Concubines With Cameras: Royal Siamese Consorts Picturing Femininity and Ethnic Difference in Early 20th Century Siam

8/11/2019 Concubines With Cameras: Royal Siamese Consorts Picturing Femininity and Ethnic Difference in Early 20th Centu…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/concubines-with-cameras-royal-siamese-consorts-picturing-femininity-and-ethnic 1/28

Concubines with Cameras: Royal Siamese ConsortsPicturing Femininity and Ethnic Difference in Early 20

Century SiamLeslie Woodhouse

Volume 2, Issue 2: Women’s Camera Work: Asia, Spring 2012

Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.7977573.0002.202 [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.7977573.0002.202]

[http://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tapic/x-7977573.0002.202-00000001/1?

subview=detail;view=entry]

All images courtesy of the National Archive of Thailand unless otherwise

noted.

WHO is the woman in this early 20 -century Siamese photograph? Is the scene a tableau taken in an elite woman’s

toilette, as one source suggests? [1] [#N1] Where and when was this image captured, and by whom? What do we make

of her style of dress, the dressing table, and her amazingly long hair? The answers to these questions provide not

only a rare glimpse inside the rarefied atmosphere of the Siamese king’s harem on the cusp of the twentieth

century, and the lives of the women who lived there, but also new insights into the social and historical significance

of elite photography in Bangkok at the turn of the twentieth century.

As it happens, the above image is that of a royal consort, taken by a royal consort. This photograph was taken

during the period often referred to as Siam’s “Fifth Reign,” which lasted from 1868–1910. Those familiar with the

era of Thai history know of King Chulalongkorn’s passion for photography, which was shared by many other

Siamese elite males. But few know that photography was practiced by a number of the king’s concubines and

female children as well. The photographer in this instance was Chao Chom (royal consort) Erb Bunnag, descendant

of a family which had been prominent in Siamese politics since the sixteenth century. The photograph’s subject is

another royal consort, Princess (later High Queen) Dara Rasami, who had come to Siam’s royal harem from the

neighboring kingdom of Lan Na (today’s northern Thailand), and whose long hair signals her ethnic distinction

from the Siamese. In this article, I will discuss how this photograph provides historical insights on several levels.

Firstly, it evidences the photographic activities of a handful of female elites in Siam around the turn of the

twentieth century, and their role in representing royal women, who had heretofore been hidden behind palace

walls, visually to a Siamese viewing public. Secondly, the image reflects the ways in which the roles of Siam’s palace

women were shifting in tandem with changes to Siam’s political structure, and the attendant evolution of Siamese

elite women from producers of elite culture to consumers and arbiters of taste. Lastly, these images serve to

illustrate how Dara Rasami’s gender and ethnic difference figured into the “crypto-colonial”[2] [#N2] discourses of

th

th

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tap/7977573.0002.202?view=text;rgn=main#N2


http://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tapic/x-7977573.0002.202-00000001/1?subview=detail;view=entry

http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.7977573.0002.202

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tap/7977573.0002.2*?rgn=main;view=fulltext

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tap/7977573.0002?rgn=main;view=fulltext



Siam’s elites, and the deployment of photography within a larger project of delineating and reinforcing the

boundaries of what was “siwilai” (“civilized”) and what was not.

The Fifth Reign is celebrated by contemporary Thais as a time when Siam managed to fend off colonization by

European powers, and its elites undertook the modernization of the country. A number of scholars have analyzed

the techniques deployed by Siamese elites in representing their civilization as ‘modern’ to European standards, or

“siwilai” : Mapping (Thongchai 1999), palace architecture, art collecting, dress and photography (Peleggi 2002).

More recently, Herzfeld has brought a new analysis of the significance of these activities to bear in his conception of

Siam as a state marked by “crypto-colonialism,” which he describes as “the curious alchemy whereby certain

countries... were compelled to acquire their political independence at the expense of massive economic

dependence, this relationship being articulated in the iconic guise of aggressively national culture fashioned to suit

foreign models.” [3] [#N3]

While these scholars provide important context for the period under analysis in this article, none discusses the role

of the royal harem, or “Inner Palace,” in tracing the Siamese construction of crypto-colonialism or siwilai . By

examining the photographic activities of a particular royal consort, Erb Bunnag, I intend to demonstrate that

palace womens’ photography was not a mere curiosity of nineteenth-century Siamese elite culture, but rather

reflective of a significant moment in Thailand’s cultural and political history. During the same era in which royal

concubinage was losing ground politically, it was rapidly morphing—via photographic imagery—into a powerful

tool of crypto-colonial discourse. At the same time, as Siam grappled with the new ideologies of imperialism and

racial inferiority espoused by European colonial nations, a Siamese ‘hierarchy of civilizations’ became necessary,

and Erb’s photographs of the ethnically different Princess Dara Rasami illustrate one means of its construction. In

this context, Erb’s photographs served to not only render palace women visible to the general viewing public of

Siam for the first time, but also to showcase royal women as exemplars of “modern” (read: Western) femininity—

and to locate certain consorts in a new siwilai hierarchy. Via their adoption of Western cultural markers of dress,

accessory objects, and leisure activities, palace women were re-made into crypto-colonial icons of eliteness for a

growing Bangkok bourgeoisie.

Political Prominence of the Bunnag Family and the Roles of Palace Consorts

[http://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tapic/x-7977573.0002.202-00000002/1?subview=detail;view=entry]

Figure 1. Erb Bunnag (L) taking a portrait of her father, Tet Bunnag (R), ca. 1905.

Erb Bunnag was one of 153 women who served as a royal consort to Siam’s King Chulalongkorn, who reigned from

1868 to 1910. As a Bunnag, Erb was a member of a clan which had had been closely linked to the Siamese crown in

various official capacities since the early sixteenth century.[4] [#N4] Erb’s uncle, Chuang Bunnag had been one of

King Mongkut’s highest-ranking ministers, serving after the king’s death in 1868 as regent for Prince

Chulalongkorn until he came of age in 1872—effectively ruling the kingdom for four years. Erb’s father, Tet, was

governor of the family’s home province, Petchaburi. Thus Erb’s family was particularly prominent both at court in

Bangkok and in local political life.Bunnag women had been linked maritally to the Siamese royal family since the later sixteenth century, during the

Ayutthayan era (1350–1767). By the nineteenth century, the Bunnag family’s political clout was better represented

among the population of the king’s concubines than ever before. Among the 153 women who served as royal

consorts in Chulalongkorn’s reign, a total of fifteen came from various branches of the Bunnag family; seven were






Tet’s daughters. Of these seven, five were known as “Kok Oh” or “the Oh Clique.” This group, comprised of five

sisters born to Tet and his wife Lady Oo between 1868–1887, was called the “Oh Clique” because their names all

began with the same letter: their mother’s first initial, the Thai letter “oh” (!): Ohn ("!#), Iem ($"%&'), Erb ($()),

Aab (!*)), and Uen ($+!#). [5] [#N5]

The shared letter of the sisters’ names hints at another aspect of elite Siamese family life: polygyny. The “oh”

beginning their names signaled their descent from Tet’s highest-ranking wife, Lady Oo. But in addition to her, a

total of twenty-nine consorts lived in the Bunnag family compound in Petchaburi[6] [#N6] . Erb’s eldest sister Ohn

Bunnag was the first of the sisters to become a royal consort in 1885, having caught the king’s eye while serving as a

lady-in-waiting in another consort’s household. After giving birth to her first child in 1886 [7] [#N7] , Ohn received her

own residence inside the palace, where her sister Iem came to wait upon her. Five years later (1891), their sister Erb

joined Ohn’s entourage at the age of twelve; the next sister Aab arrived in 1894, joining her elder sisters and young

nieces in Ohn’s residence. Their youngest sister, Uen, did not enter palace service until a full decade later, in 1904.

Like other royal consorts, the Oh Clique lived in the Grand Palace in Bangkok, within the double-walled area called

the “Inner Palace,” the section of the palace reserved for the King’s consorts, their ladies-in-waiting, and their

children—which was forbidden to outsiders. [8] [#N8]

How did the Siamese Inner Palace work, exactly? The institution of the Inner Palace remains poorly understood in

Anglophone scholarship. Anna Leononwens, author of An English Governess at the Siamese Court, famously

described it as the Siamese king’s “harem.” [9] [#N9] However, the use of this term belies the multivalence of the Inner

Palace and its myriad socio-political functions. In addition to creating linkages between local noble families and the

crown, the Inner Palace also assisted in securing the loyalties of neighboring kingdoms, by bringing consorts from

Siam’s peripheries into marital alliances with the king at Siam’s capital “center,” Bangkok. The social advantages of

the Inner Palace were not reserved solely for elite women, however. The palace offered a variety of avenues for

women to improve their standing within Siamese society, even if they were not consorts themselves. Once a royal

consort gave birth to the king’s child, she was awarded her own residence within the palace, where she assembled

her own entourage: ladies-in-waiting, cooks, maids, and servants. [10] [#N10] Women of any social level could fill these

roles, but their attachment to the palace provided great prestige and status.


Figure 2. Kok Oh sisters working in the king’s Dusit palace kitchen. Taken by Erb Bunnag (n.d.).

Additionally, since the space of the Inner Palace was off-limits to men, women handled all the administrative,

judicial, and ceremonial duties there. Although a woman’s family lineage certainly played a part in her status and

title upon entering the palace, it was her own demonstration of initiative in performing her palace duties whichcould bring her promotions in rank and income, as well as royal gifts of luxury items, jewels, and land.

We might understand the Inner Palace as a literal example of Herzfeld’s ‘zone of cultural intimacy,’ in which Siam’s

royalty could obscure part of the apparatus of political power behind palace walls, shielding it from the view of

Siamese commoners and Westerners alike. At the same time, royal consorts enacted ties of kinship between the

palace ‘inside’ and the provinces and vassal states ‘outside’, ensuring the loyalties of Siam’s nobles and tributary

polities, if not its citizens. However, when the thetsaphiban system of administration [11] [#N11] was instituted in 1897,

the kinship ties created by royal concubinage were supplanted by a Western-style, ‘rational’ system of

administrative bureaucracy in the provinces—and the important political roles enacted by consorts began to decline

rapidly in significance. At the same time, however, the increasing visibility of consorts—especially via photography

—served to move royal consorts from an (inner) political realm to an (outer) cultural one, “fus[ing] together

notions of decorum, bodily comportment, sexual mores, and respect for law and order, producing the appearance

of a relatively docile citizenry on which modern nation-state governance depends.”[12] [#N12] Thus even as their

political import was declining, palace women became vehicles for discourses of crypto-colonial cultural mores beyond palace walls.

During this era, royal consorts—their share of the royal aura not yet diminished—were transforming themselves

into exemplars of bourgeois culture. In the interstices between the move away from marital alliance towards the

complete implementation of local, bureaucratic administration, the shift taking place within the Inner Palace












becomes visible through the photography of the era—especially that of royal consorts themselves. As Anne Maxwell

describes in the European context, photography began to turn women into “both the recipients of the consumer

gaze and its perpetuators. ...[T]hey were the main bearers of the new culture of mass consumption...”[13] [#N13] Erb

Bunnag’s status as both royal consort and skilled amateur photographer perfectly embodies that of the elite woman

as both consumer and producer of Siamese “bourgeois” culture—and the standard-bearer of crypto-colonial culture

in early twentieth-century Siam.

Erb Bunnag: Concubine with a Camera inside the Siamese Palace

Following her entry to the palace in 1891, Erb embarked upon a highly successful career as a royal consort, despite

the fact that she did not bear any children to the king. [14] [#N14] Erb’s fortunes took an upward turn in the later

1890s, a period which coincided with the suburbanization of the court. Following the king’s return from European

travels in 1897, he ordered that land be purchased in the Dusit district for the construction of a new residencesimilar to the “garden palaces” he had seen in Europe. There he intended to escape the crowded and overbuilt

space of the old royal palace by creating a park-like landscape, where spacious lawns lined with trees and khlong

waterways separated the residences of the king and his favorite consorts. Upon the completion of the first royal

pavilion at Dusit Park in March of 1899, Erb and the Oh Clique were some of the first royal women to stay there. [15]

[#N15]


Figure 3. Bunnag sisters picking fruit from trees at Dusit.

The Kok Oh sisters became particular favorites of the king, and were appointed to special positions within the

king’s entourage. Erb and her sisters Ohn and Iem were part of a small group of consorts and wives chosen by the

king to accompany him in his travels both at home and abroad. These Oh Clique sisters accompanied the King on

several trips in the early years of the twentieth century, including the king’s 1901 and 1906 trips to Java, Indonesia,

and Singapore; [16] [#N16] a 1902 trip to the summer palace at Ayutthaya, and a tour of Siam’s central provinces in

1906. [17] [#N17]

Consort Erb herself was a particular favorite of the king. Following the king’s move to Vimanmek Mansion at DusitPark in 1902, Erb’s sleeping quarters were relocated to the chamber adjacent to both the king’s bedroom and

wardrobe closet on the third floor.[18] [#N18] Erb was also placed in charge of several special events at the palace, such

as the state visit of a Shan princess from Burma in 1906. [19] [#N19] Though she was never promoted any higher than

the rank of royal consort (Chao Chom), these additional duties improved her standing within the palace, and

ultimately earned her and her sisters a royal grant of land adjacent to Vimanmek Palace in the Dusit district on

which to build their own residence. [20] [#N20]

Starting in the late 1890s, royal women gained access to the same photographic technologies that were popular

among their elite male counterparts at the time. The earliest photographic images of royal women and their

activities in the palace are difficult to date precisely. However, the landscapes visible in the majority of such

photographs of palace women indicate that they were taken on the grounds of Dusit Park—and thus, taken

sometime between 1901 and 1910. These photographs chronicle the activities of the Kok Oh sisters and other high-

status consorts as they engaged in picnics and outdoor meals, bathing in the khlongs, and even photographing each

other. As such, these images reflect the Siamese elites’ adaptation of various European notions of the ‘Victorianecumene’ [21] [#N21] to the Siamese context: eliteness in suburban settings, appropriate leisure activities, and domestic

femininity.














Figure 4. Bunnag women and entourage outdoors at Dusit Palace.


Figure 5. Bunnag sisters and children sharing a meal on the veranda of the king’s residence, Ruen

Ton (“Wooden House”), at Dusit Palace.






Figure 6. Ohn Bunnag (second from L) with daughter Adisai Suriyapha (center) at Ruen Ton

residence, Dusit palace. (N.d).

These activities reflect the court’s regular engagement in leisure pursuits—particularly outdoor activities—similar

to those of their Western elite counterparts. Coincidentally, due to the ideal lighting conditions of the outdoors,

such activities lent themselves to photography as well. Nonetheless, the outdoor nature of many of these activities

did not automatically render them publicly accessible. Despite their suburban spaciousness, the grounds of Dusit

Palace, like those of the “Inside” of the old Grand Palace grounds, were still walled off from the outside, and

remained off-limits to all but the King, his consorts and their children. [22] [#N22] Thus the activities of royal women

were photographed almost exclusively by the consorts themselves.



Figure 7. Aab and Uen Bunnag with meal on the veranda of Ruen Ton

residence, Dusit. (N.d.).






In addition to outdoor activities, consorts also photographed themselves and each other in a variety of domestic

pursuits. Second-youngest Bunnag sister Aab’s culinary talents in the kitchens at the king’s Ruen Ton residence

were documented in a number of photographs. [23] [#N23] We also find images of royal consorts taken inside nearby

Vimanmek Mansion, working at hand embroidery as well as at sewing machines (Figure 9).


Figure 8. Lady Aab Bunnag in the kitchen of Ruen Ton residence at Dusit. (N.d).



Figure 9. Lady Khanomdom Amatyakul using sewing machine at Vimanmek Mansion.

In addition to recording the myriad ways in which women passed their time within the palace, a number of images

record the Bunnag sisters themselves engaged in visits with their high-ranking male relatives—father Tet Bunnag






(whom Erb is photographing in Figure 1) and later, his son and successor, their brother Tien. Images like these

reflect the prominence of family and domestic activities in the daily lives of the Bunnag sisters. However, images

like Erb’s also functioned to free the activities of royal women from the constraints of their walled-off quarters,

rendering them newly accessible to eyes outside the palace. [24] [#N24] As such, these images begin to construct royal

women anew in a ‘modern’ mode consistent with Western mores: as predominantly managers of the ‘private’

domestic domain, and engaged in leisure pursuits available—and appropriate—to the Siamese gentlewoman.

Among the Bunnag sisters who served as royal consorts to King Chulalongkorn, the best-known photographers

were Erb and her sister Uen, as well as Ohn’s daughters Oraprapun Ramphai and Adisai Suriyapha. [25] [#N25] A

number of their photographs of domestic palace life have become familiar to the Thai viewing public at large over

the intervening decades. Probably the most famous of these images is the one taken by Erb of King Chulalongkorn

cooking on the rear porch of his Ruen Ton residence at Dusit. (See Figure 10) In this photo, the king’s attire

greatly contrasts with the uniforms typically worn in his official portraits. Here, he wears no shirt or jacket, but

only a loosely wrapped lower garment called a pha khao ma—an outfit which could be worn by any Siamese

commoner. His pose is casual and unguarded; the king is shown sitting on a chair as he bends intently over a wok,

stirring it with his right hand while he smokes a cigar or cheroot with his left. The overall scene has a relaxed and

contemplative feeling, as if one is present with the king in an intimate domestic moment. It is unsurprising that

this photo is frequently seen today in restaurants throughout Thailand, in the area of the shop reserved for

venerating an image of the king, past or present.[26] [#N26] The intimacy of the image affords the viewer a vicarious

closeness to a much-revered monarch, while simultaneously rendering him all the more human and accessible via

the quotidian quality of his dress and activity.


Figure 10. King Chulalongkorn cooking on the porch of the Ruen Ton residence, opposite Vimanmek

Palace. (Courtesy of the Prince Damrong Library and Archive, Bangkok.).

The Wat Benchamabophit Photography Exhibition and Contest of

1905Up until the first decade of the twentieth century, Erb and other Siamese royals took photographs largely for their

own amusement and viewing. However, in 1905, royal photography became visible to Bangkok’s general public via

a photography contest and exhibition held during the annual temple fair at Wat Benchamabophit.[27] [#N27] This

event rapidly became a major social event where royals and commoners alike could mingle in a carnival-like

atmosphere, and it was attended by thousands of Bangkok’s citizens. The 1904 fair had featured a temporary photo

booth; its popularity with the crowds led to the organization of a photography exhibition and contest at the 1905

fair. [28] [#N28] For this contest, Erb intensified her photographic activity around the palace, a fact reflected by the

sheer volume of her photographs which remain in the archive.

In conjunction with the exhibition and contest, a newspaper was published listing the names of the event’s

“supporters.” From this listing we find that both Erb Bunnag and Dara Rasami served together on the “Division of

Photography” along with one of the king’s elder brothers, who was well-known for his photographic experience.

This was the group in charge of arranging the photography exhibit itself. In addition, Dara Rasami also served as a

senior member of the four-person “Wash and Print” committee headed by one of Chulalongkorn’s daughters,Princess Malini Noppadara, and staffed by two other younger princesses. Thus we can see that both Erb Bunnag

and Dara Rasami were intimately involved with the photographic processes involved in mounting the 1905

exhibition/contest, and that they likely were very familiar with each other as well. As members of this photography

group, Dara Rasami and Erb demonstrated their alignment with the siwilai aims of the palace’s younger









generation.

More importantly, the 1905 contest also represents a likely moment for Erb to have exhibited some of the many

photographs she had taken of her sisters and nieces in the palace, as well as the series of Dara Rasami photographs.

As the contest approached, palace folk residents would have been particularly on the lookout for novel and

aesthetically pleasing subjects to capture with their cameras. Dara Rasami’s presence at Dusit palace provided Erb

with easy access to a rare and exotic ‘foreign’ subject: a “Lao” woman, rarely seen in Bangkok. That Dara Rasami

opted to participate in the photography 1905 contest signals her general support of photography; sitting for Erb’s

camera was likely a small favor to her friend. Nonetheless, the ways in which Erb posed and shot her subject

provide insight into the Siamese view of Dara Rasami’s difference and how it figured into the crypto-colonial

discourse of siwilai .

A Hierarchy of Images: Photography and “Siwilai” in Early 20 -Century SiamSuch images reveal Erb’s familiarity with contemporary European standards of photographic portraiture. As Siam’s

royal elite had been utilizing studio photography with increasing frequency starting in the 1880s, Erb’s vision

developed in tandem with the photographic culture in use all around her in the palace. Posed photographic

portraits had been utilized by the king, his high queens, and children since the 1880s for use in representing the

royalty both within Siam and beyond. Many of these portraits are instructive as to how they reflect the royal

family’s familiarity with the camera, as well as the photographic standards of the time. Take for example several

photographic portraits of Queen Saowapha: her gaze is carefully reserved, directed out of the image frame as

though she is looking into the near distance. Her poses evince studied nonchalance: her body is usually angled

slightly to the camera, while she often holds her hands in gestures seemingly borrowed from European royal

portraits. In one portrait (See Figure 11), she holds a folded fan; in Figure 12, the seated Saowapha holds one

hand under her cheek, seemingly oblivious to the viewer’s existence (even while her husband and five sons look directly at the viewer). [29] [#N29] Saowapha’s poses reflect not only her awareness of the camera’s gaze in the context

of photographic portraiture, but also the agency of the Siamese elite subject in re-directing this gaze. In this

instance, Saowapha’s pose echoes those utilized by European royals, in whose eyes the Siamese wished to be seen

as equals. In tandem with architecture and dress [30] [#N30] , photography became one of several modes of royal self-

representation that the Siamese utilized in their efforts to appear siwilai to both Europeans and Siamese. These

images reflect the deployment of photography as an instrument of crypto-colonial discourse.



Figure 11. King Chulalongkorn and Queen Saowapha, circa 1902.

th







Figure 12. King Chulalongkorn and Queen Saowapha surrounded by their sons. Note Queen

Saowapha’s indirect gaze. [31] [#N31]

These representational practices reflect a visual turn towards the process of “self-civilization” Siam had begun in

the 1850s, when King Mongkut signed a series of unequal treaties with Western nations guaranteeing them

economically advantageous trade in Siam. [32] [#N32] As an exemplar of Herzfeld’s notion of “crypto-colonialism,”

Siam’s nominal independence from formal colonization came at the price of its complicity in the process of

colonizing itself—a thesis familiar to students of Thailand’s “semi-colonial” status. By the turn of the twentieth

century, Siam’s elites had already experienced several decades of “self-civilizing,” an undertaking which Peter

Jackson describes as “...not achieved by applicable processes of ‘emulation’ or ‘cultural knowing’. It was imposed as

an explicit requirement of the regime of capitulations.” [33] [#N33] The Siamese, having witnessed Western willingness

to utilize gunboats in the imposition of “civilization” deemed necessary amongst their neighbors, understood the

implicit threat of not becoming siwilai fast enough. This process began in Siam under King Mongkut,

Chulalongkorn’s father, who in the 1850s established a dress code at court that required Siamese subjects to wear

shirts and shoes, and additionally employed an English governess, Anna Leonowens, to educate his children in both English language and European customs. [34] [#N34]

King Chulalongkorn, like his father, imposed new standards of dress early in his reign, as well as various

rationalizing administrative practices, in order to make Siam siwilai. At the same time, Chulalongkorn instituted

new dress standards for courtiers as well as official ministers and bureaucrats, whose new uniforms blended

Siamese-style trousers (chongkrabaen) and European-style military jacket (a style known as ‘raja pattaen,’

perhaps referencing its similarity to the uniforms utilized by the British colonial Raj in neighboring India, which

Chulalongkorn toured in 1871 [35] [#N35] ). Amongst royal consorts, sartorial style also began to align with European

standards of feminine style: Note Queen Saowapha’s lacy Victorian-style blouse, complete with puffed sleeves and

ropes of pearls (Figures 11 &12 ). Such blended styles reflect the Siamese attunement to Western cultural

standards, at the same time adapting them to fit local standards and aesthetics. Following the 1893 Paknam Crisis,

[36] [#N36] during which Siam was forced to cede its Lao territories east of the Mekong River to the French, these

processes accelerated. In 1897, Siam implemented a new mode of governing its peripheries known as the

thetsaphiban system, which instituted a local, “rational” Siamese bureaucracy in each of the newly demarcated

provinces of the country, much like the colonial bureaucracies of the English, Dutch and French which

Chulalongkorn had seen first-hand during his travels to Singapore, Java, and India—thus satisfying the West’s

“explicit requirement” that the Siamese reshape themselves in the form of a colonial nation. [37] [#N37]

At the same time the Siamese were implementing numerous elements of Western cultural modernity, rapidly

evolving photographic technologies allowed Siamese elites to become photographers themselves. And what better

vehicle for expressing and transmitting crypto-colonial notions than photography: that technology which obscures

the conditions of its production, though appearing transparently obvious all the while? Photographic images of

Western modernity—particularly of fashionably dressed elites, more clearly gendered clothing and hairstyles,

sexualized women and “inferior” ethnic peoples—traveled easily once untethered from the bounds of their original

contexts, circulating globally via ‘print-capitalist’ flows of newspapers, magazines and postcards. The circulation of

such images efficiently transmitted Europe’s new ideals of eliteness, femininity, and ethnic stratification to the

Siamese elites by showing, not telling; the seamless surfaces of the photograph foreclosing the possibility of the

image’s untruth or unreality, showing supposedly merely whatever was before the lens. Accordingly, in Erb’s

images we begin to get a sense of the ways in which the Siamese elite photographer’s “eye” framed images in a

crypto-colonial way: utilizing imagery in the same way as their Western colonial counterparts, though with Siamese

elites cast as the colonizers, and the lower social (and ethnic) orders as their subjects.

Nowhere is this practice better evidenced than in images of a young tribal boy named Khanung, taken during the











same era as those of Dara Rasami. Khanung was a young orphan boy from the Semang tribe, adopted by King

Chulalongkorn during a state visit to Siam’s southern provinces in 1906. Evidence indicates that the king saw this

adoption as his own personal experiment in civilizing a savage: “That year [1906], King Chulalongkorn had the

desire to raise the [tribal] child that had lived in the jungle, in order to try and see whether this training could make

a [jungle person] progress into a [regular person] or not.” [38] [#N38] Chulalongkorn himself wrote a play about the

boy’s imagined tribal life, describing the Semang’s physical appearance, way of life, religious beliefs, eating habits,

merry-making, dressing, hunting, and courting. [39] [#N39] Thai scholar of dramatic arts Mattani Rutnin likens the

King’s depiction of Khanung and his people to the manner in which his European contemporaries described the

“noble savage” in their novels and plays. [40] [#N40] Khanung’s depiction in a number of royal photographs functions

similarly. In Figures 13 and 14, Khanung appears dressed only in a loincloth, in poses suggestive of

anthropological or scientistic imagery of the era. In another, Khanung appears in costume, clothed in the fancy

dress costume created for him to wear as he played the starring role in Ngo Ba (Figure 15), the dance-drama based on his life story which was written by King Chulalongkorn.[41] [#N41] The child’s un-selfconsciously smiling face

plays perfectly into the Siamese gaze upon him as a compliant member of an inferior racial group, so deployed to

make knowable an entire ethnic group to Siam’s elite inner circle. The images of Khanung demonstrate how via

photography, the ethnically different people found in Siam’s territories could be properly situated as “non-siwilai”

by self-described modern Siamese elites in Bangkok, thus justifying the crypto-colonial exercise of Siamese rule

over the ‘savages’ at their peripheries.



Figure 13. Semang boy Khanung, as photographed by King Chulalongkorn

(N.d.).










Figure 14. Semang boy Khanung, as photographed by King Chulalongkorn

(N.d.).

[http://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tapic/x-7977573.0002.202-

00000016/1?subview=detail;view=entry]

Figures 15. Semang boy Khanung, as photographed by King





Chulalongkorn (N.d.).


Figure 16. Erb and assistants set the scene in front of Vimanmek Palace as Princess Dara Rasami

approaches. Note that Dara’s hair is pulled up into a bun on top of her head here.

Erb’s Portraits of Dara Rasami in Comparative ContextThe images of Dara Rasami are at once similar to and distinct from those of Khanung. As I will argue, these images

—while placing Dara Rasami on a much higher social plane than Khanung—serve to illustrate how her femininity,

intertwined with ethnic inferiority, functioned in the elite Siamese worldview. Here it will be productive to compare

and contrast the images of Dara Rasami to formal portraits of Queen Saowapha, considering three of their main

elements: first, the setting and/or backdrop; second, distinctive elements of dress and hairstyle; third, the

interrelated issues of pose and gaze.







Figure 17. Dara Rasami begins unwinding her hair before the full-length

mirror.

Firstly, let us consider the intimate, staged dressing-table backdrop. Where might Erb have gotten the idea for such

a setting? The setting is somewhat unusual compared to most of Erb’s other palace photographs, its very “staged-

ness” contrasting with her many casual “snaps”. The setup, which includes a chair positioned before a European-

style dressing-table laden with crystal perfume bottles, and two separate mirrors, shares many elements in

common with studio photography of its day. Research into photography in other parts of Asia has turned upexamples of images with a similar arrangement of sitter, dressing table and mirrors taken by studio photographers

in both Japan and Java (Indonesia) around the turn of the twentieth century. [42] [#N42] Given Erb’s interest in

photography, it is possible that she was exposed to such settings via magazines and postcards, which circulated

photographic imagery throughout Southeast Asia. Erb may have seen such images on display at photo studios in

Java and Singapore during one of the King’s journeys abroad, since the royal party frequently visited the studios of

European photographers while traveling. Within the context of Siamese palace photography, however, this setting

is unique to this particular series of photographs of Dara Rasami: My research has turned up no other images of

other Siamese royal consorts utilizing this setting, or anything even vaguely similar to it.


Figures 18 & 19. Erb’s experiments in shooting portraits; this series features her sister, Uen. (N.d.).








Figures 20 & 21. Erb’s experiments in shooting portraits; this series features her sister, Uen. (N.d.).

As referenced earlier in this article, Siam’s elites had become almost obsessive consumers of European clothing,

arts, and household items during this era. The items utilized in the setting for this photograph clearly display

Siamese elite tastes around the turn of the twentieth century—and their adaptation of Western aesthetic standards

to the palace context. In terms of reflecting back to European imperial agents a desired level of “civilization,” this

setting is practically a Siamese recitation of what material items constitute a “modern” elite woman’s personal

accessories and cosmetics. (That it reflected Princess Dara Rasami’s actual personal cosmetic habits is highly

doubtful, however.) Such a setting reflects the photographer’s expectation of her audience, and the creation of a

context considered both appealing and appropriate in which to situate a noble female subject.

The furniture utilized here also emulates tableaux created in European photographers’ studios of the day: A pair of

Oriental carpets underfoot; a straight-backed wooden chair with woven rush seat positioned before a full-length

standing mirror with a vase of cut flowers; and a dressing table laden with an assortment of cosmetic or perhaps

perfume bottles, as well as a smaller tabletop mirror. The plain black backdrop also serves an important function in

the image: by disappearing behind the subject, it keeps the viewer’s focus fixed upon the woman in the foreground,

followed by the secondary images available within the mirrors behind her. As Figure 16 shows, the backdrop also

obscures the actual location of the photo shoot (which is outdoors in front of Vimanmek Palace), convincing the

viewer that they are looking at an interior view (until one notices the trees visible in the mirrors’ reflections).

The dressing-table imparts an impression of intimacy, implying that we are within the private chambers of a royal

consort, in a space devoted to personal grooming and dress—an ‘off-limits’ space even within the ‘off-limits’ space

of the royal palace. The setting works in tandem with the image’s second important element, the mirrors, which

further serve to position and reinforce the setting as an intimate, private one. By providing alternate views of the

subject’s face and/or hair, the strategic placement of the mirrors extends the viewer’s experience of intimacy with

the subject. Via mirrors, the viewer can see more aspects of Dara Rasami’s appearance than she can see herself—

through the seemingly accidental, even surreptitious glimpses available in the mirrors surrounding her.

Here issues of bodily comportment and dress are intertwined. Dara Rasami’s dress and hairstyle, which differ

greatly from those of her Siamese contemporaries, are clearly on display in these images. This is arguably the most

significant aspect of the images, and ostensibly also the motivation for their creation: the exotic appeal of Dara

Rasami’s ethnic distinction in the otherwise ethnically homogenous environment of the Siamese royal court. As I

will discuss in the next section, this depiction of difference illuminates the Siamese elite concern with a “hierarchy

of civilizations,” and its deployment as a part of Siamese crypto-colonialist discourse.



Figure 22. Princess Dara Rasami letting down her hair; note the way it

becomes visible from behind in the full-length mirror.






Figure 23. The Princess’ hair, completely loose, reaches nearly to her

ankles. Note that Erb and her camera are visible in the reflection of the

tabletop mirror (right).







Figure 24. The Princess looks back at the viewer via the tabletop mirror, her

hair unwound from its customary bun.



Figure 25. The seated Princess, hair obscured, her face doubly reflected in

both mirrors.






Figure 26. The Princess releases her hair, its full length reaching the ground.

Note the multiple facial images reflected in the two mirrors.



Figure 27. Princess Dara Rasami, her hair loose, looks back at the camera.





Note the reflection in the mirror on the left, which provides a view of her

long hair from another angle.

The Politics of Being an Ethnic ‘Other’ within the SiamesePalaceDara Rasami’s ethnic difference is identifiable in this context primarily through her distinct manner of dress and

hairstyle. In contrast to her fellow Siamese consorts, Dara Rasami continued to wear the textiles, style of clothing

and hair of her homeland from the time of her entry into the Bangkok palace as a consort in 1886 until she left

Bangkok in 1915. These sartorial choices were informed by both cultural and political considerations. In Dara

Rasami’s homeland, a woman wore the textile pattern and garment styles of her hometown or village, even in the

event that she married and relocated outside her village. This was done primarily as a means of acknowledging her

matrilineal clan and placating its spirits.

Distinct textiles featured prominently in the system of political alliances between Lan Na and its neighbors as well.

When noblewomen of Lao or Lan Na kingdoms were sent as consorts to the rulers of neighboring states, they

brought their textile traditions with them, continuing to dress in the style of their home culture even after they

settled far away. In this context, the use of distinct textiles by women within Lan Na courts indicated the power and

reach of the ruler’s influence into the surrounding territory. Thus, in the court traditions of Dara Rasami’s

homeland, a noblewoman’s use of “local” textiles was a marker of a ruler’s political reach, and was a practice to be

maintained, rather than homogenized.

During the era of her arrival to the palace (the mid-1880s), Dara Rasami’s sartorial difference within the Siamese

court related directly to her political status as a consort who had come to Siam to support such an alliance. Her

homeland, the kingdom of Lan Na, had long been aligned with the Siamese, who helped to liberate Lan Na fromBurmese domination in the 1780s. But as Lan Na’s forests attracted increasing attention from British and Burmese

loggers in the 1850s and ‘60s, the kingdom’s loyalties to the Siamese came into question. A rumor spread between

1881–82 that a British officer had approached the king of Lan Na, Dara Rasami’s father, to extend an offer of

adoption from Queen Victoria—a move which, it was feared, would extend British territory from upper Burma into

Lan Na. [43] [#N43]

When this rumor reached Bangkok, the king of Siam acted quickly, sending his half-brother—a high minister—to

arrange the king’s engagement to Dara Rasami. That minister, Chao Phraya Pichit Prichagon, traveled to Chiang

Mai with a royal gift of diamond earrings to seal the agreement that Dara Rasami would come to Bangkok and

become the king’s consort when she turned thirteen (four years later, in 1886). Thus, Dara Rasami served a dual

role in the palace: both diplomat and hostage to a political alliance between the two neighboring kingdoms.

That Dara Rasami continued to dress in her native style over the decades she lived in the palace was unusual. There

had been only one other consort who had come to the palace from Lan Na during the Fifth Reign: Chao Chom

Manda (Consort-Mother) Thipkesorn, who was a cousin of Dara Rasami. After entering the Siamese palace,

Thipkesorn had cut her hair short, and started dressing in Siamese style. Dara Rasami always dressed in her native

style, even while she served in another royal consort’s entourage. However, as the princess of the royal house of

Chiang Mai, Dara Rasami had entered the palace at quite a different level from Thipkesorn, serving as a lady-in-

waiting to Queen Saowapha herself; thus Dara Rasami’s display of difference appears to have carried a different

value than Thipkesorn’s.

Once she obtained her own residence in 1889 (upon the birth of her daughter), Dara Rasami required the ladies of

her entourage also to wear Lan Na hairstyle and clothing, and to speak the Lan Na dialect there as well. [44] [#N44]

These distinctions earned Dara Rasami and her household the moniker “Chao Lao” within the palace. [45] [#N45]

Hairstyle was another point of difference. Whereas Siamese consorts wore their hair in a short-cropped “flank”

style (like Erb’s hairstyle), the Lao women wore their hair long, pulled back and wound into a bun at the base of the

skull. While this hairstyle seems to indicate “femininity” to Western eyes, it is important not to impute such value

to a Siamese reading; rather, to Siamese eyes this hairstyle instantly declaimed one’s ethnicity as “Lao.”

At the same time Dara Rasami herself utilized certain elements of “traditional” Lan Na culture in ways consistent

with her native culture, she freely adapted certain elements of Siamese as well as ‘modern’/Western dress and

technologies, such as photography, to her own purposes. To posit that Dara Rasami’s adherence to practices which

emphasized her ethnic difference reflected modern notions of identity would be anachronistic. At the time of her

entry to palace life in 1886, such modern notions of ethnicity and national identity were still very new to the

Siamese. I suggest that Dara Rasami’s sartorial distinctiveness signified differently during the early part of her

career than in its later decades. Upon her arrival in the Siamese court in 1886, her distinctive dress and hairstyle

served to remind the Siamese of their northern neighbors’ persistent cultural difference (and, at that time,

sovereignty). By the first decade of the twentieth century, however, Dara Rasami’s role as a representative of local

ethnic difference gained an entirely new significance as the Siamese envisioned a crypto-colonial hierarchy of

civilizations.

The idea of ‘ranking’ the Siamese in comparison to neighboring peoples—indeed, against the various ethnic and

tribal groups within Siam’s own territories—is clearly expressed in elite writings of the time. In the journalWachirayanwiset , published in 1896, Siam’s elites discussed the differences between these groups in terms of their

association with urban life. Here, the Siamese discussed how to rank themselves and “others” within Siam’s

borders hierarchically, according to whom was considered “civilized” and “uncivilized”:






“Both chaopa and chaobannok were two categories of the Others of the more siwilai elite. The

chaopa were the uncivilizable; the chaobannok were the loyal, backward subjects. The gazers were

the educated elite in the city, the people and space of siwilai and charoen [progress]...”

Notably, however, Princess Dara Rasami’s particular ethnicity—that is, Lao—occupied an ambiguous niche

somewhat lower than the Siamese:

“It should be noted that there were peoples who were described in one way or the other between the

two categories. The prime example was the Lao (people and regions). ... Writings about the Lao

during the period we are discussing mostly described them in details like chaobannok. At times they

were mentioned as non-chaopa, similar to Thais. Yet, Lao people were also mentioned as chaopa and

some accounts dissected Lao customs and described them topically similar, to the description of

chaopa... For the Thai elite, the Lao were somewhere between the two kinds of Others.”[46] [#N46]

As a Lao woman within Siam’s most elite circle, Princess Dara Rasami’s representation of “civilized” Lao-ness

through hybrid dress problematized the discourse of siwilai as it applied to Siam’s northern periphery. I suggest

that the difficulty of locating the Lao people among the categories of chaopa, chaobannok, and siwilai related

directly to Dara Rasami’s presence as a siwilai Lao within the Siamese palace.

Nonetheless, however, whether Dara Rasami’s people ranked as “somewhat backwards” or “uncivilizable,” what is

relevant for our purposes is that they ranked distinctly below the Siamese in their construction of ethnic hierarchy.

I suggest that Erb’s photographs of Dara Rasami reflect the Siamese perception of Lan Na or Lao as a lesser ethnic

status. This ranking is expressed in two ways. Firstly, there is the intimacy of the photographs’ setting, which was

unique to these images of Dara Rasami. Despite the availability of the accessory items and opportunity, this setting

was never replicated for any other of King Chulalongkorn’s Siamese consorts. Secondly, the images focus on the visible markers of Dara Rasami’s ethnic difference: her dress, and particularly, her hair. However, these images

were but one part of a broader discourse of Lao ethnicity during this era. Another part of the discourse which

proved very powerful in locating Lao-ness—and especially Lao femininity—is that of Sao Khrua Fa (“Miss

Butterfly”), the Siamese adaptation of the operetta Madame Butterfly.

Dara Rasami as Madame Butterfly: Picturing the “Northern” Woman At the same time all things ‘foreign’ became all the rage amongst Siamese elites, stories from the West such as

Cinderella and the Arabian Nights became fodder for creators of Siamese dance-dramas. Once introduced in the

palace, these productions could go on to great success when opened to the public; the king’s approval was

endorsement enough to guarantee a production’s success. [47] [#N47] One such production—which has a direct bearing

on our discussion of Erb’s photographs of Dara Rasami—was the Siamese adaptation of the Italian operetta Madame Butterfly, entitled Sao Khrua Fa.

Having been impressed by Puccini’s Madame Butterfly during his 1906 tour of Europe, [48] [#N48] King

Chulalongkorn assigned his half-brother, Prince Narathip, to create a Siamese version of the work. In the Prince’s

adaptation, the roles of the American soldier and Japanese woman are transposed in a uniquely Siamese way: the

American soldier becomes a Siamese man, while his Japanese lover becomes a maiden from—where else?—Chiang

Mai. The actors were dressed in costumes appropriate to contemporary characters, with the heroine dressed like

Dara Rasami herself: long hair worn pulled up in a bun, a lace blouse on top, phasin skirt below, worn with

stockings and shoes. [49] [#N49] This production, entitled Sao Khrua Fa, became a huge hit when it was first staged in

the summer of 1909. In the following letter, King Chulalongkorn wrote about its popularity to Dara Rasami, who

was visiting her hometown of Chiang Mai at the time:

“Talking about ‘madness,’ the courtiers are now ‘mad’ about [Prince Narathip’s opera], every person,

every name, from the masters to the servants. Since you left [for Chiang Mai], ... the men who did not

see [Sao Khrua Fa] are very frustrated. It’s up to [Prince Narathip], whether he will perform the play

again after having performed it in the royal court at the Pridalai Theatre. If he does, the audience will

be large. In the past, I went to [his] theatre, and there were not more than 500 present. But since he

has performed in the Royal Palace, there are not enough seats. This happens only to the plays which

have been performed in the palace and are later performed outside. The money collected from outside

performances is over 10,000 baht. Prince Nara exclaimed that it was due to ‘the glorious virtue of the

king.’ [50] [#N50] ”

As the usual takings for a week-long performance run at a Bangkok theatre averaged around 1,000 baht at that

time, we can see that Sao Khrua Fa was hugely popular with Bangkok’s theatre-going populace.[51] [#N51] [52] [#N52]

We might see this performance of Lao “other-ness” through dance-drama as domesticating an otherwise exotic

ethnic identity for Siamese consumption. At the same time, Lao difference is literally feminized: Lao ethnic identity and femininity are fused together in the figure of Sao Khrua Fa (Miss Butterfly) herself. The tragic heroine is

depicted here as a naïve “northern beauty:” innocently bewitching, yet vulnerable to Siamese seduction, conquest

and betrayal. As crypto-colonial discourses go, the message of this drama could hardly be less cryptic: to make

plausible the need for the Siamese to exercise their colonial-style authority over the Lao territories in the interests










of paternalistically “protecting” the culturally “backwards” people there.

As previously discussed, while discourses of Dara Rasami’s ethnic difference had carried political value within the

palace earlier in her career, her role as a political hostage ensuring her homeland’s loyalties had declined with the

implementation of Siam’s new, semi-colonial administrative structure in the governance of its provinces. In the era

following this change in 1897, Dara Rasami’s role evolved to that of cultural “other” within the palace, whose ethnic

difference—yet close proximity—became an exotic commodity upon which she could profitably trade. After Sao

Khrua Fa’s successful debut in 1909, Dara Rasami was enlisted once again in the depiction of exotic Lao-ness.

When Prince Narathip began work on a revamped version of the old dance-drama Lilit Phra Law, which was

originally based on an old Lao story, King Chulalongkorn sent parts of Narathip’s script to Dara Rasami for her to

review while she was traveling. [53] [#N53] Mom Luang Tuan, who was Prince Narathip’s wife and also musical

director for her husband’s theatrical productions, visited Dara Rasami’s palace household to learn Lao vocal styles

and instruments from her in order to enhance the northern setting of the play. “[Princess] Dara Rasami waspleased to have Mom Luang Tuan visit her often for instruction in Lao musical intonation. This resulted in the

palace playing Lao songs more often.” [54] [#N54] In addition, since part of the Prince’s specialty was incorporating

“foreign” elements into his productions to enhance their appeal with audiences, it was only appropriate that Phra

Law’s dancers also “dress in Lao-Thai costumes, dance and sing to Lao-type musical tunes, and speak with touches

of Northern dialect.” [55] [#N55] Through their relationship with a Lao “other” residing within the palace—Princess

Dara Rasami—authentic Lao cultural elements could be utilized to create an exotic appeal for Narathip’s plays to a

popular audience outside the circle of elites within the Inner Palace.

There is, however, another event which contributed to Siamese notions of Dara Rasami’s Lao-ness, particularly as

it related to her long hair. As previously discussed, Dara Rasami traveled to her hometown of Chiang Mai for

several months in 1909. Due to the political necessity of keeping her in Bangkok to ensure her relatives’ loyalties to

Siam, she had not returned home for a visit to her family since she entered the palace as a consort in 1886.

However, with the consolidation of British and French control in the territories surrounding her homeland at the

end of the twentieth century, the circumstances keeping Dara Rasami from returning home had disappeared. When

her half-brother, then governor of Chiang Mai, visited Bangkok in January of 1909, the princess requested

permission to make her first-ever return visit to her hometown. [56] [#N56]

King Chulalongkorn granted her request, additionally granting her the funds necessary to make the long journey by

train and riverboat north to Chiang Mai. Just before her departure from Bangkok in April 1909, she bade a formal

farewell to King Chulalongkorn at the Samsen Road train station, adjacent to Dusit Palace. On this occasion, she

deployed a gesture which quickly became well-known around Bangkok. Before the king and the assembled retinue,

she “let down her muan [hair bun] and ‘wiped’ the king’s feet [with her hair] in the northern custom, bursting into

tears.” [57] [#N57]

The Siamese cultural proscription against touching the feet, much less with the hair on one’s head, goes only part of

the way towards explaining the emotional and cultural import of this gesture. Dara Rasami’s farewell references a

particular northern episode that had occurred just a few years earlier (1903), a story still well-known in Chiang Mai

today: the tragic love affair between a Chiang Mai prince and a Burmese woman named Ma Mia. When, in thisstory, the ill-fated lovers are forced to part, Ma Mia “washes” her lover’s feet with her tear-soaked hair. This story

provides the additional context necessary for reading Dara Rasami’s performance of this “foot-washing” gesture. As

such, Dara Rasami’s deployment of this grand gesture on departing Bangkok for Chiang Mai can be read as both

personal and political discourse: it expresses both her personal attachment and gratitude to King Chulalongkorn,

and serves as a reminder of the Ma Mia incident (and its additional Burmese element) to point up her long-

standing political loyalty as his consort.

Dara Rasami’s deployment of this gesture on her departure in 1909 may well be what provoked Erb’s interest in

photographing such a toilette scene in particular. To be sure, a Lao woman unpinning, unwinding and combing out

her knee-length hair undoubtedly would have been an exotic bodily practice, unknown to most Siamese in that era.

Certainly, to witness Dara Rasami in such an act would additionally allow the viewer to share in a moment of

intimacy with a royal consort until then reserved for the king himself.

However, if indeed Erb shot these photographs following Dara Rasami’s return from Chiang Mai in 1909, there is

yet another factor to consider: that of the subject’s changed status. Following her departure to Chiang Mai, King

Chulalongkorn took the extraordinary step of promoting Dara Rasami to the rank of high queen, adding a potential

element of royal status to Erb’s images.

Newly-promoted Queen Dara Rasami had professional portraits taken during her visit to Chiang Mai in 1909, and

they pose a significant contrast to Erb’s images of her. In these images (see Figures 28 and 29), Dara Rasami

poses in a setting analogous to that of her Siamese counterparts, with a similar level of dress, dignity and remove

from the camera’s gaze.










Figure 28. Recently promoted to the rank of High Queen [ ,-.-*//*&* ],

Dara Rasami poses for a formal portrait in her hometown, Chiang Mai.

Note that she wears a phasin [skirt] made from a Burmese court textile

called luntaya. [58] [#N58] (Probably taken at the Chiang Mai studio of

Japanese photographer S. Tanaka, 1909.)








Figure 29. Second formal portrait of Dara Rasami taken in Chiang Mai in

1909.

In these images Dara Rasami projects the dignity of a high queen, while simultaneously affirming her ethnicity via

her dress and hairstyle. The items utilized here are not random props: in both images, the carved box resting on the

tabletop next to Dara Rasami is a gilded betel-box, the insignia of her new queenly rank. The new queen’s outfit

here includes elements drawn from both Lao and Siamese elite cultures: Firstly, a phasin skirt made from luntaya

(a textile which references Chiang Mai’s history and proximity to Burma); a high-necked lacy Victorian blouse in

the style favored by Siamese royal consorts, complete with the diagonal bunting utilized by high consorts who had been decorated with the order of the Chula Chom Klao; a folding fan; and a plethora of jewelry, including hair

ornaments, brooches, bracelets and a necklace encrusted with diamonds. Two different sets of furniture are used in

these portraits. In the first (in Fig. 22) the chair in which Dara Rasami sits resembles an elephant howdah—

suggesting the traditional ride of Asian kings; while in Figure 29 her chair appears to be a high-backed wooden

chair (or similar), which lends a modern air to the portrait. The tablecloth and backdrop also appear to be different,

suggesting that the two portraits may not have been taken at the same time (though Dara Rasami’s dress and

jewelry appear identical in every respect). The most interesting difference between the two portraits, however, is

the direction of Dara Rasami’s gaze. In Figure 28, her serious look is directed into the camera lens, while in Fig.

29, she directs her gaze away from the camera and out of the frame, suggesting greater remove from the viewer.

The setup of both these shots is completely consistent with photographic portraits of high-ranking Siamese royal

consorts, such as the images of Queen Saowapha Phongsri previously discussed. Here, Dara Rasami’s dignity is

clearly on display: there is no illusion of intimacy with the photograph’s queenly subject. Yet we also find a number

of contemporary Western elements (such as the chair, table with brocade tablecloth, lace blouse, etc.) combined

with decidedly Lao ones (Dara Rasami’s hair and phasin skirt). Taken together, these elements produce an imageof a siwilai Lao woman as dignified and modern as her elite Siamese counterparts.

Erb Bunnag’s career as a photographer of her fellow consorts came to a close following the death of King

Chulalongkorn in 1910, at which time the women of the Inner Palace were dispersed from the palace at Dusit. Erb

and her sisters moved into the compound they had built nearby, where they lived for the rest of their lives. [59] [#N59]

As for Dara Rasami, she continued to live in her Dusit palace residence until 1915, when she retired to Chiang Mai.

The image of the ‘northern beauty’ popularized by the Siamese Madame Butterfly, Sao Khrua Fa, however, has

persisted in the Thai imagination down to the present day. Following the wildly popular dance-drama of 1909, Sao

Khrua Fa migrated into cinematic form, where it has been made and re-made for new audiences over the past

several decades—most recently for television.[60] [#N60] Thus contemporary media continues to keep alive the trope

of the exotic and beautiful yet tragic ‘northern’ heroine. Surprisingly, it has even been embraced by the people of

Chiang Mai as an element of their self-perception, and is still deployed today as part of the city’s self-promotion as

an ‘exotic’ destination for Thai tourism within Thailand. [61] [#N61]

Lady Erb’s images of Dara Rasami help explain the confusion of Siamese elites as to where to place the Lao in the

hierarchy of siwilai : was she ‘backwards’ or was she siwilai ? Certainly the latter Chiang Mai portraits fully embody

Dara Rasami’s queenly rank within the palace, and the possibility of reconciling her ethnic difference with her royal

status. On the other hand, Erb’s images of Dara Rasami depend upon an intimacy with a subject sought out for her

ethnic difference, and an emphasis on her most exotic feature: her long hair. Yet when comparing the two sets of

images, Erb’s portraits of Dara Rasami remain more engaging for their staged intimacy and informality, despite (or

due to?) their subject’s cryptic expression. While Erb’s portraits allow us to see Dara Rasami’s role in constituting

an exotic feminine “other” that played into Siamese crypto-colonial discourse, the images get us no closer to an

understanding of Dara Rasami’s motives, desires, or notions of her own ethnic identity. Foreign outsider or palace

insider, diplomat or hostage, mere consort or Queen: who, indeed, was the woman in the mirror?

Dr. Leslie Woodhouse studied in Thailand from 2004–05 as a Fulbright IIE fellow, and completed her Ph.D. in Southeast Asian history at the University of California, Berkeley in 2009. She is currently an adjunct lecturer in

Asian history at the University of San Francisco, California.

All images courtesy of the National Archive of Thailand, unless otherwise noted. The author would like to thank

Khun Chuy and Khun Suphap of the Photo Archive division of the National Archive of Thailand in Bangkok for

their knowledge of the archive and very helpful assistance in locating many of the images that appear in this article.

Thanks also to Professor Penny Edwards of the University of California, Berkeley, without whose funding resources

this research could not have been completed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

National Archives of Thailand: Photograph Division, Bangkok, Thailand.

Prince Damrong Rajanubhab Library & Archive, Bangkok, Thailand.

Internet-Based Sources

Wikipedia page on the women of the Kok Oh (Thai-language):







http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/$0*1!'23!![http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%88%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%81%E0%B

Wikipedia page on Sao Khrua Fa (Thai-language):

http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/4*5$67!8*[http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B7%E0%B8%AD%E0%B

Bunnag Family Lineage Club website (Thai-language):

http://www.bunnag.in.th/main.php [http://www.bunnag.in.th/main.php]

http://www.bunnag.in.th/english/index.html [http://www.bunnag.in.th/english/index.html]

Information on the Paknam Incident of 1893:

http://www.paknam.com/history/paknam-incident-1893.html [http://www.paknam.com/history/paknam-incident-

1893.html] .

Thai Public Relations Department:

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_monarchy.php?id=5313 [http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_monarchy.php?id=5313]

Luntaya textiles in the collections of the V&A Museum, London U.K.

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O10875/silk-acheik-luntaya/ [http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O10875/silk-acheik-

luntaya/]

Secondary Sources – English-Language

Conway, Susan. Power Dressing: Lanna Shan Siam 19th Century Court Dress. Bangkok, Thailand: James H.W.

Thompson Foundation: Distributed in Thailand by River Books, 2003.

Finestone, Jeffrey. The Royal Family of Thailand: The Descendants of King Chulalongkorn. Bangkok: Phitsanulok

Publishing, 1989.

Pramote, Kukrit. Four Reigns. Tulachandra, translator. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books, 1998.

Herzfeld, Michael. “The Conceptual Allure of the West: Dilemmas and Ambiguities of Crypto-Colonialism in

Thailand, in The Ambiguous Allure of the West. Traces of the Colonial in Thailand. Rachel Harrison and Peter

Jackson, editors. Hong Kong: Silkworm Books and Hong Kong University Press, 2010.

_________. “The Absent Presence: Discourses of Crypto-Colonialism.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 101:4, Fall

2002.

Jones, Eric. Wives, Slaves and Concubines. A History of the Female Underclass in Dutch Asia. DeKalb (IL):Northern Illinois University Press, 2010.

Leonowens, Anna Harriette. The English Governess At the Siamese Court: Being Recollections of Six Years in the

Royal Palace At Bangkok. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Maxwell, Anne. Colonial Photography and Exhibitions: Representations of the “Native” and the Making of

European Identities. London; New York: Leicester University Press, 1999

Morgan, Susan. Bombay Anna. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

Peleggi, Maurizio. Lords of Things: The Fashioning of the Siamese Monarchy’s Modern Image. Honolulu:

University of Hawaii Press, 2002.

Rutnin, Mattani Mojdara. Dance, Drama, and Theatre in Thailand. The Process of Development and

Modernization. Tokyo, Japan: The Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for Unesco, 1993.

Smith, Malcolm. A Physician at the Court of Siam. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Tej Bunnag. The Provincial Administration of Siam, 1892–1915: The Ministry of the Interior Under Prince

Damrong Rajanubhab. Kuala Lumpur; New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Thongchai Winichakul. “The Quest for ‘Siwilai’: A Geographical Discourse of Civilizational Thinking in the Late

Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Siam.” Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 528–549.

Woodhouse, Leslie. A “Foreign” Princess in the Siamese Court: Princess Dara Rasami, the Politics of Gender and

Ethnic Difference in Nineteenth-Century Siam. Ph.D. dissertation, department of History, University of

California, Berkeley, 2009.

Wyatt, David K. The Politics of Reform in Thailand: Education in the Reign of King Chulalongkorn. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1969.

Thai-language Secondary Sources

Anek Nawikkamune [$!#3 #93:;]. History of Early Thai Photography.[ <-.=>3*-?*&@< A6B-3C!DEF& ]. Bangkok:

Sara Khadi Publishing, 2005.Chawali Na Thalang La-ongsri, Charnvit Kasetsiri, ed’s. Siamese Vassal States

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O10875/silk-acheik-luntaya/

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_monarchy.php?id=5313

http://www.paknam.com/history/paknam-incident-1893.html

http://www.bunnag.in.th/english/index.html

http://www.bunnag.in.th/main.php

http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B7%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%9F%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%B2

http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%88%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%81%E0%B9%8A%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%AD



Under Rama V [ <-.$FG-*/C!D4&*' ]. Bangkok: Samnakngan Khongthun Sanapsanun Kanwichai: Munnithi

Khrongkan Tamra Sangkhommasat læ Manutsayasat, 1998.

Chulalongkorn, King [,-.H;1!'$3I*$0*!JK5]. Letters Far from Home [ LMDN!E3;O*# ]. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn

University European Studies Programme, 1997.

Kanthathip Singhanet [P-. QRS*T,U VDL*$#> ]. Tracing the Consorts of the Kok Oh [ W!#-!&$0*1!'X3!! ] .

Bangkok: Wiraya Turakit, 2006.

Naengnoi Saksing (Mom Rachawong) and others ['.-.5. BYDZ!& [3\G] ... [B;.6#^# _]: Architecture of the Grand

Palace. [ 4`*ab&3--',-.)-''L*-*/=D ]. Bangkok: Office of the Royal Secretariat, 1988.

Nidhi Aeusrivongse [cd $(&5G]5De ]. “Sao Khrua Fa: A Fantasy that Came True” [4*5$67!8* f#g$h#1iD].

Sinlapawatthanatham [ j;<=k#l--' ] Vol. 12, No. 6, April 1991, pp.180–185.

Phrayut Sittiphan [,-.AFl VF.mn#o ]. Love in the Royal Palace during the Fifth Reign. [p3q#-*/rM3 p/3*;g s].

Bangkok: Saradee, 2000.

Phunphitsamai Diskul (Mom Chao) [Lt!'$0* u#vGw& xGy;]. Collected Writings [ <-.z',-.c,#o ]. Bangkok:

Bamrung Banthit, 1986.

Prani Siritorn na Pattalung. Petch Lanna [Lanna Gems.] Chiang Mai [Thailand]: Surawong Printing, 1963.

Ratana Pakdeekul [pb#* {3|};]. Images of Northern Women From Late 25th to Early 26th Centuries (B.E.) [ ~* ,•3€ “ L‚D$Lƒ! ” „DB…<;*&†FlGb5--‡ g 25 ˆD‰#†FlGb5--‡g 26]. M.A. (2000): Chiang Mai University,

Department of History.

Romaniyachat Kaewgiriya (Mom Rachawong), and Pattanachat Raphiphun (Mom Rachawong) ['.-.5. -'Š&‹b-

BŒ5•i&*, '.-.5. nk#‹b- -Žnk ], ed’s. Dara Rasami: Tie of Love between Two Kingdoms [ P*-*pG : 4*&q& p34!DB‘#x# ] . Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, 1999.

Saengdao na Chiang Mai [B4DP*5 R $’&DqLt]. Biography of Queen Dara Rasami, 26 August 1873 – 9 December

1933 [ ,-.<-.=>,-.-*//*&* $0*P*-*pG 26 VDL*6' 2416–9 “#5*6' 2476 ]. Chiang Mai [Thailand]: 1974.

Sara Miphongit [4*-. ”;•1]. The Inner Palace during the Rattanakosin Era [ -*/rM3 *&q# 4w&pb#–3V#o ].

Bangkok: Samnakphim Miusiam Phret, 2008.

Sakda Siriphun [[3P* jin#— ]. Kings and Cameras. The Evolution of Photography in Thailand, 1845–Present

[ 3˜biUB;.3I!D : 9=k#*3*-3*-?*&~*,q#<-.$FGEF& , .G . 2388–2535]. Bangkok: Dansuttha Printing, 1992.

Sulak Sivarak. [4. j5p3™ ]. Interview With Mom Chao Jongjitrathanom Diskul. [ š'~*‡€ ' .1 . 1D›b-`#!' xGy; .]

Bangkok: Khlet Thai Ltd., 1986.

Thanet Charoenmuang [l$#G5œ $1i$ž!D]. People of the Muang [ 6#$ž!D ]. Chiang Mai: Center for the Study of Social Issues, 2001.

Notes1. Conway, Susan. Power Dressing: Lanna Shan Siam 19th Century Court Dress. Bangkok, Thailand: James H.W.

Thompson Foundation: Distributed in Thailand by River Books, 2003. [#N1-ptr1]

2. Here I reference Michael Herzfeld’s notion of “crypto-colonialism,” which he defines as “the condition in which

the very claim of independence marks a symbolic as well as material dependence on intrusive colonial power,” inthe absence of direct colonial experience. See Herzfeld’s The Body Impolitic, Cultural Intimacy, and his recentessay in The Ambiguous Allure of the West, Harrison and Jackson, ed’s. (2010) [#N2-ptr1]

3. See Herzfeld’s article “The Absent Presence: Discourses of Crypto-Colonialism,” in The South Atlantic Quarterly

101:4, Fall 2002. [#N3-ptr1]

4. The primogenitor of the Bunnag line, Sheikh Ahmad Qomi, traveled from Persia to Siam in the late sixteenth

century, arriving in the capital city of Ayutthaya sometime between 1595 and 1605. See the Bunnag LineageClub’s website, http://www.bunnag.in.th/main.php [http://www.bunnag.in.th/main.php] . [#N4-ptr1]

5. Lady Oo’s five other daughters (who did not become royal consorts) also had “oh” names: Em ($!'), Uan("5#),

Im (Ÿ'), Ob (!)), and Ai (!*&). Her four sons’ names shared their father’s first initial, “T.” See KanthathipSinghanet, [P-. QRS*T,U VDL*$#>], Tracing the Consorts of the Kok Oh [ W!#-!&$0*1!'X3!! ]. Bangkok:

Wiraya Turakit, 2006. See also the Thai-language Wikipedia page devoted to the Kok Oh:http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/ $0*1!'23!![http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%20%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%88%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%81%E0

. [#N5-ptr1]

6. Petchaburi had been the home of the Bunnags since the emigration of their Persian ancestor, Sheikh Ahmad

Qomi, to Siam in the late sixteenth century. Male relatives who did not become ministers to the Siamese kingoftentimes were appointed to provincial rulership of the area, including Tet’s brother, Tiem. Bunnag See theBunnag Family Lineage Club website, http://www.bunnag.in.th/english/index.html[http://www.bunnag.in.th/english/index.html] [#N6-ptr1]

7. Ohn had two daughters by King Chulalongkorn: Princesses Oraphrapun Rampai (b. July 7, 1886) and Adisai

Suriyapa (b. Feb. 14, 1890). Royal consorts received their own separate residences upon the birth of a child.[#N7-ptr1]

8. Besides the King himself, no other males over the age of twelve were allowed access to the “Inner Palace”

unchaperoned. Even royal pages on official business there had to be accompanied by a female guard. SeeMalcolm Smith, A Physician at the Court of Siam. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1982. [#N8-ptr1]

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tap/7977573.0002.202?view=text;rgn=main#N8-ptr1



http://www.bunnag.in.th/english/index.html


http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%20%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%88%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%81%E0%B9%8A%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%AD


http://www.bunnag.in.th/main.php






9. Leonowens, Anna Harriette. The English Governess At the Siamese Court: Being Recollections of Six Years in

the Royal Palace At Bangkok. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1988. [#N9-ptr1]

10. These lower-ranking women were not required to live within the palace. Women employed in the palace who

had husbands and families of their own, lived elsewhere in the city, commuting to the palace to work in anoblewoman’s household. See Naengnoi Saksing (Mom Rachawong) and others ['.-.5. BYDZ!& [3\G] ... [B;.6#^# _]: Architecture of the Grand Palace. Vol’s. 1 & 2 [ 4`*ab&3--',-.)-''L*-*/=D ], Bangkok: Office of theRoyal Secretariat, 1988. [#N10-ptr1]

11. The thetsaphiban (or “monthon”) system supplanted the traditional system of tribute and vassalage that the

Siamese kingdom had utilized in the past. See La-ongsri, Chawali Na Thalang, Charnvit Kasetsiri; Kanchani. Siamese Vassal States Under Rama V [ <-.$FG-*/C!D4&*' ].Bangkok: Samnakngan Khongthun SanapsanunKanwichai: Munnithi Khrongkan Tamra Sangkhommasat læ Manutsayasat, 1998. [#N11-ptr1]

12. Herzfeld, Michael, “The Conceptual Allure of the West: Dilemmas and Ambiguities of Crypto-Colonialism in

Thailand, in The Ambiguous Allure of the West. Traces of the Colonial in Thailand, Rachel Harrison and PeterJackson, editors. Hong Kong: Silkworm Books and Hong Kong University Press, 2010. [#N12-ptr1]

13. See Maxwell, Anne. Colonial Photography and Exhibitions: Representations of the “Native” and the Making of

European Identities. London; New York: Leicester University Press, 1999: p. 24. [#N13-ptr1]

14. As noted in the memoir of Dr. Malcolm Smith, who served as physician to the Siamese court during this era,

King Chulalongkorn fathered no children after he turned 42, which was in 1895. (Ibid., 1982) Typically, aconsort’s best chance for improving her status was to have a royal child, but she could also advance viaperformance of other duties within the royal household. See Sara Miphongit [4*-. ”;•1], Ratchasamnak Fai

Nai Samai Rattanakosin [ -*/rM3 *&q# 4w&pb#–3V#o ]. Krung Thep: Samnakphim Miusiam Phret, 2008.[#N14-ptr1]

15. This letter, written from King Chulalongkorn to Prince Narit, is quoted in Khanthathip (2006), p. 95. [#N15-

ptr1]

16. Khanthathip (2006), p. 284; also see p. 46 of Sivarak, Sulak. [ 4 . j5p3™ ] . Interview With Mom Chao

Jongjitrathanom Diskul, by S. Sivarak. [ š'~*‡€ ' .1 . 1D›b-`#!' xGy; . ] Bangkok: Khlet Thai Ltd., 1986.

[#N16-ptr1]

17. The King’s 1905 journey to the central provinces included stops in the cities of Uthai Thani and Nakhon Sawan.

See Khanthathip (2006). [#N17-ptr1]

18. Though it is unclear exactly when Erb was appointed to this post, evidence in the king’s correspondence

indicates that she was serving in this capacity by 1908. See Khanthathip (2006), p. 289. [#N18-ptr1]

19. This event was also a point of contact between Erb and Dara Rasami. As a native of Siam’s northern province of

Chiang Mai, Dara Rasami was enlisted to act as a translator for the Shan princess, as “their languages weremutually intelligible.” Sulak (1986), p. 72. [#N19-ptr1]

20. This residence, completed around 1906, was known as “Suan Nohk,” or “The Outer Garden.” Following King

Chulalongkorn’s death in 1910, the Kok Oh sisters moved there, where they subsequently lived out the rest of their lives. The eldest Bunnag sister, Ohn, lived there until her death in 1970 at the age of 102. Khanthathip(2006). [#N20-ptr1]

21. Peleggi uses this term to describe the dominant nineteenth-century Western worldview in Lords of Things: The

Fashioning of the Siamese Monarchy’s Modern Image. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002. [#N21-

ptr1]

22. Here it is important to note that even so, royal women still had their entourages and household staff in

attendance, and royal ministers, officials and other government employees could also visit—albeit only withchaperones. See Naengnoi (1988). [#N22-ptr1]

23. Ruen Ton, or “wooden house,” is a traditional Thai-style wooden house built on stilts over the khlong waterway

adjacent to Vimanmek Mansion. It is still there today, although not accessible to the public. [#N23-ptr1]

24. Several of Erb’s photographs from this era were part of the 1905 photography exhibition and contest at Wat

(temple) Benchamabophit in Bangkok, where many of the Siamese royal family entered their photos as well.Erb’s involvement in this contest will be discussed in greater detail in the next section. [#N24-ptr1]

25. These two girls were daughters of eldest Kok Oh sister Ohn. Princess Oraphraphun Ramphai was born in 1886

and her sister, Princess Adisai Suriyapha in 1890. Khanthathip (2006). [#N25-ptr1]

26. Though this image is most often a photograph of the current king, the choice of royal image displayed often

reflects the shop owner’s identification with a particular king’s attributes. The most frequently chosen royal

images are either of King Chulalongkorn (r. 1868–1910) or the current king, Phumiphon Adunyadet (1947 –present). Incidentally, duplicates of this and many other “royal” photographs can also be purchased cheaply from Bangkok street vendors near the Grand Palace, many of whom also specialize in the sale of stamps andcoins to collectors. [#N26-ptr1]

27. The expenses of building this particular temple prompted the king to hold a “temple fair” to raise funds from the

general public, starting in December of 1899, which due to its success became an annual event. Peleggi (2002),p. 93. [#N27-ptr1]

28. This photography contest was opened to members of the general public, and entries were accepted from 123

contestants, including a number of foreigners both Western and Asian; nearly half of the 395 images weresubmitted by Siamese royals and consorts themselves. Winners of gold, silver and bronze medals were decided

by popular votes tallied at the exhibition; unsurprisingly, one of King Chulalongkorn’s own photographs won thegold medal. See Anek Nawikkamune [$!#3 #93:;]. History of Early Thai Photography.[ <-.=>3*-?*&@< A6B-3 C!DEF& ]. Bangkok: Sara Khadi Publishing, 2005. [#N28-ptr1]

29. This photographic portrait was taken at the Bangkok studio of Robert Lenz, circa 1904. (Peleggi 2002) [#N29-

ptr1]

30. See Peleggi (2002). [#N30-ptr1]

31. This photograph served as the basis for an 1899 portrait of the royal family by Italian painter Odoardo Gelli.

Peleggi (2002), ibid. [#N31-ptr1]

32. The first (and best-known) of these was the Bowring Treaty, named for John Bowring, the British governor of

Hong Kong, who brokered the agreement in 1855 with Siam’s King Mongkut (1853–1868). Similar agreements


























with the French, Dutch, American, and other Western powers were rapidly signed. [#N32-ptr1]

33. Herzfeld (2010), p. 180. [#N33-ptr1]

34. Although Anna herself claimed to have been born in England, she was careful to conceal her actual mixed-race

heritage. See Susan Morgan’s recent biography of Leonowens, Bombay Anna (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 2008). Following Leonowens’ tenure at the palace (1862–67), Siam’s royal sons continued to be educatedexclusively by Westerners: American missionaries, English schoolmasters, and foreign schools (such as theRaffles School in Singapore). See Wyatt (1968). [#N34-ptr1]

35. An interesting account of these travels is also available via the Thai Public Relations Department website, at

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_monarchy.php?id=5313 [http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_monarchy.php?id=5313] .[#N35-ptr1]

36. A well-written account of this incident can be found here: http://www.paknam.com/history/paknam-incident-

1893.html [http://www.paknam.com/history/paknam-incident-1893.html] . [#N36-ptr1]

37. Tej Bunnag. The Provincial Administration of Siam, 1892–1915: The Ministry of the Interior Under Prince

Damrong Rajanubhab. Kuala Lumpur; New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. [#N37-ptr1]

38. Mom Chao Phunphitsamai Diskul, Brachum Phra Niphun[Collected Writings]. Bangkok: Bamrung Banthit,

1986, p. 132. [#N38-ptr1]

39. From Chulalongkorn’s introduction to Bot Lakhon Ruang Ngo Pa lae Brachum Klong Supasit [The Play ‘Ngo

Ba’, With Collected Verse Proverbs]. Bangkok: Khurutsupha, 1968, 1–2. (Translation by Mattani Rutnin.)[#N39-ptr1]

40. Mattani references Rousseau, Chateaubriand, Saint-Pierre and James Fenimore Cooper. (Mattani 1992, p. 115)

[#N40-ptr1]

41. Mattani (1993), ibid. [#N41-ptr1]

42. The author has identified two other images contemporary to Erb’s images of Dara Rasami which also utilize a

strategically-placed mirror to emphasize the subject’s face or hairstyle; one from Japan and another fromBatavia (Jakarta), Java, Indonesia. The Batavian image can be found in Eric Jones’ book Wives, Slaves and

Concubines. A History of the Female Underclass in Dutch Asia. DeKalb (IL): Northern Illinois University Press,2010. [#N42-ptr1]

43. Dara Rasami was about nine years old at the time. As I explain in greater detail in my dissertation (Woodhouse

2009), it appears that Dara’s parents had heard of Queen Victoria’s “adoption” of the Sikh prince MaharajaDuleep Singh in 1854 (for more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duleep_Singh[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duleep_Singh]). I posit that Dara’s parents essentially invented the “adoption” rumor

to gain political currency with Bangkok. [#N43-ptr1]

44. This difference in sartorial choices may have more to do with the differences between the womens’ status than

anything else. As Dara Rasami was the daughter of the sitting king in Lan Na at the time, it may have been moreimportant for her to continue representing her difference within the Siamese court than for her (relatively unknown) cousin. I have not yet found data to indicate whether Chao Chom Manda (Consort-Mother)Thipkesorn reverted to her native dress on receiving her own household in 1884 (when her son was born).[#N44-ptr1]

45. “Chao” being a low-level honorific title, technically meaning “lord,” which was assigned to every consort (“chao

chom”) regardless of birth; “Lao” being the broad category into which the Siamese lumped the kingdoms to theirnorth and northeast, including those at Lamphang, Lamphun, Nan, Luang Prabang, Vientiane, etc. Thesepeoples shared the Lan Na (or khon muang) dialect, and had a long history of exchanging women in maritalalliances; they thus shared much more culturally with each other than they did with the Siamese. ThanetCharoenmuang [l$#G5œ $1i$ž!D]. People of the Muang [ 6#$ž!D]. Chiang Mai: Center for the Study of SocialIssues, 2001. [#N45-ptr1]

46. From Thongchai (2000): “The Quest for ‘Siwilai’: A Geographical Discourse of Civilizational Thinking in the

Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Siam.” Journal of Asian Studies 59, No. 3, 528–549. [#N46-ptr1]

47. Mattani (1993), ibid . [#N47-ptr1]

48. King Chulalongkorn wrote about Madame Butterfly in his letters home from Europe in 1906–07, which were

collected and published in the volume LMDN!E3;O*# [Letters Far from Home] . Bangkok: ChulalongkornUniversity European Studies Programme, 1997. [#N48-ptr1]

49. Mattani (1993), p.144. [#N49-ptr1]

50. Letters Far from Home [ E3;*# ], ibid. Letter to Dara Rasami, dated July 2, 1909, pp. 310–311. [#N50-ptr1]

51. Mattani (1993), 140. [#N51-ptr1]52. Interestingly, there is also evidence that Dara Rasami disapproved of the drama’s message. Not only did she

request that palace women be shown Sao Khrua Fa separately from the men, she also wrote her own musicaldance-drama entitled Phra Loh Waen Kaew (Lady Crystal Ring) also called Noi Chaiya. This play centers on a

woman who rejects her parents’ choice of husband, and chooses to run away with her lower status lover. Thoughthis play was produced by Dara Rasami herself for performances within the palace, it never garnered the sameattention as did Sao Khrua Fa, and consequently it was never performed in public. Mattani (1993), ibid. [#N52-

ptr1]

53. From King Chulalongkorn’s personal letter to Dara Rasami dated 2 July 1909, collected in Prayut Sittiphan, p3 q#-*/rM3 p/3*;g s [Love in the Royal Palace of the Fifth Reign] . Bangkok: Saradee, 2000. [#N53-ptr1]

54. Romaniyachat Kaewgiriya (Mom Rachawong), and Pattanachat Raphiphun (Mom Rachawong) ['.-.5. -'Š&‹b-BŒ5•i&*, '.-.5. nk#‹b- -Žnk ]. [ P*-*pG :4*&q&p34!D$‘#x# [ Dara Rasami: Tie of Love between Two

Kingdoms] . Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, 1999: 88. [#N54-ptr1]

55. Mattani (1993), 120. [#N55-ptr1]

56. She had not even been allowed to return home to Chiang Mai to attend her father’s funeral in 1897, due toinstability in the region. Kanchanachari, Nongyao [#D$&*¡ 3*1#1*]]. Dara Rasami: A Royal Biography of Jao

Dara Rasami [ P*-*pG ,-.<-.=>,-.-*//*&* $0*P*-*pG ,¢!',-.c,#o£<-*-~ –P& 4'$¤1,-.$0*¥#*D$l!$0* 8* Q;&*¦=k#* ] . Published in conjunction with the Dedication of the Phra Rajajaya Chao Dara Rasamimonument at the Station of the 5th Border Patrol, Camp Dara Rasami, Changwat Chiang Mai, 27 January, 2533[1990]. Published by Tridi Printing, Ltd., 1990. [3§D$F,¨: 6R.3--'3*-©PªLMDN!], 1990: p. 32. [#N56-ptr1]















http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duleep_Singh








http://www.paknam.com/history/paknam-incident-1893.html


http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_monarchy.php?id=5313






57. See Sulak (1986), ibid., p. 73. [#N57-ptr1]

58. Luntaya is recognizable for its distinctive “wave” pattern. See examples in the collections of the V&A Museum,

London: http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O10875/silk-acheik-luntaya/[http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O10875/silk-acheik-luntaya/] [#N58-ptr1]

59. This residence, completed around 1906, was known as Suan Nohk [ 45##!3 ], or “The Outer Garden.” The eldest

Bunnag sister, Ohn, lived there until her death in 1970 at the age of 102. Khantathip (2005), ibid. [#N59-ptr1]

60. See http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/4*5$67!8*[http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B7%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8

, last accessed Feb. 12, 2012. [#N60-ptr1]

61. See Nidhi Aeusrivongse [cd $(&5G]5De ]. “Sao Khrua Fa: A Dream that Came True” [4*5$67!8* f#g$h#1iD].

Sinlapawatthanatham [ j;<=k#l--' ] Vol. 12, No. 6, April 1991, pp. 180–185; also Ratana Pakdeekul [pb#*

{3|};]. Images of Northern Women From Late 25th to Early 26th Centuries (B.E.) [ ~*,•3€ “ L‚D$Lƒ! ” „DB…<;*&†FlGb5--‡ g 25 ˆD‰#†FlGb5--‡g 26]. M.A. (2000): Chiang Mai University, Department of History.s [#N61-ptr1]

Trans-Asia Photography Review is published by Hampshire College

in collaboration with Michigan Publishing, with support from the Five College Consortium.

For more information please contact [email protected].

Online ISSN: 2158-2025

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Trans-Asia%20Photography%20Review

http://www.fivecolleges.edu/

http://www.publishing.umich.edu/

http://www.hampshire.edu/



http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B7%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%9F%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%B2



http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O10875/silk-acheik-luntaya/


Documents

Concubines With Cameras: Royal Siamese Consorts Picturing Femininity and Ethnic Difference in Early 20th Century Siam