In its twenty-eight year history between 1953 and 1981, Palokhi experienced a change in headmen and four changes in the actual physical location of the settlement in the Huai Thung Choa valley. These changes are related in part, and they provide an important indication of the kinds of issues which are regarded as significant in the way in which a community is constituted according to Karen ideas.

The institution of headmanship in Karen communities has its roots in ideas and concepts in the non-Christian, non-Buddhist religious tradition of the Karen. Where it has been associated with some form of political or politico-religious organisation, this has been the result of the influence of ideas derived from Buddhist religious traditions and millenarian movements (or, for that matter, from Christian religious ideas) occasionally melded with, amongst others, the Karen notion of pgho, that is, religious power or “charisma” (Keyes [1977b:54–5]). In other words, political organisation and political leadership are not a primary part of indigenous Karen traditions and social organisation. On the other hand, headmen of Karen communities who are appointees of the Thai bureaucracy may in some cases be recognised as such within the community, and according to indigenous Karen ideas about headmanship.

In Palokhi, headmanship falls well within traditional definitions of the position, without political or politico-religious implications and without bureaucratic responsibilities. Headmanship, in Palokhi, is essentially a religious office which others (for example, Lewis and Lewis [1984:86]; Hinton [1975:41]) have described in terms of the role and functions of “village priest”. It does not carry with it jural authority of any significance except in matters, such as the enforcement of customary rules on marriage (which I discuss in the next chapter), where the headman does attempt to apply his authority. Even in such matters, however, attempts to exercise what may be regarded as a form of jural authority — although moral or religious authority would be a better term — are ultimately based on the belief that these matters do, indeed, have religious and ritual significance. In these matters, the headman does not act alone but with four older men in the community who are known as “old hearts” (sa’ pgha) or “elders”. Hinton (1975: 42–3) has described this collection of men, including the headman or “village priest”, by the term “council of elders”. The term suggests an institutionalised, formal group which, at least in the context of Palokhi, is inappropriate. While it is true that these men do get together to discuss matters of communal interest, more often than not such discussions take place in piecemeal fashion with two or three of the four men taking part at a time. These discussions may occur at any place or time, though usually it is in the headman’s house, after evening meals when the Palokhi Karen visit one another for pleasure, or for some business at hand such as recruiting labour for agricultural work on the next day. Such visits frequently involve both pleasure and business.

Through these back and forth discussions over a period of time (which depends on the urgency of the matter at hand), a “consensus” is arrived at. But, as Mischung has astutely observed (1980:34–5) such “consensus” is not necessarily the outcome of an unanimity or majority of opinion; frequently, it is the product of being able to “speak well” with a demonstrable knowledge of traditional Karen axioms and proverbs applied to the matter at hand which sways the opinions of others.^[16] Mischung’s observations are almost wholly applicable to Palokhi.

The important point to note, however, is that there is a certain degree of egalitarianism in which all of these men, including the headman, may express their opinions, and that these processes involve men who are generally, or relatively old (but cf. Mischung [1980:33]). That is to say, the “jural” process involves gender considerations and some form of age-grading or, in other words, principles based on natural differences which are employed to effect a form of social differentiation (see, for example, La Fontaine [1978:1ff.]).

Where Palokhi is specifically concerned, the pre-eminence of men in this regard is related to their dominance in agricultural and ritual matters, which are a major concern in the lives of the Palokhi Karen as I discuss below and in other chapters, whereas the generally old — or older — age of men who participate in such matters is related to a more universal phenomenon, namely, experience and knowledge which accrue with time. Even this, however, has a particular implication in Palokhi where, very generally, it is related to the notion of precedence which is an important consideration in religious and ritual concerns. While this explains the “jural” process in Palokhi (to the extent that such a process may be said to exist), nevertheless, these considerations do not account for the nature of headmanship, because the role and functions of the headman are primarily ritual and religious in substance.

Perhaps the most important consideration in Karen headmanship is precedence in residence which involves establishing a ritual relationship with the tutelary spirit of the domain, the Thi Koe’ca, Kau Koe’ca or Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land. This relationship consists of the annual propitiation of the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land. It is regarded as a necessary condition not only in the opening up of a settlement but also in the on-going process of inhabiting a particular kau. Thus, the first headman (zi kho, literally, “village head”) of Palokhi was Lauj (H9⁺) who was the first to settle in the Huai Thung Choa valley in 1953, and who was the first to propitiate the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land of the stream valley.

The village was initially situated towards the upper section of the stream where Lauj had built his house and was joined by the various families which settled shortly afterwards (see Figure 5.2, p. 275). After approximately one and a half years there, Lauj decided to move the site of the village further downstream to a more favourable location because it was felt that the initial site of the village was too damp and cold due to its proximity to the stream. In 1958 or 1959 the village was moved yet again, this time because pigs from the village tended to forage in the swiddens which were being opened up on the northern slopes of the stream valley and, thus, lay close to the village itself. After three years (that is, in 1960) in this new location, the village was rebuilt in its immediately previous location. The reason for this move, according to the Palokhi Karen, was that several children had died in the new location and this was taken as an indication that the villagers had somehow incurred the displeasure of the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land, although no specific reasons were given for this. The Palokhi Karen also claim that even after the change in village site, children continued to die, but it is not clear from their accounts as to the nature of the causes of these children’s death. An examination of the life histories of households indicates, that a number of children had indeed died during this time although the number does not appear unusually large in comparison to child mortalities in previous years.

What emerges clearly, however, is that in shifting their village site within its first ten years, the Palokhi Karen obviously attached considerable significance to the children’s deaths, leading in 1964 to a decision by three households (H5⁺, H1⁺ and HA) to hive off and settle in a new location. This happened to be the site of an old swidden that had been cultivated several years before by a Northern Thai from Ban Mae Lao. They were joined subsequently by H5⁺⁺ and other households, and the village remained in this location.

This last change in the site of the village was significant because it resulted in a change of headmen. It highlights an important aspect of village organisation in general as well as the crucial nature of the relationship between headman and the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land, as a basis for the existence of the community in particular. It demonstrates that despite the interdependence of households as a community — which is conspicuous, for example, in the co-operative labour exchanges that take place in agricultural activities and which is ritually marked in the rites of the New Year, as I discuss in Chapter IV — they are, nonetheless, essentially autonomous units within the community. This is to be seen in the independent decisions taken by the three households to resettle themselves in 1964 and those of the households which followed subsequently.

The resettlement of the three families clearly shows the importance of the relationship between headmen and the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land. Where it is felt that this relationship has not been sufficiently or successfully established (and, perhaps, even abrogated by the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land), it can lead to the dissolution of the community, at least as it was previously constituted. When the three families moved to the present site of Palokhi, Thi Pghe (H5⁺), Tamu’ (H1⁺) and Chwi’ (HA) jointly assumed responsibility for propitiating the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land, through an annually held rite called the Head Rite (Talykho) because they had simultaneously settled in the new location. In the time that Chwi’ was still resident in Palokhi (that is, up to 1974) and Thi Pghe was still alive (until his death in 1978), none of these three men was regarded as headman over the other two, although some of the Palokhi Karen say that Tamu’ was more or less so by virtue of the fact that he was the oldest of the three men, which is an indication of the importance placed on age as a criterion in determining precedence in Palokhi.

The overall ambiguity as to which of the three men was headman in the ten years after Palokhi was relocated in 1964 underlies the importance placed on precedence. The fact that the three men had established themselves in the new site of the village at the same time meant that none had clear-cut precedence. Instead, for ten years until 1974 (when Chwi’ left Palokhi) the three men were the ritual leaders of the new settlement which they had established and to which the other households came. Although Thi Pghe, Tamu’, and Chwi’ decided to form their own settlement as a result of the deaths of the children, the ultimate reason for leaving the village of which Lauj was still headman was that they felt Lauj was no longer able to maintain the ritual relationship with the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land.^[17]

This very clearly demonstrates that, conceptually, the legitimation of headmanship in Palokhi rests on the successful maintenance of this relationship with the tutelary spirit of the domain. In effect, then, the legitimacy of Lauj’s role as headman which rested on his ability to propitiate successfully the tutelary spirit of the domain was called into question. According to Nae’ Kha, Tamu”s son, there were also misgivings in the early 1960’s about Lauj’s effectiveness as headman because of his growing addiction to opium. It is evident, however, that these three families were not the only ones to doubt Lauj’s abilities, for they were soon followed by other households. When they did so, Lauj could no longer claim to be headman of the village since most of the village had, for all practical purposes, left him. He and his family, in fact, finally moved to join the others in the present location of Palokhi where he had no part to play in the Head Rite. As an elder, however, he was required to participate in some of the communal rites performed in Palokhi.

For Palokhi, as a Karen community, the overall significance of the headman is that he acts essentially as a mediator between the community and the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land. Individual households do, in fact, perform rituals which are directed at the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land as the tutelary spirit of the domain, but these rituals (although propitiatory in content) are primarily agricultural rituals unlike the Head Rite which is performed only by the headman (or co-founders of a settlement) and which is specifically conducted with the aim of propitiating the tutelary spirit of the domain in order to ensure favourable conditions and a harmonious state of affairs for the community.^[18] In terms of the logic of the cycle of ritual activities in Palokhi, (which are predominantly agrarian rites), all else follows from the Head Rite which is consistent with the notion of precedence that underlies the role of headman. It is only because the headman performs the Head Rite that other households may then perform their own agricultural rituals. In other words, the Head Rite is a precondition for agricultural cultivation of land in the kau, or domain; subsequently, households may perform their own propitiations of the tutelary spirit of the domain as part of the cycle of agrarian rites in Palokhi.

The importance of the headman and the Head Rite, in this respect, is clearly to be seen in the way that both are described by the term kho or “head” which not only implies superordination but also connotes, in more general applications of the term, the idea of temporal priority as well, in the sense of “that which comes first”. The first libations of rice liquor in the ritual propitiations of the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land, for example, are called khwae’ si’ ‘a’ kho as opposed to the last libations which are called khwae’ si’ ‘a’ da’ whilst in another context — the production of rice or maize liquor — prime liquor, which is the first distillate, is called si’ kho thi’ (literally, “liquor of the head water” or, as we might say it, of the “first water”). Similarly, rice that is first harvested and eaten (in a ritual which I discuss in Chapter VI) is called by kho, “head rice” (or “first rice”). All of these terms with kho imply precedence or priority of one kind or another and, in the context of headmanship and the Head Rite, it is the fact of precedence that gives headmanship its mediatory significance.

Precedence, however, is not the only important principle in the ritual or symbolic relationships between the headman, the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land, and the community. The other equally important principle is continuity of these relationships which is, of course, the corollary of precedence. This was, undoubtedly, implicit in the reasons for the last resettlement (1964) of the Palokhi Karen although they themselves expressed these reasons merely in terms of Lauj’s inability to propitiate successfully the tutelary spirit of the domain. Before the deaths of the children (and, perhaps, Lauj’s increasing addiction to opium) the Palokhi Karen did in fact remain together as a community, with Lauj as the headman, on the assumption that he was able to maintain the relationship with the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land. But then events caused his efficacy as headman to be questioned, at least as the Palokhi Karen viewed it.

The principle of continuity in the relationships between headman (or headmen), the Lord of the Water, Lord of the Land, and the community as a whole is probably best illustrated at Palokhi by the fact that the Head Rite must be performed annually. This renews the relationship between the headman (and his co-founders) with the tutelary spirit of the domain, and that between the community and the spirit of the domain through the intercessionary role of the headman. This renewal, or continuity, is re-affirmed by the genealogically-based succession to headmanship and the duty and obligation to perform the Head Rite on the part of the male descendants of Tamu’ and his co-founders.