1. TERMINOLOGY:
Sino Thai is an ethnym used only for the assimilated Chinese in Thailand, who speak mostly Thai and have Thai (Sanskritized) names, This level of assismilation is quite unusual in Southeast Asia.
All T'ai (or Daic) people originated in either Southern China, Northeastern Laos, or Northwestern Viet Nam; the term Sino Thai is inaccurate for these reasons, and also fails to capture the actual migratory routes, time-span, and overall complexity as the T'ai arrived in mainland SEAsia proper.
The Li of Hainan are now HLI! Miao (or variants of) are, at their request, now known as HMONG. The same goes for the Yao, who prefer being called MIEN (or Iu-Mien, as my husband's grammar of the language is titled).
2. GEOGRAPHY:
Unfortunately, the areas of weaving in Thailand and Laos are so intertwined as to make geographical boundaries pointless. I have never understood the reason for separating ethnic groups and their weaving styles into Thai and Lao. The entire NE of Thailand (Isan) has more Lao speakers than does Laos; the areas closest to Cambodia are Khmer speaking, and their weavers follow Khmer traditions.
This does not mean that accurate identification is unneccesary or impossible. I think that origin and dates are extremely important, but need to be based on other kinds of evidence (including, but not limited to): dyes, pattern and structure, motif, power symbols, and ethnic markers. There has always been an active interchange of textiles from one area to another; there are also "samplers" with a wide range of motif and design which master weavers would put together for clients. (Not every woman wove, and some were either slow or clumsy, making it possible for textiles to be purchased by those that were not very good).
These concerns also apply to the ethnic divisions of the hilltribes, who also cut across nation-states, but whose textile traditions are almost similar. Of course there are wide variations in textile styles, but whether these are due to geographical divisions is questionable.
3. AGE:
Definetly the major bugaboo of collectors. If I have a textile in my collection that I bought in 1982, that I dated at around 1975 (post-war), is that textile now 28 years old, or is it simply post-Viet Nam?
Dating a cloth is so fraught with potential disaster, that I can't reliably check age without looking for fading, heaviness, or thinese of fibers used in the weaving, etc.
Any comments on this last point or others that I made here?
Best,
Sandie@@@
|