In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

13 Archaeological Resource Management in Thailand Thanik Lertcharnrit It is generally accepted that cultural resources, both tangible and intangible, are important, and have potential value and meaning for human beings (for example, see Lipe 1984, 1985). Because a great number of cultural resources, especially archaeological remains and historic sites, have been destroyed and the situation seems to continue, most nations of the world now have some policy of conservation of their cultural resources. The basic conservation and protection problems most nations have encountered include looting (for example, Bhumadhon 1994; Hutt et al. 1992), smuggling , apathetic public attitudes toward archaeological work, and destructive development activities such as land alteration for agriculture, road construction , and dam building. With increasing concern about the existence and future of cultural resources, many countries in the world have been attempting to mitigate and solve these problems under the rubric of cultural resource management, archaeological heritage management, or archaeological resource management, which is a term commonly used in the United Kingdom, other European countries, Australia, and New Zealand (see Cleere 1989; Hunter and Ralston 1993; McKinlay and Jones 1979). The term “cultural resource management,” or CRM, has been used in the United States for more than two decades. It usually refers to conservation, preservation , protection, and research of archaeological sites and historic buildings (see Fowler 1982; Kerber 1994; Lipe and Lindsay 1974; Smith and Ehrenhard 1991). The concepts and practices of CRM have been developed from concerns over increasing destruction of archaeological sites. Given that cultural resources yield significance for human society and are nonrenewable, it is reasonable that there should be measures focused primarily on maintaining inventory, evaluating and protecting archaeological resources from destruction by either human or natural phenomenon, or rescuing critical information before destruction. In the following section, I examine the historical background of preservation, administration, legislation, and other aspects of the management of cultural resources in Thailand, with the focus on archaeological resources and current protection problems. Archaeological Resource Management in Thailand 177 Historical and Administrative Background Thailand has a long history of cultural development, but the management of cultural resources under a protective framework did not begin until fairly recently . Throughout its history of cultural development, perceptions of the past varied from place to place depending upon influences such as religions, beliefs, and political situations. For example, as Buddhists, Thai people generally perceive the past as something that represents change and the state of becoming. The past may be abandoned quickly and easily. It is expected that new things can be created, invented, or established. Thus, restoration or reconstruction of old pagodas or stupas, pavilions, and other religious buildings is not culturally wrong. Byrne (1995) brilliantly discussed the use of stupa and conservation conflicts in Thailand. Strictly speaking, the past as interpreted by King Rama VI (1910–1925) during his reign was a key tool in building nationalism. He convinced the people to be proud of their culture and past (Vella 1978). Regarding concern about the destruction of cultural heritage in terms of archaeological resource management in the modern sense, the first protection law, Pra Kaad Khet Rang Wat Poo Rai Khut Wat (Proclamation on Temple Boundary and Temple Looters), was issued in 1851, during the reign of King Rama IV (Fine Arts Department [FAD] 1968). The main objective of the law was to prevent temples from being looted. It should be noted that during Rama IV’s reign (1851–1868), Thailand (or Siam, as it was known at that time) was in an early stage of developing international relations. While the king wanted to open the country to forge relationships with developed countries such as the United States, England, and France (see Syamananda 1993), he was aware of the negative side of colonization. For this reason, he saw the past as a way of supporting nation-building or developing a sense of national unity and pride (Syamananda 1993). During his reign, numerous archaeological research projects, including the preparation of museum displays, were carried out. However, since the works were the result of the king’s personal interests, not of government policies, they were conducted only by small elite groups who worked only on royal projects. Nevertheless, the value and meaning of cultural resources were interpreted as important to the nation, deserving protection. The revival of the past was continued during the reign of King Rama V (1868–1910). King Chulalongkorn, as he was also known, was a reformer and a great scholar. He was interested in a variety of disciplines, such...

Share