Ram Khamhaeng Inscription

This debate still has not been definitively settled, but subsequent electron microscopy has suggested that the stele is likely to be as old as originally claimed, and the majority of academics in the field today regard it as at least partly authentic.

[1][3] Mongkut made initial studies of the inscription, and in 1836 established a commission, headed by monk-Prince Roek (who would later become Supreme Patriarch Pavares Variyalongkorn), to handle its deciphering.

A transliteration of the entire inscription into the modern Thai script was printed as a pamphlet for Crown Prince Vajiravudh's tour of the old Sukhothai Kingdom in 1908.

Griswold and Prasert na Nagara in 1971[3] and the National Library in 1977 improved upon Cœdès's version, and Winai Pongsripian published the most recent Thai transliteration in 2009.

[3] The inscription, which paints a picture of a plentiful kingdom ruled paternally by a benevolent king, was extremely influential in the development of Thai historiography.

[6] In July 1987, historian Michael Vickery presented a paper titled "The Ram Khamhaeng Inscription: A Piltdown Skull of Southeast Asian History?"

The claims—shocking for the implication that most of Thai history would have to be rewritten—led to intense, often heated, scholarly debate, joined by dozens of academics both making rebuttals as well as giving support.

[10][7] Although counter-arguments were made to address the claims, and a 1990 analysis using scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy found the Ram Khamhaeng stele to be the same age (700–500 years) as four other Sukhothai inscriptions, several proponents remain convinced of the forgery theory, and the debate has not been definitively settled.

[12] The intense scrutiny and analysis also led to a much richer body of scholarship on the inscription, and several new theories have been proposed regarding its purpose and the exact circumstances of its creation.

However, while historian Barend Jan Terwiel observed that "the Thai academic world showed a refreshing open-mindedness" in its response to the claims,[7] the public has sometimes responded with hostility.

A 2004 publication in a Thai newspaper by Piriya and British expatriate author Michael Wright (also a proponent of the forgery theory) led to angry protests in Sukhothai and threats by a politician to have them prosecuted for defaming the kings and harming national security.