Using Ockham's Razor with respect to the Ram Khamhaeng Controversy

Using Ockham’s Razor with respect to the Ram Khamhaeng Controversy Barend Jan Terwiel Paper presented during the seminar “Breaking the Bonds” Hamburg, 24-26 November 2006 Revised January 2007 Preamble. If, twenty years ago a commission of specialists in Thai history were to decide which primary document was the most important and influential for Thai history, there can be little doubt but that the Ram Khamhaeng inscription would have been first choice. Not only was this inscription, dated 1292 A.D. the oldest dated document in the Thai writing system, but also its lavish information had determined the historiography of what since the beginning of the twentieth century was called “the Sukhothai-Period”. A special stamp was issued in 1983 at the occasion of commemorating 700 years of Thai writing. That same year the Thai crown princess went around the world and delivered small-scale facsimile copies of the inscription at the chief centres of learning where Thai Studies formed part of the curriculum. Hamburg also received its copy. It had been generally accepted that the inscription was discovered in 1833 by the young Buddhist monk who 18 years later would become King Mongkut, that this monk had immediately moved the object to Bangkok and that three years later a committee of Thai scholars began the process of deciphering. Various stages of this decipherment were published, in 1857, 1863, 1884, 1898, 1909 until an authoritative version by George Coedès appeared in 1924. A good overview of the history of decipherment can be found in A. B. Griswold and Prasert na Nagara, “The Inscription of King Rama Gamhèn of Sukhodaya (1292 A.D.)”, Epigraphic and Historical Studies No. 9, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 59, Pt. 2, 1971, pp. 179-228. Small improvements were introduced in more recent translations. The inscription consists of no less than 111 lines of text. It describes a paternalistic, well-governed, justly-administered, devout, happy and prosperous society. A large section of the text was copied on a blank wall of Thammasat University in gigantic letters. 1. The challenge It was during July 1987 that the International Conference on Thai Studies was held at what was then my home university, the Australian National University in Canberra. One of the longer papers presented at that conference was by Michael Vickery. It was entitled The Ram Khamhaeng Inscription: A Piltdown Skull of Southeast Asian History? (The question mark in the title was purely rhetorical). Michael Vickery, “The Ram Khamhaeng Inscription: A Piltdown Skull of Southeast Asian History?”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Thai Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra, 3-6 July, 1987, Vol 1, pp. 191-211. A slightly modified version (omitting Footnote 37 and adding a Table and some Diagrams) was published in Chamberlain (ed.), The Ram Khamhaeng Controversy, Collected Papers, Bangkok, 1991, pp. 3-51. It was THE event of the conference, here a combined audience of Thai specialists representing many academic disciplines heard Vickery argue in great detail that in his opinion the famous inscription must have been written much later than 1292. Vickery had already for a long time publicly expressed his personal opinion that there was something very odd with Inscription 1: several years before I had heard him voice his scepticism during a lecture in which he told that the writing of the vocal signs “i” and “u” on the same level as the consonants represented not only a break with all known Indian-type scripts, but also this feature was not found in later inscriptions. In addition he remarked that the variety of vocal signs is exceptional, and to cap it all, the whole set is used consequently in the text. Such a concern with consequent orthography also is in contrast to all other inscriptions of the 14th century and was interpreted by him as a modern feature. Also in Thailand there had been for some time rumours that there was something very odd with the inscription. The first to voice such doubts was Saeng Monwithun, followed by ciritical remarks in articles by Prida Sichalalai and M. C Chand Chirayu Rajani. Kham Aphiprai rueang Silacaruek Sukhothai Lak thi 1, Bangkok: Sayamsamakhom, P.S. 2533 [The Discussion of the First Sukhothai Inscription, Bangkok: Siam Society, 1990], p.18. As early as 1972 the latter wrote: “...some Thai scholars do not think Ram Khamhaeng set up any inscription at all,…”. M.C. Chand Chirayu Rajani, in his review of A.B. Griswold, Towards a History of Sukhodaya Art, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 60, Pt. 2 July 1972, p. 264. In Vickery’s first Piltdown contribution of 1987 he argues a series of additional pieces of evidence supporting his idea that the inscription had been written much later than the 13th century. Hereby he used arguments from various disciplines. Some of these arguments were presented so convincingly as to trigger off an international debate. Vickery’s additional arguments were in short: The two tonal signs in the Ram Khamhaeng inscription are everywhere where needed (in later inscriptions these are only gradually adopted). Some very complex vocal signs are used in Ram Khamhaeng, not in later ones. They also can be seen as anachronistic, as a modern feature. In the Inscription an obsolete letter, best known to us as kho-khuat (in older texts only known to us in very few Thai words) was applied incongruously often. This would seem to be a deliberate archaism and could be interpreted as a sign of the inscription being a deliberate fake. In the description of Sukhothai the town is mentioned as having a tripura, literally: three surrounding walls. Archaeologists agree that the three walls of Sukhothai were not in place before the sixteenth century. At the end of the thirteenth century there was only one wall. Vickery comes to the conclusion that Inscription Number 1 is a deliberate historical fake. In this first stage of the debate he was of the opinion that the inscription had to be dated at least to the seventeenth century. Later he shifted the proposed date of manufacture forward to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century. 2. The first reactions The reception during the conference was hesitant. Some recalled that Vickery had once written a scholarly paper rejecting the early date of another famous text, Lithai’s Traiphūmikāthā, but that his argumentation had not been accepted by several scholars in the field. Michael Vickery, “Note on the Date of the Traibhūmikathā”, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 62, Pt. 2, July 1974, pp. 275-284. For a discussion on this topic, see Frank E. Reynolds and Mani B. Reynolds (trsls.), Three Worlds according to King Ruang, A Thai Buddhist Cosmology, Berkeley: University of California, 1982, pp. 353-355. In the first discussion two camps could already be discerned. On the one side there were those who were shocked, but also thrilled by the unmasking of what would seem to be a major hoax and by the idea that major parts of Thai history would have to be rewritten. On the other side there were those who were intrigued but sceptical or unconvinced (William Gedney later coined the terms “devils” and “angels” to describe these two sides). It was straight away pointed out to Vickery by the “angels” that the complete use of the tonal marks, the vocal signs on one line as well as the multitude of new vocal signs could all be correlated with a statement in the inscription itself, namely that this type of script was new, and that these written symbols did not exist prior to Ram Khamhaeng. Other parts of Vickery’s argumentation was formulated in such a complex way that he could not be dismissed off-hand. The over-use of the letter kho-khuat in particular was a difficult matter. In order to form an opinion on the over-use of that letter one would not only have to study the inscription, but also have knowledge of the late-13th century Sukhothai dialect, a field on which almost nobody could give a scientific opinion. As for the alleged anachronism of the tripura, this would have to be commented upon by local epigraphists with archaeological knowledge. 3. The first Rebuttals Not long after Piltdown 1 had been launched Anthony Diller reacted on that part of Vickery’s paper that touched on the use of the kho-khuat letter from the perspective of the linguistic discipline. In 1988 the Siam Society Journal published his article “Consonant Mergers and Inscription 1”. Anthony V. N. Diller, “Consonant Mergers and Inscription One”, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 76, 1988, pp. 46-63 Alerted by Vickery that the use of kho-khuat was unusual, he made an inventory of the more than forty occurrences of this consonant in almost twenty lexical items. Diller found out that in certain Tai languages as spoken in present-day Vietnam, all these items are pronounced with a glottal sound that differs from other words beginning with “kh”. He came to the conclusion that the use of that special letter would appear to reflect the fact that the 13th-century Sukhothai people also must have made that particular distinction, a feature that subsequently became obsolete among Thai-speakers. The only other possible explanation Diller could come up with was the rather arcane idea that the assumed faker had been in contact with someone who spoke a Tai language where this sound difference existed. The evidence regarding the three walls of Sukhothai was addressed by Prasert na Nakhon, the most prominent among Thailand’s epigraphists and specialists on Thai inscriptions. He declared that the word tripura does not necessarily have to be understood in its literal meaning of “three walls”, but that it was used as a symbolical term for “a strong wall”. Prasert na Nagara, “To rueang Caruek Phokhun Ram Khamhaeng” [Disputing the Inscription of King Ram Khamhaeng], Sinlapawathanatham, Chabap Phiset Caruek Phokhun Ram Khamhaeng, Khrai Taeng kan nae?, 2531 [Special Issue of Art and Culture: The Inscription of Ram Khamhaeng, who really wrote it? 1988], pp. 86-93; see also Prasert na Nagara, “Kham Aphiprai Silacaruek Lak thi 1 Cing rue Plom?” [Discussing Inscription No. 1, is it Real or Fake?], in Ngan Caruek lae Prawatsat khong Satsachan Dr. Prasoet na Nakhon ruapruam lae catphim nueang nai Okat Chalong 6 Rop Satsachan Dr. Prasoet na Nakhon 21 Minakhom 2534 [Works on Inscriptions and History of Professor Dr. Prasert na Nagara collected on the occasion of his 72nd birthday, 21 March 1991], pp. 100-113. 4. The extensive Debates. The controversy gained much publicity when in July 1988 the Journal Sinlapawathanatham [Art and Culture] issued a special volume on the issue in the form of a debate. In this book the role of chief defendant of the authenticity of the inscription was Prasert na Nagara while Nithi Aewsriwong is presented as the main advocatus diaboli, assisted in this role by Michael Wright. The views of Suriyawut Suksawat and Thawat Punnothok (both on the side of the “angels”) complete the issue. Suchit Wongthes, who edited the volume, refrains from taking sides. Sinlapawathanatham, Chabap Phiset Caruek Phokhun Ram Khamhaeng, Khrai Taeng kan nae?, 2531, mentioned above. In August 1988 the well-known Thai art historian Piriya Krairiksh caused an éclat when he presented a paper at the Siam Society and later that year also at Thammasat University in which he claimed to have new evidence of the late date of the inscription, based on his interpretation of the monuments and statues mentioned in Ram Khamhaeng’s text. Piriya’s first article in which he wrote about his misgivings as to the early date had already appeared in 1986 in the journal Muang Boran, but had received little notice. Piriya differed from Vickery in that he adhered to the bold theory that the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription must have been the brainchild of the same person who had claimed to have found it in 1833, namely Prince Mongkut, who in 1851 ascended the throne and reigned until his death in 1868. Piriya was of the opinion that the inscription was a document created by a brilliant and enlightened prince to teach how the country should be governed. He made his argument plausible by pointing out that Mongkut was unusual for his time in that he was keenly interested in various scripts. Piriya claimed that Mongkut used text fragments from a number of fourteenth century inscriptions to concoct the document. While these papers were presented in 1988, Piriya’s main hypothesis was published in the following year in book-form: Piriya Krairiksh, Caruek Phokhun Ram Khamhaeng, Kanwikhro choeng Prawatsat Sinlapa, Bangkok: Amarin, 2532 [The Inscription of King Ram Khamhaeng, An Analysis from the Perspective of the History of Art, 1989]. While Vickery at first published in English, Piriya debated and published on his hypothesis in Thai. This was a brave act considering the Thai academic scene of the time. Many powerful figures in the establishment considered it a shocking thought that the revered great-grandfather of the king may have organised such a deception and that all school textbooks that refer to the reign of the great Ram Khamhaeng would have to be altered. In later publications Piriya came up with many additional arguments, many of these deal with perceived anomalies and hidden clues. Piriya comes up with some very original pieces of evidence, some of them inspired by the idea that the whole text has two levels. Thus he found in the king’s writings the sentence: “All is not what it seems.” Piriya took this to be Mongkut’s gentle hint that the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription was not really of 13th century provenance. In addition Piriya tells us that the Chulasakarat dates in the Inscriptions really refer to episodes in the life of Prince Mongkut, also revealed to us in a hidden way, when reading the dates as if they were counted in the Christian Era. In one of his later publications Piriya reports that he had discovered a number of revealing anachronisms, some of them in the Buddhist sections of the text. Thus, for example Piriya opines that the Buddhists did not know in the 13th century the idea of a public bell, to be rung by someone demanding justice. Peter Skilling, an authority in his field, tested all relevant pieces of evidence from Buddhist texts and found that a thorough check of the Buddhist scriptures belied all Piriya’s assumptions. Peter Skilling, ”Bunds, Bells, and Bazaars; Note on the Vocabulary of Inscription I”, Catusansaniyachan, Bangkok, 2004, pp. 294-321. As a result of the ensuing doubts on the inscription’s authenticity during the late 1980s and early 1990s several public discussions and a panel in an international conference were organised and dozens of scholars took sides in the debate. Apart from the special issue of Sinlapawathanatham two further publications arose from public discussion on the topic in Thailand. The first was the transcript of the debate led by M. C. Suphatradit Diskun, Prasert na Nagara and M. R. W. Suphawat Kasemsri, published by the Samakhom Borankhadi haeng Prathet Thai, Khamaphiprai Silacaruek Lak thi 1 Cing rue Plom? [The National Archaeological Society of Thailand, The Discussion on whether the First Inscription is Real or Fake, Bangkok: March 1989].The second publication gives the text of the meeting organised in 1990 by the Bangkok Bamnk, presided over by Princess Kalayani Vadhana. Kham Aphiprai rueang Silacaruek Sukhothai Lak thi 1, already mentioned in Footnote 3, above. Various papers on the issue presented at a panel during the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies in Washington D.C., on March 17, 1989 (during which also Vickery’s Piltdown 2 was presented), were printed in Chamberlain’s, The Ram Khamhaeng Controversy. It is here not the place to sketch all the confrontations, the claims, counter-claims, refutations and disagreements. In general it would seem that Vickery and Piriya and those who straight away had accepted their challenge could not succeed in bringing up a single piece of evidence that could withstand the scrutiny of leading specialists. In some argumentations they were forced to add a number of assumptions, some of them – in my opinion - decidedly weakening their position. It could also be noted that the number of scholars who were convinced that the inscription was of recent manufacture did not grow beyond those who had stated their opinion in 1988. In three aspects of the “devils’” reasoning I have noted that they became much pressed for an answer: 1. The kho khuat enigma, elucidated by Diller in the article mentioned above, forced Vickery to concede that (since he is convinced we are dealing with a fake) the faker must have been in contact with a speaker of a dialect that made the relevant sound distinction. However, he could come up with no plausible explanation why the presumed faker would go to the trouble to study such a dialect, nor why he would find it necessary to introduce this feature in the inscription. 2. The argument that the faker used fragments of 14th century inscriptions to concoct the faked text, much used by Piriya, was countered by the observation that during the middle of the nineteenth century when the Inscription No 1 was in existence none of the 14th century inscriptions had been found. Indeed, some of the texts that have very similar sentences were first discovered in the twentieth century. In the later-discovered inscriptions we find confirmation of historical names such as that of Ram Khamhaeng’s father and brother. This could be interpreted as solid proof of the authenticity of the document, were it not that the proponents of the fake theory do not consider this to be an option. In order to counter this argument the “devils” reacted with the rather lame reasoning that although some texts were officially discovered at a recent date, these must have been known among scholars well before their formal date of discovery. 3. Neither Vickery nor Piriya have come up with a plausible historical context for the alleged recent manufacture of the inscription. Surely there would have been many practical difficulties for King Mongkut or any other late-eighteenth or nineteenth century faker to complete such a project without attracting attention. The problem of procuring a suitable stone of such a large size should not be underestimated. Neither is it likely that someone would devise an “archaic” script without it leaving a trace of the process. As for King Mongkut, it seems utterly out of character that he would deceive his intimate family and friends by pretending he could at first not read his own inscription. How is it possible for a Thai king to devise such a spectacular hoax and execute it without it being known to scholar of his time? From what we know of his character, he seems to have been keen to impress a foreign visitors with proof of his scientific achievements. See, for example the account of the audience, granted to the American envoy Townsend Harris on May 31, 1856 in Mario Emilio Cosenza (ed.), The Complete Journal of Townsend Harris, First American Consul General and Minister to Japan, New York: Japan Society, 1930, pp. 159-162. To cap it all, when the stone had been studied by various scholars for some twenty years and he personally presented a transliteration of some names in the first line of the inscription to Sir John Bowring, he misread the name of the Ram Khamhaeng’s father. See the faximile reproduction, entitled “Specimen of ancient Siamese Inscription – about A.D. 1284” in John Bowring, The Kingdom and People of Siam, Vol. 1, Singapore: Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints, 1969 [1857], opp. p. 278. [This is part of the transcription of the first 14 lines of the Ram Khamhaeng inscription, published in 1857, with English translations of parts of the first line in King Mongkut’s own handwriting] Both Vickery and Piriya continue to hold on to their assumption that the inscription is a recent piece of work. Vickery, whilst not formally adhering to the idea that Mongkut was the faker, has put the time of the construction of the text forward to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century. Michael Vickery, “Piltdown 3: Further Discussion of the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription,” Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 88, 1995, pp. 103-198. One of the most recent articles dealing with the controversy was written by the gifted columnist Michael Wright. As mentioned above, from the outset Wright has been on the side of those who are convinced of the fake theory. In his contribution he summarizes the gist of what convinced him of the inscription being of recent date. Michael Wright, “A Pious Fable Reconsidered, the Inscription 1 Controversy: A Demonic View”, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 83, Pt. 1-2, pp. 93-102. Apart from mentioning that the form of the letters sets the inscription apart and his belief that a faker could easily have copied whole phrases from other inscriptions (even though historians have pointed out over and again that these were not available in the nineteenth century), he poses some original points. Thus he notes that the beginning sections are written in a style that appears to him remarkably childish and repetitive. This indeed raises an interesting point. At the beginning of 2006 I used a good rubbing of the original text of the inscription’s face 1 as teaching material, and together with some of my students we tackled the text without the benefit of modern transcriptions. This was an interesting experience, as we proceeded to lines three and four, all students found the exercise becoming easier and easier, simply because of the frequent repetition of sections of text. While I admire Michael Wright’s perspicacity in identifying this feature, it should be noted that I do not follow him in the idea that this points to the text being written by a forger. Instead I believe there is a very good reason for this hitherto rather neglected aspect as I hope to show in a few minutes. Michael Wright adds that he finds it strange also that other inscriptions (copies?) are mentioned in the text. Indeed this reference has puzzled all translators, it remains rather enigmatic and has not been taken sufficiently into account. I shall refer to it below. 5 The Stalemate The debate on Inscription 1 went to and fro, with ever more complex articles, convoluted argumentations and long excursions into imaginary scenarios while attempting to counter accusations from the opposition. The was no sign of a conclusion of the debate, rather each side expanded earlier points and restated former opinions even more decidedly. A good example of the way the debate churns over the same issues is Vickery’s Piltdown number 3, where he produces almost a hundred pages of text, explaining how the fake theory still stands. M.Vickery, Piltdown 3. Further Discussion of the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 83, Pt. 1-2, 1995, pp. 93-102. Already in 1990 Chirapon Aranyanak, a conservation scientist of the National Museum reported that he had examined five Sukhothai inscriptions, including Inscription 1, with a scanning electron microscope and an energy dispersive x-ray spectrometer in order to decide when the stone was cut. Kham Aphiprai rueang Silacaruek Sukhothai Lak thi 1, pp. 84-89. He concluded that all five were cut in the same period between 700 and 500 years ago. Hereupon the “angels” declared themselves the winners of the debate. Eventually they proceeded with lodging a formal nomination of the King Ram Khamhaeng Inscription in the UNESCO Memory of the World Register. Lodged by Pongpol Adireksarn, the Thai Education Minister and Chairman of the Thai National Commission for UNESCO on 19 January 2003, and accepted in the Register on 3 September of that year.. The “devils” scrutinised the technical report and came to the conclusion that the actual wording of the scientific results left sufficient doubt and they did not change their opinion. I suggest that it is high time to apply Ockham’s Razor. This refers to a method, attributed to Friar William Ockham who lived in the first half of the 14th century. Using Ockham’s Razor refers to the principle of parsimony in scientific theory, or finding an explanation whilst making use of as few assumptions as possible. In other words when a simple reasoning accounts for a phenomenon, the more convoluted reasoning should be rejected Ockham inspired me to do what appears to have been lacking hitherto: namely to list those points that gave rise and continues to give rise to the proposition that we are dealing with a recently created fake, the remaining enigmas, and then proceed to see if there is a hitherto overlooked factor that helps explain these features. Without prejudicing the outcome of the exercise I propose first to list six features that have been puzzling various researchers, and then follow this up with a re-examination of the very reason why the inscription was made. It is then proposed to present a single factor that would account for all six conundrums. TABLE 1 Six Enigmatic Features of Inscription 1 1. All letters on one line 4. Language on Side 1 remarkably simple and repetitive 2. Very complex set of new vowels 5. Unusual square shape 3. Tonal signs consequently applied 6. Three other texts mentioned that were set up in other places 6. Re-examining the inscription’s purpose The reason why the Inscription was written has been debated from the time the first tentative translations were made. Father Schmitt thought the purpose was to record Ram Khamhaeng’s administrative constitution. Le Père Schmitt, Deux anciennes inscriptions siamoises transcrites et traduites par M. Schmitt, Saigon, 1885. Cornelius Bradley in 1909 expressly rejects the idea that it was primarily a legal document, and comes up with the thought that here we have a personal account by Ram Khamhaeng of those things he deemed most memorable during his reign. Georges Coedès in his first improved translation of 1918 was the opinion that the formal purpose of the inscription was the inauguration of the stone throne, on which the king sat and held court. It should not be overlooked that he was not fully convinced that he had identified the real reason for he writes that he is almost certain: “Il est à peu près certain qu’elle a pour objet de commémorer l’inauguration du Trône de Pierre…” G. Coedès, “Notes critiques sur l’inscription de Rama Khamheng”, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 12, Pt 1, 1918, p. 21.. Later scholars did not hold such doubts, and it has been widely accepted, even by Vickery, that the purpose of the Inscription had been settled as having been made as an accompaniment to the new throne. The arguments in favour of such a purpose, namely the proximity between the throne and the inscription, as well as the segment of text telling about the important use of the throne on ordinary days by the king, on special Buddhist days by a monk both appear logical. Recently, however, Hans Penth has rejected the throne inauguration purpose. He proposes instead that the purpose is a eulogy of King Ram Khamhaeng. Hans Penth, „Difficulties with Inscription No. 1”, in Chamberlain, The Ram Khamhaeng Controversy, pp. 523-551. This is the point where I would like to pose three statements that may contribute to the general debate: First, it may be a vain search to look for THE chief purpose of the inscription. Instead it could be helpful to recognise multiple reasons: Many lines of Inscription 1 contain material pointing to a eulogy of Ram Khamhaeng as an unusual person, but also there is a record of legal matters (particularly side 1, line 18 to side 2 line 8). The document also contains a guide to religious norms, it lists various ethical matters including an admonition not to overlook propitiation of the chief spirit of the mountain. The establishment and use of the important throne I see as part of the exhortative and instructive features of the document. It should be stressed, however, that one purpose is not in the way of others. I propose here to add another chief purpose, one that I believe has up till now been once mentioned in passing by Bradley in 1909. C. B. Bradley, „The Oldest Known Writing in Siamese; the Inscription of Phra Ram Khamhaeng of Sukhothai, 1293 A. D., Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 6, Pt 1, 1909, pp. 22-24. This hitherto neglected purpose takes into account all features in Table 1 that have given rise to the controversy. This neglected purpose is specifically mentioned near the end of the text and concerns the inauguration of Ram Khamhaeng’s new form of writing. In other words, the text has a very specific pedagogical purpose, it inaugurates a major spelling reform. Although Ram Khamhaeng’s inscription is the oldest dated Thai inscription, I agree with Hans Penth that we may safely assume that Thai was written before Inscription 1, and that this was done in a script very much like some post-Ram Khamhaeng inscriptions of the early fourteenth century (it is possible to single out a series of archaic features for the Ram Khamhaeng innovations were at first accepted only piecemeal). On Inscription I it is formally stated that many characters did not exist, that Ram Khamhaeng set his mind to it and devised these letters. These Thai letters exist because that lord devised them (Side 4 lines 8-11). The invention of a set of new letters needs to be assessed in its historical context. This occurs some fifty years after the conquest of Sukhothai, directly following a time of a massive political expansion of these Thais. They had learnt to speak and write Khmer, and on its basis they had created a simplified script with which to write Thai words. Now the local Khmer script is quite unsuited to adequately write Thai. Khmer has no tones, it uses different consonant clusters and has much less vowels than Thai. It was when Sukhothai was firmly in Thai hands and the region had established its long-distance trade, that Ram Khamhaeng tackled the problem of how to adequately write Thai. This was no mere hobby by a clever ruler: it must be seen as a political event of the first order. With the new script the Thais set themselves apart from the cultural donors the Khmer. The new script celebrates the fact that the Thais are there to stay, that they are confident. A whole new set of symbols represent the Thai way of slurred vowels, like uea, iau and aeu. Ram Khamhaeng at the same time invented a way to indicate the various tonal distinctions, a feature never before applied to an Indian script. He even made space for the tonal signs by writing all vowels on the same line with consonants. Those among us who are aware of case histories of spelling reforms in modern times know it is one thing to create a set of innovations in spelling, it is quite another to have them accepted. Therefore it should not surprise us that some features, such as writing vowels on one line, were not adopted, and other innovations only gradually found their way in later inscriptions. The invention of the new features in writing Thai words explain the first three of the enigmatic features of Table 1. It is here proposed that Ram Khamhaeng wrote the first three sides Scholars are all agreed that at first only three sides of the stone were covered with writing. of Inscription 1 with the specific aim of introducing and propagating his improved script. The location, next to the throne where state matters were discussed and where on some special days monks were allowed to sit, is a proper place where Ram Khamhaeng can explain his improvements, where he can also ask various literate persons to demonstrate to him that they can actually read the text. The inscription when looked at as a text to teach the new letters to a reading public helps explain the enigmatic features 4, 5 and 6. The unusual shape may well have been devised so as to maximise the exposure of the new type of letters, all people located near the throne would be able to notice the beautifully executed engravings. The first three inscribed sides, and later a fourth also filled with text make it an ideal medium to be read by several persons simultaneously. The inventor sat on ordinary days close to it: is it too adventurous to suggest that the king could at any moment ask a member of the reading public to demonstrate that he could read the new characters? A teaching text would help explain the rather childish repetitions on side 1. Simple sentences help the Thais at the end of the thirteenth century to get used to the drastically novel way of writing their own language. Finally, while most inscriptions are written for a unique purpose and be displayed only in one spot, it is only natural to display copies of an inscription that has at its chief purpose to propagate a new script, so that even enigmatic aspect no. 6 is explained by taking the pedagogical aim into account. I therefore propose that by opening the pedagogical dimension, Ockham’s Razor can be applied, all perceived anomalies are solved and the Ram Khamhaeng debate can be closed. 7. Concluding remarks Looking back on the twenty years of the Ram Khamhaeng debate we have seen the most intensive scrutiny of a document that ever took place in Thai history. It caused vivid and heated discussions, whereby the Thai academic world showed a refreshing open-mindedness and a thorough covering by the media. The remarkable duration of the debate is directly connected with the circumstance that the chief proponents of the hypothesis that we were dealing with a recent fake remain passionately attached to their hypothesis. This seems to be related to each of their personalities. Vickery, Piriya, Chamberlain, Nidhi, and Michael Wright are very distinct people with distinct skills, but they have one thing in common: they love a maverick idea, they like to shake up an encrusted set of beliefs. Indeed, it would have been the éclat of the century if they had been able to find a single piece of evidence establishing without doubt that we were dealing with a modern text and at various stages of the debate it would appear that they had found something conclusive. I end it by stating that thanks to the twenty years of discussions, the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription is now also the most keenly studied, scrutinized and analyzed primary document of Thai history. Witness the CD entitled Pramuan Khomun kiaw kap Caruek Phokhun Ram Khamhaeng, issued without date by the National Library office of the Fine Arts Department. For that we thank in the first place Michael Vickery and Piriya Krairiksh for their spirited defence of what I believe to be an untenable position. If the contribution in this paper will be judged to have merit, it was inspired and stimulated by their unrelenting critical stance. 14