the development of trends in Karen studies, since then, may well be described in terms of a shift of interest from ethnology to ecology, economy and ethnicity. The earliest accounts on the Karen come mainly from missionary sources, for example, Cross (1853-54), Mason
(1865, 1866, 1868) and Gilmore (1911) amongst others. A list of these earlier publications may be found in the bibliography to the study by Marshall (1922), also a missionary, whose work is perhaps the most informative. Early works on the Karen were also published by British colonial administrators in Burma such as Smeaton (1887) and Scott (1922). I might also add that because of some of these and other sources, the Karen have featured (though not in any
particularly significant way) in some of the classic works in ethnology and anthropology. References to the Karen may be found in, for example, Morgan (1871:441-7), Frazer (1919:138) and Levi- Strauss (1969:41). Contemporary academic interest in the Karen was foreshadowed by two dissertations written in the early part of this century (Heald 1900; Lewis 1924), including Marshall's monograph. These were followed by yet another dissertation (Truxton 1958). All of these studies, however, were by missionaries which followed the tradition set by the earlier missionaries working in Burma. Since then, the Karen have been the subject of several contemporary anthropological studies. These studies reflect broader trends in anthropology since the 1960s up to the present time. The parallel trends were, first, social and ethnic change following Leach's work on the Kachin beginning with Kunstadter's series of papers (1967, 1969 amongst others) and culminating in a collection of papers on Karen ethnic adaptation edited by Keyes (1979). The other trend was problem-oriented approaches in anthropology arising from the
interest in development problems, anthropology as an applied discipline, and socio-economic change. Where the Karen are
concerned, these approaches were manifest in studies dealing with cultivation systems, population growth and problems of natural resource management (for example, Kunstadter 1969, Hinton 1975, Grandstaff 1976, Madha 1980). There have also been other studies which deal with other aspects of Karen history, society
history of the Karen, Somphob (1975) on Karen medicine, Mischung (1980) on religion, and Hamilton's rather more general study which also emphasises change (1976). If Karennic speaking groups, other than the Sgaw and Pwo, are also taken into account, it would be necessary to include Lehman's work on the Kayah (1967) and Hackett's dissertation on the Pa-0 or Thaungsu (1953). This review of work on the Karen is not, by any means, exhaustive.
3. The question, in other words, is whether or not religion in Karen communities possesses an internal coherence in relation to social organisation, political institutions and other aspects of social
life, and whether or not a logical structure may be discerned in it. 4. See Keyes (1979a:21). There are also other problems in understanding
the nature of Karen religious traditions. Keyes has pointed out elsewhere (1977b:52) that the interpretation of Karen myths has been coloured by the fact that they were first recorded by American
Baptist missionaries. Keyes presents an alternative interpretation of some of these myths which is by far the most consistent with what we know of other aspects of life of the Karen. It is worth noting that missionary interpretations of Karen myths, and some of the early ethnological speculations about the origins of the Karen, have found their way into contemporary Karen theories of racial origins and ethnicity. I discuss this in an unpublished paper (1985, but see Chapter VII, pp. 451-5) in relation to the Karen separatist movement in Burma. I should also point out here that the Palokhi Karen have very few myths; the little they have bear hardly any resemblance to the myths documented by the American Baptist
missionaries. They are rather like just-so stories which appear to have little relevance to their religious system.
5. Throughout this thesis, I use the place name Pa Pae to refer to the Northern Thai settlement Ban Pa Pae, the tambon which has the same name and of which it is a part, as well as the general area which I
call the Pa Pae hills. Kunstadter has written on The People of Pa Pae (in Mae Sariang) which, in 1979, was due to be published as Monograph No. 2 of the Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum (Keyes 1979:261). Unfortunately, I have not been able to refer to this work and all references to Pa Pae in this study therefore pertain to the area of my fieldwork. Pa Pae is, in fact, a fairly common place name in Northern Thailand. It is very often used to designate places or settlements which lie at the fringes of
uninhabited areas or forests well away from major human habitations (Wi jeyewardene, pers. comm.).
6. A brief but informative description of the geography of the Mae Muang Luang-Huai Thung Choa basin may be found in Chapman (1983). In the existing literature on the area (most of which are reports and papers from the United Nations University-Chiang Mai University Joint Research Project on Highland-Lowland Interactive System with the participation of the Royal Forestry Department of
Thailand), the area is known as the "Huai Thung Choa Project Area". This designation does not reflect the full extent of the
area, hence my use of the term "Mae Muang Luang-Huai Thung Choa area". The official designation comes from the fact that when the Watershed Development Unit of the Royal Forestry Department first began their operations in the area, it was initially intended that it would be based in the Huai Thung Choa valley on the basis of a first reconnaissance. Subsequent reconnaissance established that a site deeper within the area (at Ban Lum near a Lisu village) was more suitable where the unit headquarters was in fact built. The name "Huai Thung Choa", however, remained and was applied to the area under its purview and has been used for all subsequent
projects carried out. The area has also been designated a "King's Royal Hilltribe Development Project Area".
7. The survey by Thannarong, Benchaphun and Prasert was conducted to establish base-line socio-economic data on the communities
inhabiting the area as part of the United Nations University-Chiang Mai University Joint Research Project. It will be noticed that the number of settlements, especially Karen, shown in Figure 1.1 does not tally with the number given by Thannarong et al. The reason for this discrepancy is that whereas the map in Figure 1.1 (source: Chapman 1983:319) shows only villages which have been independently established by the Karen, Lisu, etc. themselves, the survey by Thannarong et al. includes not only these villages but clusters of mainly Karen households (classified as villages) doing full-time wage work, attached to operational units of the Royal Forestry Department's Watershed Development Unit in the area.
8. Several published papers now exist on the conditions in the Mae Muang Luang-Huai Thung Choa valley system and the impact of the presence of the Royal Forestry Department in the area. See, for example, Chapman (1983), Hurni (1979,1982), Hurni and Sompote (1983), and Kunzel (1983, n.d.) amongst others. Kunzel (1983) deals specifically with the impact of the Royal Forestry
Department's presence on wage work patterns among the Karen, Lisu and Northern Thai inhabitants in the area.
9. I discuss the subsistence system of the Palokhi Karen in more detail in Chapter V. In Palokhi, ordinary rice is preferred to glutinous rice for daily consumption. Glutinous rice is usually grown in small amounts for making rice liquor and certain kinds of cakes which are eaten on ceremonial occasions such as the rites of the New Year. When the Palokhi Karen purchase rice from shops in Northern Thai settlements to meet their consumption requirements, they buy the glutinous variety because it is cheaper. It is also the main form of rice available because the Northern Thai
themselves grow it in preference to ordinary or non-glutinous rice. 10. It is worth noting also that the province of Chiang Mai is a net
importer of rice because rice production even in the high-
productivity rice-farming areas of the province is insufficient to meet the needs of a rapidly increasing population (Wijeyewardene, pers. comm.).
11. To discuss this further would require far more space than is