本文擬欲敘說中國政治人口勢力於二十世紀初進入傣泐族裔所建之 Sipsong Panna 王國或車里宣慰司及至今日西雙版納傣族自治州的領域屬性 認定變遷過程。筆者建議可以「泐學」與「泐學二期」等二詞彙，來指稱分 別以民初李拂一和中共社會歷史調查團隊及其後續接棒之傣族研究專家為代 表的在地知識建置系統。不同意識形態背景的中國學論，均堅持以車里宣慰 使司、封建領主、或中國的土司，來界定此一傣泐人領地。然而，近二十年 的極度觀光發展之力道驚人。它幾乎摧毀幾十年來積極陳述西雙版納自古屬 於中國的官學論斷，為了觀光賺錢，民族的異國情調越神秘越古調越好，於 是，傣王、王宮、王庭、公主、王國、皇家乃至皇帝通通跑出。文字工作者 也開始以「傣王宮」為新款書名，大學裡有人回憶傣王年輕時的校園點滴， 最後末代Sipsong Panna 王國國王自己也以「傣王」自稱，撰文於校內書冊中。其他學界人士提及傣族，更是越來越多不忌「王」論。商業觀光似乎讓人讓政府忘卻一切，也使人（主要是傣族上層和學術中人）相對膽大。一個原本被認定為僅是土司的舊傣泐王國，近年因觀光而再生的歷程，正挑戰着中國民族史長期以來所建立的關鍵民族關係論調。

In this paper I have described the changing processes of defining Sipsong Panna within an inventory including a native state of the Tai-Lue people or Daizu 傣族, a China-appointed local administration, or a re-found luxurious kingdom in touristic rhetoric. The terms “Luelogy I” and “Lue-logy II” may be suitable to refer to the academic interest on Sipsong Panna from the Republic period through the Socialist era to the mid of 1990’s. According to Han-Chinese understanding from Chinese historic materials today’s Sipsong Panna was exactly the Cheli Xuenweisi or Cheli local administrative unit under Chinese imperial court. Therefore “petty kingdom” popularly suggested by most of international scholars to define Sipsong Panna and many traditional ethnicstates in Mainland Southeast Asia had been never found in contemporary Chinese academic materials. The Tai-Lue regime was only local authority instead of an independent kingdom so to speak. To call the traditional highest leader of Sipsong Panna “king” thus became a strict taboo. However the development of extreme tourism in Sipsong Panna or Xishuangbanna 西雙版納 in previous two decades has caused an overturned outcome that all key things related to kingdom such as “king,” “palace,” “princess,” “kingdom,” “royal house,” and even “emperor” have appeared in various touristic situations. Both non-academic and academic writers follow up to feel free to use those vocabularies in newly release publications. A Tai/Dai kingdom seems to be re-born during the time of bustling with tourists and it evidently challenges the classic ethno-historic studies contributed by researchers in both Lue-logy I and Lue-logy II.