Administrative Position and Paik System in Ahom Kin gdom 1228-1826 CE.

Main Article Content

Kanopporn Wongkalasin

Abstract

The paper discusses the administrative strategy of Ahom, Tai race, who settled in the land of Kamarup in India. Though the kingdom had scaled great heights in political management over them. The kingdom’s reign lasted for 600 years and stood among brave tribes which led to the present of study the Ahom administrative position and enrolled adult male subject or paik. Paik had significance for the country and as an index of government officer hierarchy. The comparison between paik and Thai prie from a feudalist view point was included in this study. Administrative power spread from the center through all directions in the state. The highest rank or ministers on from the very first day of Ahom’s government, were Chao Taoluang and Tao Prongmuang and in later eras 3 more ministers were announced; Chaosunglung, Pukanluang and Taomuang. Pukanluang or Barpukan who protected the kingdom’s boundary and were the king’s deputy. Ministers had a line of authority in different hierarchies according to their duties and areas of responsibility. During enrolled period, every paik practiced both civil and military. The number of paiks in territorial guild or khel were explained by the official ranking. Paik and prie explicated the difference and similarity. In view of human value, paik was admired and honoured while a wrist tattoo presented the enrollment and society strata of prie. Thus both men were the index of a feudalist society. The article introduces this Tai branch through administrative management and paik system which were the strength of kingdom. 


 

Downloads

Article Details

How to Cite
Wongkalasin, K. (2017). Administrative Position and Paik System in Ahom Kin gdom 1228-1826 CE. Journal of Liberal Arts Thammasat University, 17(2), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.14456/lartstu.2017.13
Section
Academic Articles

References

ขจร สุขพานิช. (2519). ฐานันดรไพร่. กรุงเทพฯ: สมาคมสังคมศาสตร์แห่งประเทศไทย.

จิตร ภูมิศักดิ์. (2550). โฉมหน้าศักดินาไทย. กรุงเทพฯ: ภูมิปัญญา.

ฉัตรทิพย์ นาถสุภา และเรณู วิชาศิลป์. (2552). การศึกษาประวัติศาสตร์อาหม. กรุงเทพฯ: สร้างสรรค์.

ปิยะฉัตร ปิตะวรรณ. (2526). ระบบไพร่ในสังคมไทย พ.ศ. 2411-2453. กรุงเทพฯ: มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์.

พรพิรมย์ เอี่ยมธรรม. (2527). ไพร่ในสมัยอยุธยา. ในฉัตรทิพย์ นาถสุภา และสมภพ มานะรังสรรค์ (บรรณาธิการ), ประวัติศาสตร์เศรษฐกิจไทยจนถึง พ.ศ. 2484 (น. 7-87). กรุงเทพฯ: มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์.

Baruah, S.L. (1985). A Comprehensive History of Assam. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Bhuyan, Surya K. (1933). Tungkhungia Buranji. Calcutta: Oxford University Press.

______. (1969). Satsari Assam Buranji. Gauhati: Division.

______. (1985). Studies in the History of Assam. Gauhati: Omsons.

Choudhury, Pratap. (1991). ‘The Brahmaputra Valley: Tt’s Civilization’. In Saikia, Nagen.(Ed.), Assam and the Assamese Mind. Jorhat: Nabajiban.

Gait, Edward. (2005). A History of Assam. Guwahati: LBS.

Hazarika, Nilam. (2015). A Study in the Ahom Military Syatem in Medieval Assam. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 4(6), 17-22.

Ghosh, Lipi. (2007). Tai Cultural Matrix in Indian History: A Study of Tai-Ahom Heritage in Northeast India. Prachya A Journal on Asia: Past & Present, 2, 32-56.

Phukan, J. N. (2007). ‘The Tai-Ahom Power in Assam’. In Barpujari, H.K.(Ed.), The Comparative History of Assam Vol. II. Guwahati: Publication Board Assam.

Saikia, Nagen. (1980). Assam and the Assamesse Mind. Jorhat: Asam Sahitya Sabha.

Saikia, Sayeeda Yasmin. (1997). In the Meadows of Gold. Guwahati: Spectrum.

Sarkar, J.N. (2007). ‘The Ahom Admistration’. In Barpujari, H.K.(Ed.), The Comparative History of Assam Vol. III. Guwahati: Publication Board Assam.

Singh, B.P. (1998). Indian’s Culture: The State, the arts and Beyond. New Dehli: Oxford University.