Although Pallegoix and Bowring are most frequently cited as nineteenth century
authorities on Thai slavery, other contemporaries have been ignored. Pallegoix's
estimate that one-fourth to one-third of the population of Siam (central Thailand) were
slaves is the most often cited (I:235, II:298;2 see also Lasker 1950:57; Pendleton
1962:14; Thompson [1941] 1967:599). Bowring's citation of Pallegoix is then taken as
support for Pallegoix, even though in a footnote Bowring advances that Pallegoix is
including the Chinese in his figure of one third of the population "for there are distinctly
much more than a third of Siamese who are slaves" ([1857] 1969:191; see also
Colquhoun 1885:189). Hallett, citing Mr. Alabaster, a confidential advisor to the king, is
more specific, noting that "nine-tenths of the non-Chinese inhabitants of Bangkok were
slaves" (1890:447).
If the evidence from central Thailand suggests the possibility that a large
percentage of the population were slaves, the historical evidence from northern
Thailand is more definitive, since it is drawn from different authors writing decades
apart. Several of these authors had considerable experience in Southeast Asia, some
even able to speak the native language, and had personally travelled to many villages in
the region. Furthermore, oral histories confirm the archival sources. The combined
northern Thai sources suggest that a clear majority of slaves were war captives and
kidnapees and that a far smaller percentage were debt slaves.