¹ Wyatt, David K., “Family Politics in Nineteenth Century Thailand,” JSEAH, Vol. 9(2), 09 1968, pp. 208–28.Google Scholar

² Prachum kotmay pracham sok (Collected laws by year), hereafter cited as PKPS, Vol. 2, pp. 99–156.Google Scholar

³ PKPS, Vol. 1, pp. 191–229.Google Scholar

⁴ Coedes, George, Les Etats Hindouisés d'Indochine et d'Indonésie, nouv. ed. (Paris: E. De Bocship. card, 1964) p. 439Google Scholar. Lingat, R., “Note sur la restate, vision des lois siamoises en 1805,” JSS, Vol. 23(1), 07 1929, pp. 19–27Google Scholar. Wheatley, Paul, The Golden Khersonese, (Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1961) pp. 301, 307Google Scholar. Wyatt, David K., “The Thai ‘Kaṭa Manḍiarapāla’ and Malacca,” JSS, 55(2), 07 1967, pp. 279–86.Google Scholar

⁵ This may seem to some an impermissable inference from the content of these laws. However, R. Lingat in his article cited above made it sufficiently clear that in the question which precipitated the revision of the laws by Rama I, which is the only matter on which more or less full information has been preserved, Rama I changed the content of the law to suit his conception of equity. The present writer believes such would have been the case with all the law texts and that the revised version of Rama I thus represents what to his mind was a satisfactory statement of the ideal situation in 1805. Lingat's discussion of the method of revision (op. cit., pp. 21–22) and, in particular, his statements, “On se trouve par suite obligé de considérer l'oeuvre résultant de la revision de 1805 comme étant stricto sensu l'expression du droit en vigueur à cette époque, et rien d'autre …” (op. cit., p. 22), and “Ce qu'on demande à la commission, ce n'est pas de faire la critique du texte … c'est d'éffacer les contradictions à l'intérieur de l'exemplaire qui lui est soumis …” (italics of the original) seem to indicate that he held the same opinion.

⁶ Identifications of these vassal states, along with some discussion and further references concerning the questionable cases are found in Wyatt, op. cit., note 4, above. The present writer would only like to draw attention to the fact that “Sri Satanakanahut” may refer to Vientiane as well as to Luang Prabang, and in 1805 it was more probably understood as Vientiane. Both traditions are current among Lao writers. See, for example, Viravong, Maha Sila, Phongsawadan Lao (History of Laos), BE 2500-AD 1957, pp. 55, 117Google Scholar, and Phommavongsa, Ou Kham, Khwam Pen Ma Khong Lao (The Lao past), Vientiane, 2507, p. 113, 137Google Scholar. The epigraphic evidence would seem to favor Vientiane, for the 1560 inscription of Dansai has “muong candapuri sri satanaganahuta, etc,” as the title of the Lao capital (Finot, L., “Stele dc Dansai,” in “Notes d'épigraphie XIV, les inscriptions du musée de Hanoi,” BEFEO 15(2), pp. 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. pp. 28–36.

⁷ PKPS, Vol. 1, pp. 191–229Google Scholar, esp. pp. 223–29. The thirty-three fourth class provinces are listed on pp. 227–28. Just over half are still provinces today. Others, such as muong Chaybadan in Lophburi province, muong In(th) (Inthraburi) in Singhaburi province, muong Kuy (Kuyburi) in Prachuabkhirikhan province, muong Manorom in Chainat province, muong Phrohm (Phrohmburi) in Singhaburi province, muong Pranburi in Prachuabkhirikhan province, muong Sri Savat in Kanchanaburi province, and muong Saiyok in Kanchanaburi province are easily identifiable as present-day amphoe. Muong Paknam probably was at the mouth of the Chao Phraya River or possibly was intended to indicate Paknam Poh, an old name for Nakhon Sawan. Muong Mae Klong must have been somewhere along the river of the same name flowing through Kanchanaburi, Ratburi and Samut Songkhram provinces. The Akkharanukrom Phumisat Thai (Dictionary of Thai Geography), Chbap Rachabanditsthan, Bangkok, B.E. 2507 identifies muong Tha Chin as a popular name for Samut Sakon, muong Bua Chum as a tambon in amphoe Chaybadan, Lophburi province, and muong Tha Rong as an old name for amphoe Vichienburi, in Pechabun province, thus the only name on the list outside the region of Central Thailand. The writer has found no reference to muong Bang Ramung, but it could be a variant spelling for Bang Lamung which the Akkharanukrom locates in Chonburi province. One name on the list, muong Kam Pran, remains completely unidentified.

⁸ Wyatt, David K., “Siam and Laos 1767–1827,” JSEAH 4(2), 09 1963, pp. 13–32Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Wyatt, , “Siam and Laos,” states on p. 22Google Scholar that by the end of the first reign (1809) the Thais controlled almost all of the northeast. Pallegoix (see present article, pp. 867–68) and the chronicle of Phu Khieu (see present article, p. 870) would seem to contradict this. However this may be, the present writer's interpretation is not necessarily in contradiction to that of Wyatt for both Vientiane (see note 6 above) and Nakhon Rachasima were cited in the laws of 1805 as dependencies of the Thai capital, and these laws did not list any of the provinces dependent on other provinces, only those directly dependent on the capital.

⁹ Phra racha phongsawadan krung ratanakosin chbap ho samut haeng chat (Royal chronicles of the Bangkok reigns, National Library Edition), compiled by Chao Phraya Thipakorowongse and edited by Prince Damrong Rachanuphap, Samnak Phim Khlang Vithaya, Bangkok, 2505 and 2506 (AD 1962 and 1963), hereafter cited as Phongs, Reign II, pp. 528–30.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 732.

¹¹ Ibid., Reign IV, p. 733. It should be noted that in this article we are only concerned with the territorial function of the ministries, not their historical development or other duties.

¹² Ibid., Reign II, p. 528.

¹³ damruot. The term now means “police,” but Prince Damrong wrote that at the time he took over the Ministry of Interior there were no officials to pursue outlaws and the functions of damruot had been forgotten. See Thailand, krom mahat thai (Department of the Interior), Somdet Phra Chao Boromvongthoe Krom Phraya Damrong Rachanuphap lae ngan thang pokhrong phra ong (Prince Damrong Rachanuphap and his work in the field of administration), Bangkok, 2506 (1965), part II, p. 53.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Noranitiphadungkan, Chakkrit, Somdet Phra Chao Boromvongthoe Krom Phraya Damrong Rachanuphap kap krasuong mahat thai (Prince Damrong Rachanuphap and the Ministry of Interior), Bangkok, 2506 (1963)Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Chakkrit, p. 105. The chronicle of Phathalung, which records phutthat this province lacked a kalahom and had four Bangkok-appointed high officials, shows that variations on this pattern occurred. See “Phongsawadan muong Phathalung,” Prachum Phongsawadan (Collected Chronicles), chbap ho samut haeng chat National Library Edition), Bangkok 2507, Vol. 5, part 15, pp. 323–77Google Scholar, esp. p. 368.

¹⁵ Phongs, Reign II, pp. 528–30.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Chakkrit, pp. 61–62.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 103 ff., and Damrong Rachanuphap and Phraya Rachasena, Thesaphiban (Local administration), Bangkok 2503, cited hereafter as Thesa, part I, pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Thailand, khana kammakan prachasamphan lae phim ekkasan kan chat ngan chalong 25 phuttha satawat, ph. s. 2500 (Committee for public relations and the publishing of documents concerntions ing the celebration of the 25th century of Budmuong dhism, B.E. 2500 (1957), Changwat tang tang nai prathet thai (The Provinces of Thailand), which will be cited hereafter as Changwat followed by the name of the province. Page numbers refer to the individual booklet within the collection.

¹⁹ Surnames were made obligatory in the reign of Rama VI (1910–1925). The first law concerning names was promulgated on March 22, 2455 (1913), (PKPS, Vol. 25, pp. 259–262Google Scholar). It allowed people choose their surnames freely with the exception, among others, of names identical to those of royalty or official titles. Another law, three years later, forbade the use of the particle “Na” without the king's permission. It was to be reserved for people who could prove that dieir “ancestors … were families of officials or distinguished persons (sethi, khahabodi) who had had long established residence the locality, (and) who were respected and wellknown …” (PKPS, Vol. 28, p. 372Google Scholar). The name “Na Krungthep” was reserved for descendents of the Chakri family (Kotmay rachakan thi VI (Laws the Sixth Reign), Bangkok, n.d., Vol. BE 2458, pp. 386–90Google Scholar). Another law of the same year (1916) forbade the use of names of former capital cities, both of the kingdom and its vassal states and major provinces, as surnames of commoners. Royal permission was required to adopt such a surname (PKPS, Vol. 28, pp. 463–70).Google Scholar

Surnames granted by royal permission were published in Rachakechanubeksa (The government gazette), hereafter cited as Rachakech, under the heading prakat phrarachathan nam sakun (announcement of royal grant of surname), hereafter cited as Prakat. While the legal texts do not state specifically that surnames consisting of “Na” plus the name of a city, such as “Na Songkhla,” “Na Lamphun,” etc., were reserved for former governing families, such appears to be the intent of the above-cited laws taken as a whole, and such was the practice in all the cases for which I have found full information. Examples are die above-mentioned “Na Krungthep,” “Na Ranong” (see p. 871), “Na Songkhla” (see p. 871), “Na Roi Et” (Prakat no. 15, name no. 1189, Rachakech Vol. 31(1), 64Google Scholar), “Na Kalasin” (Prakat no. 15, name no. 1190, Rachakech Vol. 31(1), p. 64Google Scholar), “Na Lamphun” (Prakat no. 9, name no. 866, Rachakech Vol. 30(2), 2212Google Scholar). The case of Nan is particularly instructive, for in the grant of surnames to its elite (Prakat no. 14, names nos. 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, Rachakech Vol. 31(1), p. 11Google Scholar), the name “Na Nan” was given to the ruling prince himself, while other members of the local aristocracy, whose titles of “Chao” (in Lao usage a general term for “prince”) show them to have been members of the local royalty, received different surnames. I have therefore assumed that anyone who received a surname “Na” plus the name of a locality during the reign of Rama VI belonged to a former hereditary governing family. These names do not exhaust the inventory of provincial elite families. Besides the three non-“Na” names from Nan there are the names of the descendents of the old governing families of Phanasnikom and Burirom (see p. 872, and note 120 below). Other local elite families show up among the krom kan phiset (special official), a lowlevel advisory position without salary for local dignitaries (see Thesa, part II, pp. 71–72Google Scholar), which for men who had been provincial governors would seem clearly to have been a demotion. Among former governors who were given this rank were Ke Na Kalasin (see Prakat cited above for “Na Kalasin”) and two governors of Loei with the surnames Hemabha and Vivadhanapadma (see Prakat no. 15, name no. 1210 and Prakat no. 16, name no. 1223 in Rachakech Vol. 31(1), pp. 67Google Scholar. and 222, respectively, and Changwat Loei, p. 14Google Scholar). In the two latter cases I take the change of status from provincial governor to krom kan phiset to be proof of membership in a local traditional governing family. Not all krom kfin phiset were local elite in the sense of this paper. Some, such as Luang Chinnikonphitak (literally “protector of the Chinese group”) of Phitsanulok (Prakat no. 21, name no. 1627, Rachakech Vol. 31(2), p. 1576Google Scholar), and two brothers from Phuket named Ma Sai and Ma Sieng (Prakat no. 55, name no. 3214, Rachakech Vol. 33(1), p. 1023Google Scholar) have titles or names which seem to indicate they were leaders of the Chinese community; and in Phitsanulok, within one year, at least seven men with different surnames held the rank of krom kan phiset (Prakat no. 21, names nos. 1614, 1620, 1631, 1622, 1627, 1648, 1649, Rachakech Vol. 31(2), pp. 1575–79Google Scholar). However, the names of krom kan phiset plus the names with the prefix “Na” provide a nearly maximum list of provincial elite families which may be used for comparative purposes in determining the extent to which the old local elites were able to integrate into the new bureaucracy.

²⁰ Loubère, La, A New Historical Relation of the Kingdom of Siam, (London, 1693) p. 4Google Scholar. Pallegoix, Mgr., Description du Royaume Thai ou Siam, (Paris, 1854), Vol. I, p. 50.Google Scholar

²¹ Changwat Roi Et, p. 6.Google Scholar

²² Changwat Burirom, pp. 31–34.Google Scholar

²³ Changwat Ubon, p. 12–13Google Scholar and Thesa, part I, p. 43.Google Scholar

²⁴ Changwat Surin, p. 10–11.Google Scholar

²⁵ Changwat Nakhon Phanom, p. 13.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid., p. 14.

²⁷ Changwat Kalasin, pp. 5–9Google Scholar. There are many remains from the Angkor period in northeast Thailand. For their location see Seidenfaden, Erik, “Complément à l'inventaire descriptif des monuments du Cambodge pour les quatre provinces du Siam Oriental,” BEFEO, 22 (1923), pp. 55–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ See note 19 above.

²⁹ Changwat Kalasin, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

³⁰ Changwat Sakon Nakhon, p. 7Google Scholar, and for details of the war with Chao Anu see Wyatt, “Siam and Laos.”

³¹ Changwat Kalasin, p. 7.Google Scholar

³² Changwat Sakon Nakhon, pp. 7–13.Google Scholar

³³ Changwat Chaiyaphum, p. 19.Google Scholar

³⁴ Changwat Nongkhai, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

³⁵ Prakat no. 14, name no. 1181, Rachakech Vol. 31(1), p. 14.Google Scholar

³⁶ Changwat Mahasarakham, p. 16.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid., p. 16.

³⁸ Mom Chao is a royal title for the grandchildren of a king [Chakrabongse, Chula, Lords of Life, (London, 1960) p. 257Google Scholar]. The surname Navarat, however, was supposedly one of the names of Chiengmai to be reserved for local dignitaries at the king's discretion. (PKPS, Vol. 28, pp. 463–70Google Scholar, esp. table p. 468). All that is important for the present paper is that a hereditary northeastern elite line was replaced by an appointee from another region.

³⁹ Kalasin, Changwat, p. 7.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Phongsawadan Phu Khieu (Chronicle of Phu Khieu), no. 36 of the mss. formerly at the Ecole Francaise de l'Extreme Orient in Hanoi. See Finot, Louis, “Recheiches sur la littérature Laotienne,” BEFEO, 17(5), 1917, p. 198CrossRefGoogle Scholar, no. 585. At present the manuscript is in the library of Wat Phra Keo, Vientiane. We have noted (above, p. 868) that Phu Khieu, according to Pallegoix, was one of the two most important provinces in the northeast in midnineteenth century.

⁴¹ Phongs, Reign II, p. 528Google Scholar; and Chakrabongse, Chula, op. cit., p. 149.Google Scholar

⁴² Phongs, Reign II, p. 528.Google Scholar

⁴³ Pallegoix, , op. cit., p. 34.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Changwat Nakhon Rachasima, p. 13.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Prayun Phitsanakha, 50 Chao Phraya (Fifty short biographies of men who attained the rank of Chao Phraya), Bangkok, 2505 (1962), hereafter cited as 50 Chao Phraya, pp. 160–65.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid., p. 165.

⁴⁷ Phongs, First Reign, pp. 81–83Google Scholar; and 50 Chao Phraya, 292–300, 520–28.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Chakkrit, , pp. 259–72.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Jolabhoom, Tongplaew, La Thailande Sous le Régime Constitutionnel, Thèse pour le doctorat, Université de Caen, Faculté de Droit, Caen 1940, p. 82.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Changwat Satun, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Thesa, Part II, p. 96.Google Scholar

⁵² Changwat Phuket, p. 7.Google Scholar

⁵³ 50 Chao Phraya, pp. 453–56.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Rekharuchi, Sela, 30 Chao Phraya (Short biographies of thirty men who attained the rank of Chao Phraya), Bangkok, n.d., p. 154.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Changwat Ranong, pp. 4—7Google Scholar; and Thesa, Part II, p. 103.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Changwat Phathalung, p. 29.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ 50 Chao Phraya, p. 164.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Changwat Chonburi, pp. 20–21.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Changwat Samut Songkhram, pp. 3–4Google Scholar; and 50 Chao Phraya, p. 515.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Chakrabongse, Chula, op. cit., pp. 81–82.Google Scholar

⁶¹ 50 Chao Phraya, pp. 514–15.Google Scholar

⁶² Changwat Samut Songkhram, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

⁶³ Chakrabongse, Chula, op. cit., pp. 81–82Google Scholar; and Sombat, Phraya Phaiybun (Det Bunnag), Athibay rachinikun Bang Chang (The family Bang Chang), Bangkok, 2471 (1928).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Changwat Ratburi, p. 38.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Changwat Phetburi, p. 18.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Changwat Ratburi, p. 4Google Scholar; Thesa, part II, p. 103Google Scholar; and Chakkrit, , p. 549.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ For details on the position of the Bunnags see Wyatt, , “Family Politics …,” op. cit.Google Scholar, note 1 above.

⁶⁸ Thesa, part I, pp. 23–27.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ibid., p. 28.

⁷⁰ Wyatt, David K., “The Beginnings of Modern Education in Thailand,” 1868–1910,” Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, 1966, p. 61.Google Scholar

⁷¹ For example, trans-Mekhong Laos, some of the Shan States (Hsenwi in the Palatine Law), and parts of Malaya (The Palatine Law included Malacca and an area identified as Johore among the vassals of Thailand, and there had been difficulties Instituover British activities in Kedah and Penang because the Thais considered Kedah a vassal).

⁷² Examples of such centrifugal tendencies were the Cambodian negotiations with the French and the subsequent protectorate, the cession of Penang by the Sultan of Kedah, a theoretical vassal of Siam, and the ease with which the French were able to enter into direct negotiations with the ruler of Luang Prabang. Chiengmai from mid-16th to late 18th century had been a Burmese vassal.

⁷³ See Chomchai, Prachoon, Chulalongkorn the Great, (Tokyo: The Center for East Asian Studies, 1965).Google Scholar

Riggs, Fred W., Thailand, The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity, (Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1964).Google Scholar

Siffin, William J., The Thai Bureaucracy; Institutional Change and Development, (Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1964).Google Scholar

Wyatt, David K., “The Beginnings …,”Google Scholar see note 70 above.

Chakkrit, op. cit.

⁷⁴ Thailand, Krom mahat thai, op. cit., see note 13 above, pp. 50–54.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Chakkrit, , pp. 82–83.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Ibid., p. 110. Parts of the report were published as a series of articles in Wachirayan beginning in 1895. It was also published as Angkit pokkhrong Phama lae Malayu (England rules Burma and Malaya), Damrong Rachanubhap library.

⁷⁷ Thesa, part II, pp. 62–63.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Thailand, Krom mahat thai, op. cit., part II, pp. 67–68.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Wyatt, , “The Beginnings …,” p. 124.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Chakkrit, , pp. 91, 172.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Thesa, part II, pp. 115–16Google Scholar, and see map. The twenty-first monthon, Maharat, dates from the post-Damrong period.

⁸² Chakkrit, , pp. 175–76.Google Scholar

⁸³ Ibid., p. 177.

⁸⁴ Ibid., pp. 239, 242.

⁸⁵ Ibid., pp. 242–52, table p. 551.

⁸⁶ Changwat Phrae, p. 12.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Changwat Nan, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Jalobhoom, Tongplaew, op. cit., p. 82.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Chakkrit, , pp. 259–67.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ibid., p. 272.

⁹¹ Jolabhoom, Tongplaew, op. cit., p. 82.Google Scholar

⁹² Kingdom of Siam, Statistical Year Book, 1919, p. 31.Google Scholar

⁹³ Chakkrit, , pp. 225–26.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Chakkrit, , pp. 208–17.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Examples are the rulers of the peninsular Malay States, Cambodia and Laos; see Bastin, John and Benda, Harry J., A History of Modern Southeast Asia, (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968) p. 97.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Reports on the unrest are found in Great Britain, Foreign Office, Diplomatic and Consular Reports, no. 771, 1889, p. 32Google Scholar; no. 938, 1890, p. 1; no. 3134, 1902, p. 5; no. 3897, 1906, p. 6.

⁹⁷ A list of the monthon Royal Commissioners is found in Thesa, part II, pp. 95–106.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ For the Aphaivong family see “Phongsawadan Phratabong,” Prachum Phongswadan, Vol. V, Part 16, pp. 376–97Google Scholar, and the biographies in 50 Chao Phraya, pp. 492–501Google Scholar, and 30 Chao Phraya, pp. 367–76.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Changwat Nakhon Rachasima, p. 13.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ 50 Chao Phraya, pp. 160–65Google Scholar, and Wyatt, , “Family Politics.”Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Chakkrit, , table, p. 549Google Scholar, and Thesa, part II, p. 97.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Thesa, part II, p. 97.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ 50 Chao Phraya, p. 165.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Thesa, part II, p. 97.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ For example, see the biography of Yem Na Nakhon in 50 Chao Phraya, pp. 528–37.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ 30 chao Phraya, p. 152.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Hatsabamroe, Chot, Samsipha pi haeng yuk phrachathipatai (Thirty-five years of democratic regime), Bangkok, 2511, pp. 55–60Google Scholar (list of the members of the first National Assembly).

¹⁰⁸ 50 Chao Phraya, p. 631.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Changwat Trang, pp. 17–23.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Changwat Phathalung, p. 29.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Changwat Ranong, pp. 4–7Google Scholar; Thesa, part II, p. 103.Google Scholar

¹¹² Thesa, part II, p. 104.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Through 1915, the year in which Prince Damrong left the Ministry of Interior, there had been 64 appointments to the post of monthon Royal Commissioner held by 48 men, of whom 10 were members of the royal family and 31 were of positively identifiable non-northeastern families. I have been unable to find sufficient data on the antecedents of the remaining seven men—Thanom Bunyaket, Phor Dechakhupat, Sukh Dityabut, Pho Netipho, Taihak Phatharanavik, Im Thephanon, and Thongyu Rohitsathien—who held a total of 11 appointments, but none of them have names of recognizable northeastern elite families. The names of all the monthon Royal Commissioners are found in Thesa, part II, pp. 95–106.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ At which date, “Thong Chantarangsu … a resident of the central region, came as governor of the province and instituted real democratic administration.” Changwat Roi Et, p. 10.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Mahasarakham, Changwat, p. 16.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Loei, Changwat, p. 14.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ See note 19 above.

¹¹⁸ Changwat Nakhon Phanom, p. 14.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ See note 35 above.

¹²⁰ Changwat Burirom, pp. 31–34Google Scholar. This source says that two extant families, the Hongsaruchiko and Hongsanakhon, are descended from this old governor. I would count them among the northistration.” eastern elite, but have not yet found their names in any official position.

¹²¹ See note 19 above, and for Su'a Na Ubon, Prakat no. 51, name no. 3127, Rachakech, Vol. 33(1). p. 892.Google Scholar

¹²² Prakat no. 21, name no. 1618, Rachakech Vol. 31(2), p. 1575.Google Scholar

¹²³ Thesa, part II, p. 83.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Rachanuphap, Damrong, Nithan boranakhadi (Ancient Tales), Bangkok, 2487(1944), no. 16, pp. 394–97.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Keyes, Charles F., Isan: Regionalism in Northeastern Thailand, Data Paper 65, Southeast Asia Program, Cornell, 03 1967, pp. 26–35.Google Scholar

Wilson, David, Politics in Thailand, Cornell, 1962.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Mokarapong, Thawatt, The June Revolution of 1932 in Thailand; A Study in Political Behavior, Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana University, 1962, pp. 3, 32–39.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Ibid., pp. 6–12.

¹²⁸ Keyes, , op. cit., p. 26.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Hatsabamroe, Chot, op. cit., pp. 55–60.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Ibid., pp. 140–46.

¹³¹ Ibid., pp. 160–67. The identification of Atthakon as a northeastern hereditary elite family is from Keyes, , op. cit., p. 26.Google Scholar