ESTADOS UNIDOS

In the Tai muang system, relations mainly relied on political deals which were based on loyalty to a local ruler, who was committed to a more powerful overlord. This scheme in economic and social terms was bound by a tribute, a form of tax or various services, and an annual tribute ceremony to guarantee their allegiance. Conway (2009) took an interesting example as below to show the tactics Shan rulers used for dealing with relationships with China and Burma. Basically, the Shan ordinary people paid tax to the House of their local ruler, and the minor rulers paid to the senior princes or chiefs. Then the senior princes or chiefs paid tribute to China and Burma as tactics to appease them, in particular when they felt under threat. The Shan saopha were allowed to attend the Burmese court and sat in the order of precedence in front of the king. The senior Shan

saopha were at the same status as Burmese Governors while the junior saopha were

counterpart to minor Burmese officials. The tribute which they presented to the king was based on their wealth and power.

In contrast to partaking in the Burmese court, the Shan saopha tributary to China went to Muang Meng, a Shan principality in Yunnan, to receive their tribute dress through the Governor of Yunnan rather than the Chinese court. The tribute dragon dress and silver seals stamped with Chinese characters, symbolised power and holiness. In return, the northern Shan saopha had to offer a large amount of silver, gems and all kind of goods as well as provided manpower, artisans and military support in time of war. When the Shan saopha wore the Chinese tribute robe, it was a symbol of authority and

39 _{A northern Thai Kingdom between 13 and 18 centuries means “Kingdom of Million Rice Fields”, and}

its last capital city was Chiang Mai.

showed their ties with China. Sometimes a tactic was used by the Shan rulers as they owned two sets of tribute dresses, so they wore on state occasions, as appropriate. There were Chinese and Burmese representatives at some courts who kept an eye on the Shan and reported back to their governments (Conway, 2009: 31-34).

Sometimes the Shan principalities tolerated Burmese occupants due to threats of invasion from adjacent Siam, but in some cases they also resisted Burmese authority, particularly when Burmese army was concentrating on conflicts elsewhere or when demands from Burmese tributes were beyond their means, they might appeal to China. In order to avoid drawing China into their disputes, the Burmese king often amended their demands. However, the Chinese and Burmese often required more manpower than the Shan were prepared to send and when their targets were not met they invaded Shan territory, using the slightest provocation as an excuse (Conway, 2009: 33). Therefore, in addition to paying a great deal of tribute, sometimes these Shan principalities were forced to send their heirs to the Burmese court, including their daughters, sisters, or nieces to be queens or consorts of Burmese kings (Cadchumsang, 2011: 39). Moreover, Shan saopha also enlisted hill dwellers to help protect them from Burmese and Chinese invasions. Sometimes they used guerrilla tactics. However, they could not be relied on as permanent allies in this situation of fluctuating power relations (Conway, 2009: 34).

In the late 18th _{and early 19}th _{centuries, many Tai states were embroiled in the wars}

launched by Lan Na and Siam in their battles with Burma. It was a time of significant movement, mostly forced resettlement of war prisoners and traders, including Tai in eastern Shan states (Conway, 2009: 34) and Tai Lüe in Sipsongpanna (Panyagaew, 2008: 309). In fact, Lan Na was a kingdom of one of the Tai-speaking people (Tai Yuan or Khon

Muang, who live in Northern Thailand), and it once enlarged its power and territory

over parts of present Shan State, Burma, Sipsongpanna in Yunnan Province, China and Luang Probang in Laos (Ongsakul, 2005: 53). But later on in the 18th _{century, when Lan}

Na became Siam’s tributary state, it was suffering a serious economic crash and manpower deficiency. Following the defeat of the Burmese by the Siamese, in order to

re-establish Lan Na, the ruler of Lan Na41 _{sent an army into the eastern Shan states}

and removed thousands of people, who were forcibly marched to Chiang Mai, Lamphun, Lampang and Nan for resettlement, so that they became part of the Siamese state (Panyagaew, 2008: 309; Yasuda, 2008:48; Conway, 2009: 34).

Except for those early settlers of war immigrants, Pawakapan (2006: 30), citing Ratanaporn Sethaul (1989: 65-66), pointed out that in the 19th _{century those Tai}

traders who moved between the Shan states and northern Thailand often travelled “to Chiang Mai via Muang Fang [north of Chiang Mai] or Mae Hong Son and a number of Shan settlements were established in those areas, particularly the latter which came to be a predominately Shan place.” Consequently, Chiang Mai became a home for local

Tai Yuan, Tai Khün, Tai Lüe, and Tai Long (Tai Yai, in Thai) as well as an intermediary

trading post with many different kinds of markets, and long-distance caravan traders which were mostly conducted by Yunnanese and Shan traders who travelled between Yunnan, Lan Na and Burma (Ongsakul, 2005: 171-175; Yasuda, 2008:48; Conway, 2009: 34)42_{. The formation of Chiang Mai as home for various Tai speaking groups later}

become a shelter for displaced Shan in the post-colonial period, which I will discuss in the chapters 6 and 7.