J. Baker (Ed.), Protecting Siam’s Heritage (pp. 123-148). Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.

Rajanubnab, D. (1973). Monuments of the Buddha in Siam. Bangkok: The Siam Society under Royal Patronage.

Revire, N. (2011). Facts and fiction: the myth of Suvaṇṇabhūmi through the Thai and Burmese looking glass. Mahachulalongkorn Journal of Buddhist Studies, 4, 79-114.

Saipradist, A. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Heritage Interpretation and the Development of a Guidebook for Non-Thai Cultural Tourists at Ayutthaya Heritage Site. PhD. 6-7-2011, Silpakorn University, Bangkok.

Saipradist, A., & Staiff, R. (2007). Crossing the Cultural Divide: Western Visitors and Interpretation at Ayutthaya World Heritage Site, Thailand Journal of Heritage Tourism. 2, 211-224.

Saraya, D. (1999). (Sri) Dvaravati. The Initial Phase of Siam’s History. Bangkok: Muang Boran Publishing House.

Sattayanurak, S. (2002). Intellectuals and the Establishment of Identities in the Thai Absolute Monarchy State. JSS, 90(1&2), 101-124.

29

Schnapp, A. (1996). The Discovery of the Past (30-4-2011; 26-4-2011 ed.). London: British Museum Press.

Silberman, N. A. (2012). Heritage interpretation and human rights: documenting diversity, expressing identity, or establishing universal principles International Journal of Heritage Studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18(3), 245-256. doi:10.1080/13527258.2012.643910

Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. London: Routledge.

Staiff, R. (2014). Re-imagining heritage interpretation. Farnham and Burlington VT: Ashgate.

Stengs, I. (2009). Worshipping the great moderniser. Seattle; Singapore: University of Washington Press NUS Press.

Stratton, C. (2010). What’s what in a Wat. Thai Buddhist temples: their purpose and design. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Publisher.

Subhadradis, D. (not given). Phra Pathom Chedi. In Phra Pathom Chedi (pp. 5-15). Nakhon Pathom: Wat Phra Pathom Chedi.

Symcox, L., & Wilschut, A. (Eds.). (2009). National history standards : the problem of the canon and the future of teaching history. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.

Thompson, E. C. (2012). The World beyond the Nation in Southeast Asian Museums. SOJOURN, 27(1), 54-83. doi:10.1355/sj27-1b

Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage; principles and practices for visitor services in parks, museums, and historic places. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2003). Heritage Tourism. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Vella, W. F. (1978). Chaiyo! King Vajiravudh and the Development of Thai Nationalism. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.

Winichakul, T. (1995). The Changing Landscape of the past: New Histories in Thailand since 1973. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 26(1), 99-120.

Wongthes, M. (2003). Intellectual Might and National Myth. A Forensic Investigation of the Ram Khamhaeng Controversy in Thai society. Bangkok: Matichon.

Woodward, H. W. (2014). What There Was before Siam: Traditional Views. In N. Revire (Ed.), Before Siam.Essays in Art and Archaeology (pp. 17-29). Bangkok: River Books Siam Society.

30

19:52.docx · Web viewPhra Pathom Chedi and Thai Visitors’ Knowledge . Ka Tat Nixon Chen*...

Documents

Transcript of 19:52.docx · Web viewPhra Pathom Chedi and Thai Visitors’ Knowledge . Ka Tat Nixon Chen*...