New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

[Tee Kay]

^ Ditto.

I believe that the Thai are an unified civilization and you don't.

No. You believe that the Thai and the Lao are separate civilisations based on the belief that distinct Thai and Lao identities could be identified in medieval times and on the direct link of Ayutthaya and other kingdoms to modern Thailand and Lanxang and its successor states to modern Laos.

Masada and I believe that this idea is fundamentally flawed since you are projecting modern identities and your own preconceived ideas onto pre-modern realities.

 

[Absolution]

I hate repeating myself. But to reiterate: the difference between the court cultures (and this is what we're talking about) of what-is-now Thailand and Laos were no greater than those of courts inside Thailand and, hell, even Laos. This is quite beside the point that even talking about "Thailand" or "Laos" is anachronistic in the extreme. Suggesting otherwise would require that one project colonial boundaries back into the distant past. This is patently absurd because as TK noted, Lanna straddled both sides of the modern border. This begs the question: what then is Lanna? Thai or Laotian. (Hint: the answer is neither).

But you still don't have to list the Tai civilization.
You can decide that the history of Lan Xang is part of the history of the Thai civilization and that's it.

Furthermore, the use of "Tai" to denote an elite culture (not ethnicity) common to courts is well accepted. While I accept one could confuse my use of "Tai-as-a-court-culture" with "Tai(-Kedai)-as-a-linguistic-group" (which I hasten to add is never ever ever ever used to denote an ethnic group), I fail to see how that was possible considering what I wrote. Among other things: I never once mentioned language, which is, I think, irrelevant for the most part in the formation of durable identities in Southeast Asia. The implication here being that you can't even be bothered to parse other peoples posts. I can forgive Civciv5 because he's probably Laotian, judging by his responses, and has kept it rather cool. What I can't understand is why someone who hasn't been suckled on the nationalist teat can be this closed minded.

I didn't say Lao is a civilization.
At the beginning I declared that I don't know much about Lao.
I was just surprised to see that people don't consider them as a civilization, and therefore I asked you all several questions here.
But if you state that Lao isn't a civilization, it doesn't mean that Tai is a civilization.

I also strenuously object to the conflation of linguistic groups - e.g. Turkic, Germanic and Tai - with ethnic groups. It's inaccurate and doesn't hold up to even the most cursory examination. Consider that Malagasy, one of the official languages of Madagascar, is actually a part of the Barito sub-branch of Indo-Melanesian. Using the logic you've employed here, would suggest that Dayaks in Borneo were of the same ethnic group as Malagasy people, despite an almost complete lack of historical contact. The Germanic example is no less ridiculous: grouping Iceland and Germany. And Turkic would have me link Uighurs with Azerbaijanis.

I think you misunderstood me.
I object it.
I actually hate it when people refer to Turkics or Germanics as civilizations.

And yes, sometimes I try to explore the linguistic origin when I can't denote the ethnic origin. It is helpful.
But fundamentally I don't distinguish civilizations by languages or linguistic origins.


Actually, usually the language family is too big to be a civilization, while in Southeast Asia it is too "small".

You also can't complain about lumping groups together into unwieldy groups such that "they include many different peoples and even civilizations" because of your ungodly inclusion of "the Indonesians" whatever-the-hell-that-word-is-supposed-to-mean-in-600-freaking-AD. Even using Melayu is problematic, because it didn't even mean a court culture at that point but a place - Malayu.

This is really a hard one.
I think maybe the Javanes civilization could be a good one?
It can somehow fit the Majapahit times and modern Indonesia, and some more..

And BTW, "because of your ungodly inclusion of the Indonesians" - I didn't make that list!

(1) the modern Thai identity not existing until the 1850s, at the earliest;

The modern terms of identity are different from the ancient ones, especially in SEA.
No state in SEA had something you can actually call an indentity except the Khmer empire, and maybe Burmese states if you include them in Southeast Asia.
So they didn't call themselves Thais, but in history research (which is what we are dealing with) it is very reasonable to call them Thais. (and you can add the Laos to be under that term as well, along with whoever you want.)

I think they are sufficiently different from the Thai to be considered a seperate entity.

What do you mean by entity?
I can say for instance that the fact that they did have centuries of political seperation from the main Thais makes them more unique than many other Thai groups within modern Thailand.
Because political entity is one of the things which in my opinion deines a civilization.
But the question is wether it is enought in this case. I can not answer that.

Maurya+Gupta+Chola+Chalukya+Pala+Delhi+Mughal= Indian civilization

WRONG!!!!!!

"Indonchinese civilization"?

s

I freely admit to being old-fashioned; what's the modern collective term encompassing both Laos and Thailand?

In geography?

 

[Masada]

But you still don't have to list the Tai civilization.
You can decide that the history of Lan Xang is part of the history of the Thai civilization and that's it.

So they didn't call themselves Thais, but in history research (which is what we are dealing with) it is very reasonable to call them Thais. (and you can add the Laos to be under that term as well, along with whoever you want.)

The academic convention is Tai. Notable adherents include Lieberman, Reid, Hall and Tarling.

But if you state that Lao isn't a civilization, it doesn't mean that Tai is a civilization.

Please provide some evidence to support the claim that Tai isn't/cant be a civilization.

I think you misunderstood me.
I object it.
I actually hate it when people refer to Turkics or Germanics as civilizations.

And yes, sometimes I try to explore the linguistic origin when I can't denote the ethnic origin. It is helpful.
But fundamentally I don't distinguish civilizations by languages or linguistic origins.

It wasn't evident from the post.

Actually, usually the language family is too big to be a civilization, while in Southeast Asia it is too "small".

You might to elaborate on this.

This is really a hard one.
I think maybe the Javanes civilization could be a good one?
It can somehow fit the Majapahit times and modern Indonesia, and some more..

It is hard. But that's not a good solution it, since it doesn't even describe all of Java. I'm also not sure what "Majapahit times" is alluding to - something to do with the Nagarakertagama at a guess. You might need to expand on the point.

And BTW, "because of your ungodly inclusion of the Indonesians" - I didn't make that list!

Apologies.

The modern terms of identity are different from the ancient ones, especially in SEA.

That claim is false. Europe was no different in its quest to create new identities. Eugene Weber's "Peasants into Frenchman" is a good place to start.

No state in SEA had something you can actually call an indentity except the Khmer empire, and maybe Burmese states if you include them in Southeast Asia.

That claim seems... spurious. You'd need to go into more detail.

 

[Civciv5]

This discussion is spinning out of control.
There is no solid definition of the word "civilization".
So everybody interprets it in his or her own manner.
And considering Thai superior to Lao is racistic.

What do you mean by entity?
I can say for instance that the fact that they did have centuries of political seperation from the main Thais makes them more unique than many other Thai groups within modern Thailand.
Because political entity is one of the things which in my opinion deines a civilization.
But the question is wether it is enought in this case. I can not answer that.

The Thai were more or less an unified civilization because there always was one dominant power who vassalized or annexed the smaller kingdoms.
Laos was never vassalized or conquered by any Thai Kingdom from the moment it became independent from the Khmer Empire.

 

[Traitorfish]

"X has no strict definition" =/= "X means whatever the hell I please".

 

[Civciv5]

"X has no strict definition" =/= "X means whatever the hell I please".

Yes,there are limits.

 

[Tee Kay]

The Thai were more or less an unified civilization because there always was one dominant power who vassalized or annexed the smaller kingdoms.

Hnnn... not always. The power of the centre waxed and waned; often cities like Korat or Phitsanulok or Nakhon Sithammarat or Songkhla were only nominally vassals and operated quite independently of Ayutthaya. And of course most of what is now Isan was under Khmer or Lanxang control. Lanna was ever in Ayutthaya's orbit under the strongest kings; it actually spent most of the period under Burmese domination.

Laos was never vassalized or conquered by any Thai Kingdom from the moment it became independent from the Khmer Empire.

Luang Prabang, Vientiane and Champassak all paid tribute to Bangkok at one point or another.

 

[Civciv5]

Hnnn... not always. The power of the centre waxed and waned; often cities like Korat or Phitsanulok or Nakhon Sithammarat or Songkhla were only nominally vassals and operated quite independently of Ayutthaya. And of course most of what is now Isan was under Khmer or Lanxang control. Lanna was ever in Ayutthaya's orbit under the strongest kings; it actually spent most of the period under Burmese domination.

Dominant powers in Thailand
900-1238:Khmer Empire
1238-1583:Sukhothai Kingdom
1350-1767:Ayutthaya Kingdom
1768-1782:Thonburi Kingdom
1782-present:Rattanakosin Kindom

Luang Prabang, Vientiane and Champassak all paid tribute to Bangkok at one point or another.

Yes,but they also paid tribute to the Burmese,even more than to the Siamese.
And the Lao under the Kingdom of Lan Xang were not afraid to attack Ayutthaya.
They also managed to repel the Burmese under Bayinnaung for a longer time than the Thai.
We can't classify them as Thai,Burmese,Khmer and certainly not as Vietnamese.
So the only options are the Laotian civilization or the Tai civilization (if you consider the Tai a civilization.
Please stop referring to the Ayutthaya or Rattanakosin Kingdoms as "Bangkok",they were not a city state.

 

[Tee Kay]

We can't classify them as Thai,Burmese,Khmer and certainly not as Vietnamese.

I personally just classify them a medieval Lao-Tai kingdom. No need to bother with modern nationalist designations.

Please stop referring to the Ayutthaya or Rattanakosin Kingdoms as "Bangkok",they were not a city state.

Ayutthaya was definitely a city-state; a powerful one with lots of influence over surrounding states, but still a city-state. The relationship between Ayutthaya and, say, Nakhon Sithammarat is not one of capital-province, but overlord-vassal.

I use Bangkok as a shorthand for the early Ratanakosin Kingdom. As in the Ayutthaya period, the relationship between the center and periphery was a tributary one, to varying degrees (Ayutthaya or Phitsanulok were more tightly binded to Bangkok than Vientiane or Chiang Mai for instance). Only in the mid-19th century did centralisation began, a process that was not completed until the first decade of the 20th century with the finalisation of the monthon thesaphiban system.

 

[Civciv5]

Ayutthaya was definitely a city-state; a powerful one with lots of influence over surrounding states, but still a city-state. The relationship between Ayutthaya and, say, Nakhon Sithammarat is not one of capital-province, but overlord-vassal.

"A city state is an independent or autonomous entity whose territory consists of a city which is not administered as a part of another local government."
I don't think half of present-day Thailand can be one giant city.

Spoiler :

As you can see the Ayutthaya Empire has control over many cities.
Another fact:The Laotian Empire is bigger than Ayutthaya.

 

[Tee Kay]

"A city state is an independent or autonomous entity whose territory consists of a city which is not administered as a part of another local government."
I don't think half of present-day Thailand can be one giant city.

As you can see the Ayutthaya Empire has control over many cities.
Another fact:The Laotian Empire is bigger than Ayutthaya.

I don't think you understand how Southeast Asian empires operated at all.

Here's a good place to start.

 

[Traitorfish]

But taillesskangaru, don't you know that all polities that have ever existed are late modern nation-states? I know so, because that's kind of what it looks like when I play Civ.

 

[Civciv5]

I don't think you understand how Southeast Asian empires operated at all.

Here's a good place to start.

You already stated that.
The Kingdom of Ayutthaya's capital and primal city was Ayutthaya. It has control over all cities in nearby vicinity.
It has various vassals that are farther way, who are more or less part of the kingdom by vassalizing,annexation or tributary states.
The overlord has power over all lesser lords,thus they are viewed to be a vassal or tributary state and they are most of the time shown on maps to be part of the kingdom or empire.
A kingdom can NOT be ONE city.

 

[Absolution]

Please provide some evidence to support the claim that Tai isn't/cant be a civilization.

It just seems more logical.
Tai is actually a language family more than an ethnic group.
It is an ethnic groups which is based on the speaking of the ancient Tai language.
The Tai peoples include many groups which aren't belonged to the Thai history at all and are completely different, like Ahom and Shan, which are even more related to Indian / Burmese history than to SEA history.

It wasn't evident from the post.

But I mentioned it in former posts.

You might to elaborate on this.

In Turkic groups, for example, you had languages like Oghuz, Oghur and Kipchak, which are vast comparing to SEA.
Also in Mesopotamia, you can see that at least 3 civilizations spok the Akkadian language.

However in SEA you have a quite different language in almost every district.

It's not like a research I have done or something, just a remark.

It is hard. But that's not a good solution it, since it doesn't even describe all of Java. I'm also not sure what "Majapahit times" is alluding to - something to do with the Nagarakertagama at a guess. You might need to expand on the point.

If you have a better solution, your welcome.
I'm not sure about that, but I think that most of the statess in the Indonesian history were from Javanese origin. Taruma Kingdom, Sunda Kingdom, Banten Sultanate, Sultanate of Cirebon, Medang Kingdom, Kediri, Singhasari, Majapahit Empire, Demak Sultanate, Mataram Sultanate, Yogyakarta Sultanate, Republic of Indonesia. These states had been dominated by the Javanese, even if some of them weren't absolutely Javanese states.
Another term can be used is Sundanese, but I think it can't describe modern Indonesia.

That claim seems... spurious. You'd need to go into more detail.

I can't recall any national / ethnical defenition that Tai peoples used to describe themselves. Neither as Thais or Lannas nor as Tais.
But maybe you know one?
Maybe Siamese was used. But isn't it a late term as well?

This discussion is spinning out of control.
There is no solid definition of the word "civilization".
So everybody interprets it in his or her own manner.
And considering Thai superior to Lao is racistic.

The Thai were more or less an unified civilization because there always was one dominant power who vassalized or annexed the smaller kingdoms.
Laos was never vassalized or conquered by any Thai Kingdom from the moment it became independent from the Khmer Empire.

Well, usually there was one kingdom dominating the Hurrians.
But still, indepedent cities around weren't a different civilization.

"A city state is an independent or autonomous entity whose territory consists of a city which is not administered as a part of another local government."
I don't think half of present-day Thailand can be one giant city.

NOOOO!!
A city state is a state who calls itself a city state.

You actually say that Sparta wasn't not a city stae. And Tyre. And many Sumerian cites.
And pre-Hammurabic Babylon.

 

[Civciv5]

Well, usually there was one kingdom dominating the Hurrians.
But still, indepedent cities around weren't a different civilization.

I don't understand this argument.

 

[Absolution]

I don't understand this argument.

Well, usually there was one kingdom dominating the (Thais).
But still, (Lao states) around weren't a different civilization.

Or at least doesn't have to be a different civilization.

A kingdom can NOT be ONE city.

What about Eshnunna and Mari? And periods of Isin history?
And the early years of the Roman Kingdom?

It is only true for late medieval Europe, when smaller monarchies were Duchies or Principalities.

 

[Civciv5]

Well, usually there was one kingdom dominating the (Thais).
But still, (Lao states) around weren't a different civilization.

Well you can't group them within the Thai civilization because they were never permanently conquered by any nation.
Also why grouping the Lao within the Thai?
Why not the other way around?
The Lao were not Thai people,but a Tai people.
The only relevant choices would to group them within the Tai or Lao civiLization.
A city state is a state which only controls one city and the surrounding territory.
A FEDERATION of many city-states controls different cities and is sometimes named after its largest and most important city.

 

[Absolution]

You might be right about that Lao thing, I don't know.
I just say that your arguements before weren't good.
The smahing arguements you should use is that the Laos had seperated political entity than most of the Thai groups.
But the thing is that maybe back then the Laotians didn't consider themselves as ethnically different from the main Thai kingdoms.

A city state is a state which only controls one city and the surrounding territory.
A FEDERATION of many city-states controls different cities and is sometimes named after its largest and most important city.

NO
Do you know something called Sumerians?

 

[Tee Kay]

Well you can't group them within the Thai civilization because they were never permanently conquered by any nation.
Also why grouping the Lao within the Thai?
Why not the other way around?
The Lao were not Thai people,but a Tai people.
The only relevant choices would to group them within the Tai or Lao civiLization.

I have a better idea: lose this obsession with trying to group people and cultures into narrow labels or fit them into preconceived notions.

A city state is a state which only controls one city and the surrounding territory. A FEDERATION of many city-states controls different cities and is sometimes named after its largest and most important city.

Ayutthaya was not a federation.

By the way, the Wikipedia page that you got your definition of a city-state from happens to agree with me:

In Mainland Southeast Asian history, settlements were organised into autonomous or semi-autonomous city-states which were referred to as mueang and usually related in a tributary relationship now described as mandala. The system existed until the 19th century when colonisation by European powers resulted in the adoption of the modern concept of statehood.

I strongly suggest you actually read up on Southeast Asian mandalas starting with the link I gave you earlier.

 

[Civciv5]

NO
Do you know something called Sumerians?

Yes,they were independent city-states that shared the same culture.

Ayutthaya was not a federation.

It was a KINGDOM,not a city-state.

I strongly suggest you actually read up on Southeast Asian mandalas starting with the link I gave you earlier.

HOW can a KINGDOM consist of only one-city?
HOW can an EMPIRE consist (Khmer,Burmese) consist of only one-city?