Mainland Southeast Asia encompasses many Indigenous populations, alongside a significant influx of immigrant populations, spanning from Prehistoric times to the modern era. The designation “Indigenous” is often restricted to peoples from the highland regions, while terms such as “native people” or “ethnic minorities” are used throughout Southeast Asia, leading to an uneven understanding of regional history. The incorporation of diverse local cultures into the larger polities of nation-states, coupled with their ideological transformations, have historically resulted in the assimilation of Indigenous peoples into mainstream culture within a framework of a centralized governmental regime. In the context of Thailand, archaeological materials seldom demonstrate historical connections among nearby ethnic groups, yet this archaeological heritage has been incorporated into the broader concept of a “Thai cultural heritage,” wherein “ethnic minorities” are positioned as distinct from dominant groups. Archaeologists must engage in critical analysis of the intricate historical circumstances surrounding specific locales before embarking on heritage management endeavors. Hence, an integrated approach combining the humanities with social and physical sciences becomes a necessary conceptual tool. The utilization of scientific research, localized historical frameworks, and long-term participatory research methods are considered essential theoretical and practical implements for establishing the foundations of a ‘Third Space’ in Thailand. This intervening space enables a new form of cultural translation that connects the past and present of Thai and Shan populations to foster a sense of belonging and a sense of place that has been achieved through contemporary negotiation rather than lineal descent. This article focuses on two points from a Southeast Asian perspective. The first is a critical examination of the socio-political context related to archaeological heritage management in the highlands of Pang Mapha of Northwest Thailand; the second considers the pros and cons of community archaeology and heritage management in practice.
Rasmi Shoocongdej (Fri,) studied this question.