A Chronology of Religious Architecture at Sukhothai. Late thirteenth to Early Fifteenth Century 9747100792

Citation preview

Chronology of Religious Architecture A

AT SUKHOTHAI Late Thirteenth to Early Fifteenth Century

i

fi'

¥

v

’’

Chronology of Religious Architecture A

AT SUKHOTHAI Late Thirteenth to Early Fifteenth Century

Betty Gosling

CHIANG MAI

© 1996 by the Association for Asian Studies All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher. This Southeast Asia edition is published in 1998 by Silkworm Books 54/1 Sridonchai Road, Chiang Mai 50100, Thailand E-mail: [email protected] ISBN 974-7100-79-2 Cover photograph: Wat Chedi Chet Thaeo, Si Satchanalai © 1998 by Angela Srisomwongwathana Printed in Thailand by O.S. Printing House, Bangkok

To Woody with gratitude for teaching me about Thai art

CONTENTS viii

Maps and Figures Tables

ix

Plates

X

xix

Editorial Note

1

1.

The Background

2.

The Inscriptional Evidence

11

3.

The Archaeological Evidence

61

4.

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

111

5.

The Sukhothai Pyramids

219

6.

Conclusions

239

Notes

245

Glossary

263

Works Cited

269

Index

277

vii

MAPSAND FIGURES Maps 1.

Mainland Southeast Asia

2

2.

Sukhothai Sites with Possible Inscriptional References

15

FIGURES

1.

Wat Mahathat, Present Remains

16

2.

Location of Monasteries

75

3.

Location of Seminal Period Buildings, 1292

116

4.

Arrangement of Si Chum Jataka Engravings as They Would Have Appeared on the Base of the Mahathat Lotus-Bud Stupa

124

5.

Location of Middle Period Monasteries, c, 1350-80

127

6.

The Bell-Shaped Stupa in Thailand and Its Antecedents

130

7.

Harmika in India and Sri Lanka

133

8.

Base and “Throne” Elements in Sukhothai Architecture

134

Location of Mahadharmaraja III Monasteries, 1380-1412

136

Location of Pyramids

222

9.

10.

viii

TABLES 1.

Base Profiles and Ground Plans of Wihan and Bot

79

2.

Attributes of Wian and Bot

84

3.

Attributes of Wihan and Bot Dated from Inscriptional Information

94

Time Spans of Attributes in Inscriptionally Dated Wihan and Bot

97

4.

5.

Inscriptionally Dated and Undated Wihan and Bot with Similar Clusters of Attributes

101

Low-base Wihan with Transitional and Mature Attributes

103

Profiles of Plain, Beveled, and Molded Bases, Arranged by Period

107

8.

Attributes of Wihan and Bot with Stepped Bases

108

9.

Comparison of Stepped and Molded Bases

109

The Sukhothai Pyramids: Attributes and Suggested Dates

230

6.

7.

10.

ix

PLATES Unless otherwise noted, all plates illustrate sites at Sukhothai. FRONTISPIECE. Pyramidal base beneath lower portion of central lotus-bud tower, Wat Mahathat CHAPTER 2 2.1.

Stupa on Khmer-style wihan, Wat Phra Phai Luang

37

2.2. Stupa, Tep Pranam, Angkor

37

2.3. Sukhothai: City enclosed by triple ramparts

38

2.4.

39

Wat Mahathat

2.5. Eighteen-cubit Buddha image (phra attharaf), Wat Mahathat

39

2.6. . Lotus-bud stupa with surrounding towers, Wat Mahathat

40

2.7.

Wihan Itiang (center right), lotus-bud stupa (center), and small stupas (foreground), Wat Mahathat

41

2.8. Northeast Khmer-style image house, Wat Mahathat

41

2.9. Southeast Khmer-style image house, Wat Mahathat

42

2.10. Twentieth-century statue of Ram Khamhaeng seated on the stone manangsilabuf, supported on a Fine Arts Department base. Sukhothai Historical Park

42

2.11. Lotus-bud stupa, Wat Mahathat, showing pyramidal base (center), surrounded by towers

43

2.12. Central lotus-bud tower, Wat Mahathat, showing molded story and stairway of pyramidal base

44

2.13. Wihan and eighteen-cubit Buddha image (phra attharat), Wat Saphan Hin

45

x

2.14. Eighteen-cubit Buddha image (phra atthUraf) and pillars of wihun, Wat Saphan Hin

45

2.15. Colossal seated Buddha image (Phra Achan), unrestored, Wat Si Chum

46

2.16. Pyramid, Wat Kon Laeng

47

2. 17. Stupa, Wat Chang Lorn, Si Satchanalai

47

2.18. Ayutthaya period prung, Wat Mahathat, Chaliang

48

2.19. Axial, Khmer-style tower on lotus-bud stupa, Wat Mahathat

49

2.20. Comer tower in the form of a stupa-prasnt, lotus-bud stupa, Wat Mahathat

50

2.21. Sinhalese-style stucco decor on axial tower of the lotus-bud stupa, Wat Mahathat

51

2.22. Stucco relief, Lankatilaka temple, Gampola, Sri Lanka (twentieth-century restoration)

51

2.23. Stupa-prasar, Chandi Sewu, Central Java

52

2.24. Base of but, Wat Phra Bat Yai

52

2.25. But, Wat Pa Mamuang

53

2.26. Thewulaimahukset (Brahmanical shrine)

53

2.27. Mondop, Wat Si Thon

54

2.28. Wall surrounding stupa, Wat Pa Mamuang

54

2.29. NOen prusut, base

55

2.30. Center wihun (lower left) with Mahathat lotus-bud stupa, eighteen-cubit Buddha image, and wihun luang (center); but (center right), Wat Mahathat

55

2.31. Stupa and pillars of wihun, Wat Chang Rop

56

2.32. Chedi Ha Yot pyramidal stupa and wihun, Wat Mahathat

56

2.33. Chedi Ha Yot and wihun (foreground); Mahathat lotus-bud stupa and wihun luang (center right). Small stupas in mid-ground, Wat Mahathat

57

xi

2.34. Stupa and wihan, Wat Chang Lorn

57

2.35. Stupa and wihan, Wat Phichitkiratikanlayaram

58

■

58

2.36. Stupa and wihan, Wat Asokaram

2.37. Stupa with niches for figures of elephants; detached spire in foreground, Wat Sarasak

59

2.38. Images of elephants surrounding stupa, Wat Sarasak

59

2.39. Stupa, Wat Trakuan

60

2.40. Wihan, Wat Chetuphon

60

CHAPTER 3 3.1. Present-day hot near Sukhothai 3.2.

Restored wihan with slitted wall openings, Nakhon Sawan

110 110

CHAPTER 4 4.1. San Phra Sua Muang (Tha Pha Daeng shrine)

146

4.2. Wat Phra Phai Luang, north tower or triad

147

4.3.

4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8.

Wat Phra Phai Luang, Khmer towers and Khmer-style terrace supporting small stupas and Thai-style wihan

148

Wat Phra Phai Luang, small stupas aligning the sides of the Khmer-style terrace

148

Wat Phra Phai Luang, base of laterite Khmer-style terrace, repaired with brick

149

Wat Phra Phai Luang, base of brick wihan on base of the Khmer-style terrace

149

Wat Phra Phai Luang, base of Khmer-style bat and one of its eight sima stones (left)

150

Wat Phra Phai Luang, northeast wihan

150

xii

4.9.

Wat Phra Phai Luang, northeast wihun, showing pillars constructed of pie-shaped segments

151

4.10. Wat Phra Phai Luang, laterite base of northeast wihun, repaired with brick

151

4.11. Wat Aranyik, but

152

4.12. Wat Aranyik, wihun

152

4.13. Wat Aranyik, base of wihun

153

4.14. Wat Asokaram, wihun with pillars of porch in foreground; pillars of cloister at left

153

4.15. Wat Asokaram, cloister on one side of the wihun

154

4.16. Wat Asokaram, pyramidal stupa

154

4.17. Wat Chana Songkhram, wihun (left foreground), stupa (center foreground), and but (right foreground). Wat Mahathat in background 155 4.18. Wat Chana Songkhram, but

156

4.19. Wat Chana Songkhram, base of but

156

4.20. Wat Chana Songkhram, wihun

157

4.2 1. Wat Chana Songkhram, base of wihun

1 57

4.22. Wat Chang Lorn, base of wihun

158

4.23. Wat Chang Lom, but

158

4.24. Wat Chang Lorn, stupa

159

4.25. Wat Chang Lom, figures of elephants surrounding stupa

159

4.26. Wat Chang Rop, stupa

160

4.27. Wat Chang Rop, figures of elephants in niches of stupa

161

4.28. Wat Chang Rop, wihun

162

4.29. Wat Chedi Ngam, stupa

162

4.30. Wat Chedi Ngam, wihun

163

4.31. Wat Chedi Si Hong, stupa

163

xiii

4.32. Wat Chedi Si Hong, stucco frieze at base of stupa

164

4.33. Wat Chedi Si Hong, figure of devatu on stucco frieze on base of stupa

164

4.34. Wat Chedi Si Hong, wihun

165

4.35. Wat Chedi Si Hong, slitted wall surrounding wihun

165

4.36. Wat Chedi Si Hong, base of wihun

166

4.37. Wat Chedi Si Hong, base of but

*

166

4.38. Wat Chedi Sung, wihun

167

4.39. Wat Chedi Sung, stupa

167

4.40. Wat Chedi Sung, redentions at comer of stupa

168

4.41 . Wat Chedi Yot Hak, base of stupa

168

4.42. Wat Chedi Yot Hak, wihun with utsana sangh (left)

169

4.43. Wat Chetuphon, wihun

169

4.44. Wat Chetuphon, base of wihun

170

4.45. Wat Chetuphon, her

170

4.46. Wat Chetuphon, with mature period and Ayutthaya period additions

171

4.47. Wat Kamphaeng Laeng, wihun and bases of small stupas

171

4.48. Wat Khao San, base of but

172

4.49. Wat Kon Laeng, wihun and pyramid

'

172

4.50. Wat Kon Laeng, wihun with altar and Utsana sangh

173

4.51. Wat Mahathat, conjunction of wihun luang (right) and center wihun (left)

173

4.52. Wat Mahathat, base of center wihun

174

4.53. Wat Mahathat, wihun luang and center wihun, showing alignment of pillars, lotus-bud stupa at rear 174 4.54. Wat Mahathat, Chedi Ha Yot with small stupas in foreground

xiv

175

4.55. Wat Mahathat, Chedi Ha Yot, second, third, and fourth stories

175

4.56. Wat Mahathat, segment of wall with reliefs of mythological animals surrounding Chedi Ha Yot

176

4.57. Wat Mahathat, abutment of wihan (right) against wall surrounding Chedi Ha Yot (left)

176

4.58. Wat Mahathat, bot with bai sima and pillars of cloister

177

4.59. Wat Mahathat, secondary lotus-bud stupa

177

4.60. Wat Mahathat, east wihan

178

4.61. Wat Mahathat, east wihan (lower right), with lotus-bud stupa and eighteen-cubit Buddha images (upper left)

178

4.62. Wat Mahathat, bell-shaped stupa west of bot

179

4.63. Wat Mai, bot

179

4.64. Wat Mai, base of bot

180

4.65. Wat Mangkon, stupa, bot, and subsidiary monuments

180

4.66. Wat Mangkon, bot and bai sima

181

4.67. Wat Mangkon, base of bot

181

4.68. Wat Mangkon, cloister of bot

182

4.69. Wat Mum Langka, stupa

182

4.70. Wat Mum Langka, wihan

183

4.71. Wat Mum Langka, bot and bai sima

.183

4.72. Wat Mum Muang, wihan

184

4.73. Wat Om Rop, stupa

184

4.74. Wat Om Rop, base of wihan

185

4.75. Wat Pa Mamuang, stupa; surrounding wall in foreground

185

xv

4.76. Wat Pa Mamuang, indrakhila

186

4.77. Wat Phichitkiratikanlayaram, stupa

187

4.78. Wat Phichitkiratikanlayaram, wihan

188

4.79. Wat Phra Bat Noi, wihan and stupa

188

4.80. Wat Phra Yun, hot

189

4.81. Wat Phra Yun, base of bot with pillars of cloister and porch

1 89

4.82. Wat Prong Men, stupa and wihan

190

4.83. “Ramparts” monastery, wihan

190

4.84. Wat Sangkhawat, stupa

191

4.85. Wat Sangkhawat, wihan

191

4.86. Wat Sangkhawat, bat

192

4.87. Wat Sangkhawat, base of bat

192

4.88. Wat Saphan Hin, wihan

193

4.89. Wat Saphan Hin, base of wihan

193

4.90. Wat Sarasak, wihan

194

4.91 . Wat Sa Si, stupa and wihan

194

4.92. Wat Sa Si, wihan (stupa in background)

195

4.93. Wat Sa Si, base of wihan

195

4.94. Wat Sa Si, moldings at west end of wihan base

196

4.95. Wat Si Chum, mondop and wihan

196

4.96. Wat Si Chum, base of wihan showing ground-level pillars

197

4.97. Wat Si Chum, bat

197

4.98. Wat Si Chum, engraving of a scene from the Sukhavihari Jataka

198

4.99. Wat Si Chum, engraving of a scene from the Devadhamma Jataka

199

xvi

4. 100. Wat Si Sawai, wihun (triple towers in background)

200

4.101. Wat Si Sawai, base of wihun

200

4.102. Wat Si Thon, wihun

201

4.103. Wat Son Khao, stupa

201

4.104. Wat Son Khao, redentions at comer of stupa

202-

4.105. Wat Son Khao, wihun

202

4.106. Wat Tham Hip, wihun

203

4. 1 07. Wat Ton Chan, stupa and wihnn, showing round and octagonal pillars and cloister (left)

203

4.108. Wat Ton Chan, wihnn, showing utsana sangh and pillars constructed of pie-shaped wedges

204

4. 109. Wat Ton Chan, base of wihun with ground-level pillar

204

4. 1 10. Wat Ton Makham, peripheral stupa

205

4. 1 1 1 . Wat Ton Makham, principal stupa

205

4. 1 1 2. Wat Ton Makham, wihun

206

4.113. Wat Trakuan, but

206

4. 1 14. Wat Trakuan, base of but

207

4.1 15. Wat Traphang Ngoen, stupa

207

4.116. Wat Traphang Ngoen, wihun

208

4. 1 17. Wat Traphang Ngoen, but

208

4. 1 1 8. Wat Traphang Phan, stupa

209

4. 1 19. Wat Traphang Thonglang, mondop and wihun

209

4. 120. Wat Traphang Thonglang, mondop, stucco relief depicting the Buddha’s descent from Tavatimsa

210

4. 121 . Wat Traphang Thonglang, base of wihun and ground-level pillar

211

4.122. Wat Traphang Thonglang, base of but

21 1

xvii

4.123. Wat Tuk, mondop and wihan

212

4. 124. Wat Tuk, mondop, showing comer redentions

212

4. 125. Wat Wihan Thong, pyramid

213

4.126. Wat Wihan Thong, wihan

213

4. 127. Wat Ya Kron, wihan with vestibules, and stupa

214

4.128. Wat Ya Kron, wihan

214

4.129. Wat Ya Kron, base of wihan with cloister (left)

215

4.130. Mahathupa, Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka

215

4. 13 1 . Small stupa surrounded by figures of crouching elephants in the precincts of the Mahathupa, Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka

216

4.132. Lankatilaka temple, Gampola, Sri Lanka, bell-shaped stupa (under reconstruction)

216

4. 1 33. Lankatilaka temple, figure of elephant in niche, Gampola, Sri Lanka

217

4.134. Mahathupa harmika, Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka

217

4. 1 35. Lotus-bud stupa, Wat Suan Kaeo Uthayan Noi, Si Satchanalai

218

CHAPTERS 5.1.

Kon Laeng pyramid, stonework

235

5.2.

Wihan Thong pyramid, stonework

236

5.3.

Ha Yot pyramid, stonework and brickwork

236

5.4.

Mahathat pyramid, third, fourth, and fifth stories (as seen between axial and comer towers)

237

Mahathat pyramid, stairs turned at right angle to original stairway, base of southeast comer tower at left of stairway

237

Connecting element between Mahathat pyramid and comer tower (left)

23 8

5.5.

5.6.

xviii

EDITORIAL NOTE ROMANIZATION

In this study Thai words are transcribed phonetically, thereby preserving as nearly as possible Thai pronunciation and meaning. The graphic system of transliteration, which shows as precisely as possible how a Thai word is spelled, and which is often used by writers in order to better indicate Pali and Sanskrit etymons from which some Thai words are derived, occasionally suggests meanings foreign to Thai usage, and has been avoided here. Personal names and place names are spelled without diacritical marks, and Thai, Pali, and Sanskrit words that have found their way into the English language (such as Thai, Buddha, Theravada, dharma, sangha, Pali, Indra, and stupa) are spelled as they are usually rendered in English. Illustrations

Plates are grouped as appropriate at the end of each chapter. Plates 2.1-2.40, located at the end of chapter 2, illustrate inscriptional material, while a comprehensive overview of Sukhothai architecture can be found at the end of chapter 4. Khmer buildings are illustrated in plates 4.1-4.10; Thai monasteries, arranged alphabetically, are depicted in plates 4.11-4.129. Plates 5.1-5.6, located at the end of chapter 5, provide additional details relevant to the discussion of the Sukhothai pyramids. MEASURES

Measurements of the Sukhothai buildings are expressed in feet j and inches, which, unlike units devised for the modem metric * system, are closely related to measures used in ancient times. Distances, however, are given in metric units, commonly used in Thailand today. Dates

All dates are rendered as prescribed by the western calendar. xix

THE BACKGROUND 'T'he latter decades of the twentieth century have seen radical -L changes in the reconstruction of early Thai history. Traditional concepts have been challenged, established historical beliefs have been recast, and theories about the emergence of Thai civilization have been questioned. Since the late nineteenth century, most studies of Thailand’s cultural roots, the strengthening and broadening of its political foundations, and its emergence as a modem nation have focused on a series of events that took place well within the country’s modem political boundaries. The conduit of historical change was the broad and fertile valley of the Chao Phraya River, or menam, which flows southward from the northern provinces to disgorge itself into the Gulf of Thailand near the country’s present-day capital, Bangkok (see map 1). Late nineteenth- and most twentieth-century traditionalists considered Thailand’s history to have begun at the old city of Sukhothai, located on the flood plain of the River Yom, a tributary of the Chao Phraya, at a site four hundred and fifty kilometers north of Bangkok. Although at some unknown date Sukhothai had been abandoned and had fallen into ruin, the wealth of its architectural and sculptural remains evidenced the city’s previous importance as a prosperous Buddhist center. Dozens of mammoth Buddhist stupas and assembly halls, grouped in about forty-five monastic complexes, still dominate the landscape. Stone inscriptions, which began to be collected from Sukhothai’s ruins around the middle of the nineteenth century, suggested that the city had once been not only a flourishing religious community but a powerful political center as well. The inscriptions provided only sketchy and sporadic glimpses

Pagan

Chiang Mai Nan

\

VSi Satchanalai

I •

Sukhothai

•Martaban I

Phitsanulok

t ’

£.

'W

■'• ”•

Plate 2.30 Center wihan (lower left) with Mahathat lotus-bud stupa, eighteen-cubit Buddha image, and wihan luang (center); bot (center right), Wat Mahathat

56

'•>£' •Uj

. •-■

r i - z. -< V / ’ & X -

-

'

Xi

Plate 2.31 Stupa and pillars of wihan, Wat Chang Rop

■- - X

Plate 2.32 Chedi Ha Yot pyramidal stupa and wihan, Wat Mahathat

57

Plate 2.33 Chedi Ha Yot and wihan (foreground); Mahathat lotus-bud stupa and wihan laang (center right). Small stupas in mid-ground, Wat Mahathat

ST t*H!S •fl “"AW

c. 1380-90

TUUioqSireqo MIS S ff!S®S ■gw(3tre'Itunjv •ffireStretrx

•

• • • • • • ■ • • • ••

• •

•

• • •

• • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • •

• •

•

•

•

• •

• •• • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

•

•• •

•

• • •

•

• • •

• • • • • •

• •

• • • • • •

• •

•

•

Sirenw am W •AiureSNt[»t|3 •ffSirenureyjEd ■ joiua iutpuipw ■ffuaoSN’l •ff8ire|3Botu,x •AluswSuoJd -jtfdqH Sireqj TH Snreq Sirarqdureyi •Atuoqus •/HTOIlOA'3

• • • • • • •

• •

• •

• • •

* 9

*

* • ® • • • • • •

• • • •• •

•

• •

••

irAiunttDiS 3| rei3 “ o m j . •Al tnuV UTHspiidurea n M«“iR®WUOi HAiujH’wfes irAHMMWWI ITAiiretDUOi iratorriwifd r uoqdruaiQ

••

• •

• • •

•

• •

• • • • • •• • •• • •

• • • • •• •• • •

n'di

I’Aluinqais r 8trenqreqdBjqd r/H 3 u o H ! S ‘ 3 r/ntretauoi I Sirepuoqi-x I'Muretppwuox rAtlWWW r/H‘«!Htreq s rewniQis

• • • • • • • • • •

• •• • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • •

• • • • 9 • • •

| 1 Base: About 9 ft Complex vestibules Brick-laterite Attenuated pillars Long ground plan Cloisters Two vestibules 48”-72’base Wide nave Base moldings Octagonal pillars Brick pillars 36"-48" base Large bell stupa Brick exterior No interior pillars One vestibule 24 -36" base ____ Medium-length plan Plain/bevel base Pillars at mid-nave Narrow nave Heavy pillars Short ground plan Rectangularplan 12"-24"base | Ground-level floor |

c. 1290

EARLY: from c.1345

MIDDLE:

toe. 1380

■ffucmlryoqo •ffruoqStreto

SEMINAL:

•

•ffucnpuBW •ff)Bqnnpw • HSirequmn •ffOEqx uog ’Al urenppuos etreqj ■gureJtp[SuosEiren3

TRANSITIONAL

MATURE: c. 1390-1419

• •••

Table 5. Inscriptionally Dated and Undated Wihnn and BOt with Similar Clusters of Attributes

•••

■am • • • • • • •

102

Table 6. low-base Attributes

Chapter Three

wihan with transitional

and Mature

The careful reader will have noticed that table 5 (which,, among other considerations, groups high molded bases with mature period attributes) omits a group of buildings with attributes that did not cluster according to the proposed schema. In this group are thirteen wihan (there are no hot) with bases 2.5 feet high or less, wiiich, in spite of that indicator of early period construction, display signs of transitional or mature period design. Unlike the buildings included in table 5, the low-based wihan in table 6 were notable for their lack of clustered attributes, and dates were attributed primarily on the basis of one or two mature or transitional characteristics that indicated late dates of construction. If there had been fewer of these lowbased wihan with mature period traits, and if no inscriptionally dated buildings had been included among them, they might simply have been dismissed as anomalies, inconsistent with the more obvious pattern of architectural development reflected in the more numerous, “typical” buildings. Tabulation of the data in tables 5 and 6 suggested another explanation, however: that while in the late Sukhothai period, hot reserved for the use of the Theravada monkhood were monumentally situated high on molded bases, the wihan, used by the Buddhist laity, developed along more conservative lines. Thus, the two types of buildings, constructed more or less contemporaneously, reflect not different chronological periods but different ceremonial uses.

Ton Chan W. m PhichitW. 1404

ChediSungW. Ramparts W. HI Saphan Hin W. Ill

Traphang Ngoen W. TukW. OmRopW.

Traphang Phan W. ThamHipW.

SiSawaiW. SarasakW. Phra BatNdi W.

• • •

• •

1415

Inscriptional Date Mature Complex vestibules Brick-laterite Attenuated pillars Long ground plan Cloisters Two vestibules

• •

•

•

• •

Transitional Wide nave Base moldings Octagonal pillars

•

• •

•

Middle Large bell stupa Brick exerior No interior pillars One vestibule

• • • ••

•

•

• • •

•

Early Medium-length plan Plain/bevel base Narrow nave Heavy pillars Short ground plan Rectangular plan Base height (inches)

•

• •

• • • •

•

• •

•

• • • • • •

•

24 22 10 32 30 3 0 2 8 1 6 13 20 18 15 15

Table 6. Low-base Wihan with Transitional and Mature Attributes (Roman numerals refer to phases of construction)

104

Chapter Three

Table 7. profiles of Plain, Beveled, and Molded Bases, Arranged by Period In table 7, base profiles are arranged according to the periods outlined in table 5 and table 6 (which, in turn, were determined by the data compiled in tables 2 through 4). Thus, the attribution of a base to a particular period was determined not by the base profile alone but by the totality of architectural components found in the same building. References to the relevant tables are provided for each building below, Roman numerals indicate successive phases of construction. Even though base heights and moldings were among the most obvious architectural attributes used to distinguish one building from another, and were the first characteristics considered when the tabulation of data began (table 1), the lowbased wihan with transitional and mature period characteristics (as opposed to bat, with high molded bases) initially clouded the picture. Therefore, a schematic arrangement of base moldings was not attempted until after the other data had been compiled and periods of construction suggested by attributes other than base design had been completed. Only within a period were bases arranged according to height and profile alone. Plain and slightly chamfered bases of approximately the same height occurred in most periods, and a chronological distinction between those closely related base types could not be made. Bases in table 7 include the following: Seminal period (c. 1290) 1. Saphan Hin, wihan I (tables 2[A], 3, 5) 2. Mahathat, west wihan I (tables 2[A], 5) 3. Phra Phai Luang, wihan I (tables 2[A], 5) 4. Ton Makham, wihan I (tables 2 [A], 5) 5. Ton Chan, wihan I (tables 2[A], 5) 6. Si Chum, wihan I (tables 2[A], 5) 7. Traphang Thonglang, wihan I (tables 2[A], 5)

The Archaeological Evidence

105

8. Chedi Si Hong, wihnn I (tables 2[A], 5) 9. Si Chum, bot I (tables 2[A], 5) Early period (from 1345) 10. Saphan Hin, wihnn H (tables 2[A], 2[C], 5) 11. Mahathat, west wihnn II (tables 2[A], 2[C], 3, 5) 12. Phra Phai Luang, wihnn II (tables 2[A], 2[B], 5) 13. Chetuphon, wihnn I (tables 2[B], 5) 14. Ton Makham, wihnn n (tables 2[A], 2[C], 5) 15. Ton Chan, wihnn H (tables 2[A], 2[B], 5) 16. Si Chum, wihnn II (tables 2[A], 2[B], 5) 17. “Ramparts,” wihnn II (tables 2[A], 5) 18. Aranyik, wihnn (tables 2[A], 5) 19. Traphang Thonglang, wihnn II (tables 2[A], 2[C], 5) Middle period (to 1380) 20. Traphang Thonglang, bdt (tables 2[C], 5) 21. Pa Mamuang (Mango Grove), bot (tables 2[C], 3, 5) 22. Mahathat, center wihnn (tables 2[C], 3, 5) 23. Prong Men, wihnn (tables 2[C], 5) 24. Chedi Yot Hak, wihnn (tables 2[B], 5) 25. Si Thon, wihnn (tables 2[B], 3, 5) 26. Kamphaeng Laeng, wihnn (tables 2[B], 5) 27. Chang Rop, wihnn (tables 2[B], 5) 28. Traphang Ngoen, bot (tables 2[B], 5) 29. Chedi Ngam, wihnn (tables 2[B], 5) 30. Mum Muang, wihnn (tables 2[C], 5) Transitional period (c. 1380-90) 31. Chang Lorn, bot (tables 2[E], 3, 5) 32. Chetuphon, bot (tables 2[E], 5)

106

Chapter Three 33. Mum Langka, bat (tables 2[E], 5) 34. Chang Lom, wihan (tables 2[C], 3, 5) 35. Sangkhawat, hot (tables 2[E], 5) 36. Sangkhawat, wihan (tables 2[E], 5) 37. Si Sawai, wihan (tables 2[B], 6) 38. Sa Si, bat (tables 2[B], 3, 5) 39. Sa Si, wihan (tables 2[B], 3, 5) 40. Khao San, bat (tables 2[B], 5) Mature period (c. 1390-1419) 41. Mangkon, bat (tables 2[E], 5) 42. Ya Kron, wihan (tables 2[E], 5) 43. Trakuan, bat (tables 2[E], 3, 5) 44. Phra Yun, feat (tables 2[E], 5) 45. Mahathat, feat (tables 2[E], 5) 46. Chana Songkhram, fear (tables 2[E], 5) 47. Son Khao, wihan (tables 2[E], 5) 48. Chedi Si Hong, wihan II, (tables 2[E], 5) 49. Traphang Phan, wihan (tables 2[C], 6) 50. Traphang Ngoen, wihan (tables 2[C], 6) 51. Tuk, wihan (tables 2[C], 6) 52. Phichitkiratikanlayaram, wihan (tables 2[C], 3, 6) 53. Chedi Sung, wihan (tables 2[B], 6) 54. Om Rop, wihan (tables 2[C], 6) 55. Phra Bat Noi, wihan (tables 2[B], 6) 56. Mum Langka, wihan (tables 2[B], 5) 57. Chana Songkhram, wihan (tables 2[B], 5) 58. Tham Hip, wihan (tables 2[B], 6) 59. Sarasak, wihan (tables 2[B], 3, 6)

Seminal c . 1290

1

Early from 1345 !

Middle t o e . 1380

L elI IT.° II

iziiaaiziizi IOT0

—< m v) ax l el l l Tf l l lsol loo l

Table 7. Profiles of Plain, Beveled,

Transitional c. 1380-90

Mature c. 1390-1419

and Molded Bases, Arranged by Period

L±1

108

Chapter Three

Table 8. Attributes Bases

of WihAn and BDt with Stepped

Mature Base height: 36-48" Pyramid Spacious interior Attenuated pillars Long ground plan Cloisters Two vestibules Middle Base height: 24-36" No interior pillars Brick pillars Bell-shaped stupa Short-medium ground plan One vestibule Early Base height: 12-24" Narrow nave Heavy pillars Rectangular ground plan

•• ••• • • • • •

Kon Laeng wihan

Wihan Thong wihan

Chetuphon wihan II

Si Chum wihan DI

Si Chum bot II

Chedi Si Hong wihan 1

Asokaram (1399)

Some chronological indicators for the stepped-base buildings were confusing. Four buildings showed signs of extensive reconstruction, and base designs suggested little in the way of stylistic evolution. The small number of buildings in the group compounded the uncertainties. Step pyramids in the cherfi position west of three of the halls posed special problems of dating (see chapter 5). Table 8 did demonstrate, however, that middle period attributes predominated in six of the assembly halls. The one inscriptionally dated building (Wat Asokaram, 1399) was clearly the latest of the group.

9

9

•

•

9

9 9

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

• •

• •

•

Table 8. Attributes of Wihan and Bot with Stepped Bases

(Roman numerals refer to phases of construction)

The Archaeological Evidence

109

Table 9. Comparison of Stepped and Molded Bases Unlike Sukhothai’s beveled and molded bases, the stepped bases did not lend themselves well to stylistic comparison, either among themselves or with other types. Little in the way of chronological development could be discerned. Nonetheless, table 9 displays possible (though uncertain) chronological relationships between stepped and molded bases.

1380-90

1376

10

c. 1400

12

1. Wihan Thong, wihan

7. Chedi Si Hong, wihan II

2. Kon Laeng, wihan

8. Mahathat, center wihan

3. Si Chum, bar II

9. Prong Men, wihan

4. Si Chum, wihan III

10. Sangkhawat, hot

5. Asokaram, wihan

11. Ya Kron, w’/Aan

6. Chetuphon, wihan II

12. Son Khao, wihan

Table 9. Comparison of Stepped and Molded Bases

(Roman Numerals refer to phases of construction)

110

/

1

1I

Plate 3.1 Present-day bot near Sukhothai

118

l' .1’’"I

Plate 3.2 Restored wihan with slitted wall openings, Nakhon Sawan

4 SUKHOTHAI ARCHITECTURE BY PERIOD VT 7hen the information compiled in tables 1-9 was V V correlated with the inscriptional data summarized in chapter 2, a sketchy picture of Sukhothai’s architectural development emerged. As in most stylistic chronologies, periodization was not always as clear-cut as it might appear on paper. Artistic styles—which developed and declined gradually—overlapped and meshed; dividing lines between “periods,” to some extent, had to be subjectively drawn. Occasionally contradictory chronological indicators were found within a single building. In the Sukhothai wihan and bdt, conflicting attributes could sometimes be explained by different stages of construction. But when there was no evidence that rebuilding had occurred, weight was usually given to the most advanced stylistic details. As elsewhere in the world, “oldfashioned” details seemed to persist for some time after new styles had been introduced, and sometimes it was innovative details that established a building’s date of construction. Generally, Sukhothai’s wihan appeared to be more conservative and subject to “culture lag” than the bdt. In a very few examples, chronological indicators were so confusing that satisfactory dates of construction could not' be suggested, and those buildings are noted below. In the periodization outlined here, artistic styles were linked whenever possible to important political and religious events that seemed to play a role in their formulation. In some cases the regnal dates of a Sukhothai ruler could be correlated with a change in architectural style, but usually events other than the rise to power of a single individual seemed to play a more important role. Sometimes divisions between periods were 111

112

Chapter Four

drawn simply on the basis of what I hope is a reasonable interpretation of the data, without reference to historical events. The Khmer Period, Twelfth

and Thirteenth

Centuries

Although Sukhothai’s period of Khmer occupation left its mark on the city, it had little influence on the Thai architectural tradition that would emerge toward the end of the thirteenth century. In order to place the Thai buildings in their proper perspective, however, Sukhothai’s Khmer buildings will be mentioned briefly. Dates of construction of the Khmer buildings are uncertain. Khmer architecture at Angkor was studied in detail by French scholars throughout the first half of the twentieth century, and the numerous Khmer buildings located in what is now central and eastern Thailand have also received considerable attention.1 The Khmer buildings at Sukhothai, on the other hand, have yet to be seriously researched, and the present study, which focuses on the Thai architectural tradition, adds only minimally to our understanding of the Khmer period. The San Phra Sua Muang, or Tha Pha Daeng shrine (plate 4.1), generally considered to be the oldest building at Sukhothai, has been dated variantly to the reign of Suryavarman II (1113-50 A.D.) and to that of Jayavarman VII (1181-1220 A.D)? Although it is imposing in size and is located near the center of the Thai walled city (just south of the old Khmer settlement), the shrine is not mentioned in any extant inscription and it inspired no stylistic counterparts. However, the San Phra Sua Muang is the only one of the Khmer-style buildings with a 79-degree orientation (as opposed to the 91degree orientation of buildings within the Khmer city). Thus, it provides evidence of a very early date for the introduction of one of Sukhothai’s most prevalent directional orientations. The three large Khmer-style towers at Wat Phra Phai Luang (plates 4.2, 4.3), probably built in the mid-thirteenth century (see chapter 2), had no influence on Sukhothai’s Thai architectural tradition. A similar triad of towers at Wat Si Sawai (plate 4.100) cannot be dated earlier than the late fourteenth century. Even later, purely Ayutthayan period additions are also evident at the site. More than the old Khmer buildings at Sukhothai, the Si Sawai towers resemble buildings of the

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

113

Ayutthaya period, by which time Khmer influence, though strong, had been considerably modified. The smooth contours of the Si Sawai towers contrast with the high reliefs on those at Wat Phra Phai Luang, where the component Active stories are distinctly separated and appear to have been conceived as separate entities. The towers at Si Sawai, in which the stories are blended to provide the smooth (“corn-cob”) shape typical of Khmer-style stupas in both the Ayutthaya and Bangkok periods, are sometimes known as prang.3 The large terrace with stupas at Wat Phra Phai Luang (plates 4.3-4.6) was mentioned in relation to the inscriptional and archaeological evidence in chapters 2 and 3. A large bat (plate 4.7), identifiable as such by the eight bai sima that surround it, located west of the towers, also falls within the category of Angkorean “Buddhist terraces.” 4 Although distinctly Khmer in its construction, the bat is positioned offcenter in relation to the triad of towers that provides the focal point of the Phra Phai Luang complex. The bat appears to have been a later addition, but a precise date of construction cannot be suggested. The construction of bat in the Thai tradition cannot be dated earlier than the mid-fourteenth century: a long gap between the Khmer and Thai traditions is indicated. Contrary to popular opinion, the Thai did not introduce Theravada Buddhism to Cambodia; all the evidence suggests the opposite. A small wihan, which might be Sukhothai’ s oldest, located in the northeast comer of the Wat Phra Phai Luang complex (plates 4.8-4.10), must also be assigned to the Khmer period. Like the larger Wat Phra Phai Luang buildings, the small wihan is built of large, randomly sized blocks of laterite, irregularly laid. The altar, located in the traditional position near the west wall, still shows the imprint of three seated Buddha images of equal size, indicative of an iconographic tradition distinct from the later Thai tradition, in which single Buddha images (phra prathari) were iconographically correct? The pillars in the small wihan are composed of pie-shaped segments, a form of construction duplicated in only one other Sukhothai building, a wihan at Wat Ton Chan (plate 4.108). A small bat at Wat Aranyik (not to be confused with Inscription l’s aranyik, now called Wat Saphan Hin) shows

114

Chapter Four

some Khmer influence in its stonework but is typically neither Khmer nor Tai. Particularly unusual is the placement of bai sima on the base of the bot rather than on the ground surrounding it. Neither the style nor the iconography of the bot was adopted in later Sukhothai buildings. Since there is no other structure with which to compare it, the bot is impossible to date with any accuracy. But a time in the latter part of the thirteenth century, when Khmer influence was beginning to wane, yet prior to the full establishment of a Thai architectural tradition, is strongly suggested. Located downhill from Wat Saphan Hin, where Inscription 1 reports that Ram Khamhaeng built a large wihun for the Sangharaja from Nakhon Si Thammarat, the aranyik bot (plate 4.11) once may have been part of the Ram Khamhaeng monastic site (called aranyik in the inscription). But by the late thirteenth century, at least, it was clearly eclipsed by the large wihan (with no sign of Khmer influence) built on the top of the hill. Unlike the new Thai building, which is celebrated in Inscription 1, the small hybridized bot is not mentioned in any extant Sukhothai inscription. As might be expected, however, Sukhothai’s Khmer tradition did not immediately vanish. Two image houses with Khmer-style stonework, identified in this study as Inscription l ’ s Sala Phra Mat and Buddha Sala (plates 2.8 and 2.9), “in this sugar-palm grove,” flank the Mahathat stupa at the center of the city. Four corner axial towers in the Khmer style (now embellished with Sinhalese-style stucco decor) (plate 2.20) that were • added to the step pyramid probably date from the early fourteenth century (see chapter 2). They were probably the latest of the Khmer-style buildings produced at Sukhothai. Although the design of the redented shaft of the lotus-bud towers that began to be built in the second quarter of the fourteenth century appears to have been derived from Khmer prototypes, that architectural element was incorporated in a manner that was entirely new. The overall design of the lotusbud stupa is uniquely Thai.

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

115

The Seminal Period (Reign or Ram Khamhaeng), last Quarter of the Thirteenth Century During the latter half of the thirteenth century, a style of architecture appeared at Sukhothai that was distinctly different from that of the Khmer buildings that had been built there earlier. Rather than elaborate upon the older tradition, the Tai utilized the most basic of all architectural forms: the step pyramid for buildings without interior space and post-and-lintel construction for assembly halls. Khmer temples had been raised on large terraces; the new ones were designed as ground-level structures. It would be several decades before the first lotus-bud stupas would be built, and the profusion of large bell-shaped stupas, for which Sukhothai is now famous, would not appear for another three-quarters of a century. In the seminal period, gigantic images of the Buddha expressed graphically the Theravada beliefs that in later years more abstract architectural forms would come to symbolize. Most buildings datable to the Ram Khamhaeng period show signs of later reconstruction, a matter that has led some art historians to conclude that none of Sukhothai’s architectural remains are datable to the Ram Khamhaeng period. Signs of early stages of construction that predate the refurbishing are evident, however. WihUn in the Ram Khamhaeng period, are most easily identified by peripheral pillars positioned, atypically, at ground level around the base of the building rather than on the base itself (plates 4.6, 4.89, 4.96). Most of these wihan now have raised floors paved with brick, squeezed between the groundlevel pillars in such a way that they appear not to have been part of the original design. Those ground-level structures, which predate the installation of the raised floors, are assigned here to the Ram Khamhaeng period. One can imagine a prototype consisting of wooden piles driven into the ground to support roofs of palm-leaf thatch. Such buildings are still constructed in Thailand today, but naturally those built centuries ago have not survived. Seminal period wihan are rectangular, without vestibules, exterior colonnades, and porches. The ground plans are roughly 1.5 times as long as they are wide, and sometimes shorter. Pillars, constructed of laterite, are generally very thick in relation to the space they occupy. Like buildings attributed to

I '

J

walls

1 km.

1 . Saphan Hin (wihan and eighteen-cubit image) 2. Sugar-palm grove (pyramid, wihan, sain, and eighteen-cubit image) 3 . Phra Phai Luang (wihari) 4. Si Chum (wihan and image) 5. Ton Chan (wihari) 6 . Ton Makham (wihari) 7. Traphang Thonglang (wihari) 8. Chedi S i Hong (wihari)

Figure 3 Location of Seminal Period Buildings, 1 292

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

117

other Sukhothai periods, Ram Khamhaeng period wihan do not have extant roofs, though the substantial size of the pillars suggests that the roofs were heavy. At the aranyik (Saphan Hin) monastery (plates 2.13, 2.14, 4.88) and in the Wat Mahathat wihan (Inscription l’s mahawihan) (plates 2.7, 4.53), the height as well as the breadth ’ of the pillars is impressive. But very short, slender pillars are found in two much smaller buildings: the wihan at Traphang Thonglang (plate 4.119) and Wat Ton Makham (plate 4.112). The large wihan at Wat Ton Chan (plate 4.107) is one of the few with pillars of various types, suggesting at least three successive, full-scale stages of Sukhothai period construction. What appear to be the oldest pillars in the Wat Ton Chan wihan are composed of pie-shaped segments (plate 4.108), a means of construction found elsewhere at Sukhothai only in the small ‘Khmer wihan in the northeast quarter of the Phra Phai Luang compound (plate 4.9). A few octagonal pillars (plate 4.107 [left]), along with a large bell-shaped stupa and base additions that lengthen the ground plan, indicate late fourteenth-century construction. Naves in seminal period wihan are typically narrow in relation to the side aisles except in three buildings: at Wat Si Chum (plate 4.95), at Wat Ton Chan (plate 4.107), and atop the Khmer terrace at Wat Phra Phai Luang (plate 4.3), where central pillars at the front and rear appear to have provided additional roof support while at the same time allowing for a large, roomy area in the central part of the building. Overall,, however, the interiors of these wihan seem crowded: the exceptionally large pillars subtract from, as well as contribute to, the effective use of space. An atypical building that does not fit nicely into any chronological period is the wihan at Wat Chedi Si Hong (plate 4.36). The wihan’s ground-level floor (one of the few at Sukhothai that was not eventually raised) and its especially large, heavy pillars identify the wihan as seminal, though its wide nave without center pillars is indicative of a much later period. The perplexing juxtaposition of a wide nave with heavy pillars and a ground-level floor seems best explained by extensive reconstruction, most likely in the post-Sukhothai period. Ayutthaya period base moldings (plate 4.36), out-

118

Chapter Four

buildings, and a wall with slit openings (plate 4.35) surrounding the original wihnn all provide evidence of major alterations postdating the original construction. It can be suggested that by the time of the refurbishing more effective roofing methods were available, and that heavy, centrally located pillars, which would have crowded the wihnn’s interior, were removed. Wihnn with seminal period attributes can be identified with wihnn noted -in Inscription 1. The identification of Saphan Hin with the inscriptional aranyik west of the city was discussed above, and the archaeological counterparts of the inscription’s wihnn east, south, and in the center of the city can also be suggested: at Wat Ton Chan and Wat Chedi Si Hong, south of the city walls; and at Wat Ton Makham and Wat Traphang Thonglang, east of the city (see figure 2). Inscription l’s “large” wihnn in the middle of the city is identified with the huge wihnn at the center of what is now Wat Mahathat (plate 2.7, figure 1). Known today as the wihnn luang, or royal or great wihnn, it is the largest wihnn attributable to the seminal period. The large step pyramid, identified above with Ram Khamhaeng’s royal dais, which would later, in the fourteenth century, be transformed into the lotus-bud Mahathat stupa, is located just to the west. Inscription l’s “middle-sized” wihnn “in the middle of the city” appears to have been located just south of the wihnn luang: although this site is now occupied by a subsidiary wihnn (wihnn thit) (see figure 1) attached to the lotus-bud stupa, pillars embedded in the ground nearby suggest that a seminal period structure once stood there. An eighteen-cubit Buddha image, also mentioned in Inscription 1, stands west of the wihnn (figure 1). No hot are mentioned in Inscription 1, and no bot with seminal period characteristics have been found among Sukhothai’s ruins. Nor is there archaeological evidence that contradicts the absence of inscriptional references to stupas. But the practice of positioning wihnn just east of a devotional monument, which would become the norm at Sukhothai in later decades, appears to have had its beginnings in the Ram Khamhaeng period. The previously built Khmer triad of towers was located in the “ chedi location” west of the Wat Phra Phai Luang wihnn', Ram Khamhaeng’s step pyramid was positioned west of the large wihnn in the middle of the city; and colossal

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

119

Buddha images were built west of the wihan at Wat Si Chum and west of the middle-sized wihan in the center of the city. At Wat Saphan Hin, the eighteen-cubit image is located at the western end of the wihan, but it is positioned inside instead of outside the building. Today, mondop occupy the chsdi locations west of the wihan at Wat Si Chum (plate 4.95) and Wat Traphang Thonglang (plate 4.119). But both appear to postdate the wihan by more than a half century. The Wat Si Chum mondop, which houses the Phra Achan image, has a narrow stairwell in which Sukhothai’ s famous Jataka plaques (plates 4.98, 4.99) function as structural components of the ceiling. The plaques have been dated to the 1330s. The mondop cannot be earlier than that. 6 The stucco reliefs (plate 4.120) on the Traphang Thonglang mondop are datable to the latter part of the fourteenth century and appear to have been part of the mondop' s original design. Although the design motifs are similar to the Gampola-style reliefs on the Mahathat stupa, the reliefs at Traphang Thonglang have a dried, pasted-on appearance that contrasts sharply with the florid vitality of those executed by the Sinhalese artisans working in the 1340s. The mondop was perhaps built not long after a bat was added to the Wat Traphang Thonglang compound in the late middle period. 7 The only large bell-shaped stupa found in conjunction with a seminal period wihan is at Wat Ton Chan (plate 4.107), where there is clear evidence of late fourteenth-century reconstruction (a few octagonal pillars and an addition that lengthens the ground plan of the wihari).The stupa also should be dated to the late fourteenth century. To generalize about the seminal, or Ram Khamhaerig, period, it can be suggested that, despite a strong interest in monumentality, the city was still in a formative stage of architectural development. Buildings were large and obviously meant to impress, and certainly their monumental proportions did much to compensate for their constructional simplicity. Still, those buildings described as “large” were not particularly grand compared to many that would be built in.the latter part of the Sukhothai period. There were few wihan (compared to the numbers built in later periods), and no bat, mondop, or stupas seem to have been built in Ram Khamhaeng’s city.

120

Chapter Four

The present study suggests that the Ram Khamhaeng period is notable for the construction of two large step pyramids, which, along with three others, built later in the Sukhothai period, pose art historical problems not encountered in other Sukhothai architecture. The non-Buddhist functions of the Ram Khamhaeng pyramids suggested by the inscriptional evidence (see chapter 2) place them outside the mainstream architectural development of wihan, bat, mondop, and stupas described here. Because of their unique place in Sukhothai’ s architectural tradition, the two pyramids attributed to the Ram Khamhaeng period are examined in relation to the other three in chapter 5. Apparently Ram Khamhaeng’s plan for the city was’ not immediately completed. - Structures distinguished by the honorific phra are found north, west, and south of the city but not to the east. A second eighteen-cubit Buddha image, which would have provided symmetry to the buildings in the sugarpalm grove, was- not erected until 1376. The Period of Exploration c. 1300-1345

(the Loethai

Reign),

*

Although, by the 1300s, the bouyant enthusiasm expressed in Inscription 1 appears to have ebbed dramatically, the seeds of change so ardently' cultivated by Ram Khamhaeng survived. The first half of the fourteenth century is characterized by tentative, halting, and experimental building endeavors, which by mid-century would blossom into the full-blown Theravada architectural tradition for which Sukhothai is famous. Nothing can be said with certainty —political, religious, or architectural —about Sukhothai during the latter years of the thirteenth and the first quarter of the fourteenth century, and only a few new buildings can tentatively be dated to that period. Although Inscription 1 did not document any wihan north of the city, it can be suggested that two wihan with some seminal period characteristics were perhaps built not long after Inscription 1 was written. One is located atop the old Khmer terrace at Wat Phra Phai Luang, directly east of the triad of Khmer towers (plates 4.3, 4.7). The second is located just east of the massive Phra Achan Buddha image at what is now Wat Si Chum (plate 4.95). The Wat Si Chum wihan is the only one with both peripheral pillars (plate 4.96) and a medium (as

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

121

opposed to short) east-west ground plan. Thus, according to the criteria established above it could be the latest of the seminal period structures, but, because it cannot be accounted for in Inscription 1, probably postdates the text. The design of Sukhothai’ s most important building, the lotus-bud stupa at the center of the city (plate 2.12), for which a prototype has long been sought, can be explained only in terms of the still formative stage of Sukhothai’s architectural development. The design was copied a number of times during the Sukhothai period, but not afterward. Understandably, lotusbud stupas are sometimes referred to today as “Sukhothai dagoba.” The modem term “chsdi thai” is also appropriate, for the monuments could not be more unlike the multitude of Sinhalese-style stupas that would be built after Si Satha’s return from Sri Lanka in the 1340s. Since the late nineteenth century, historians and art historians have puzzled over that “curious composite structure,” as Coedes described the lotus-bud stupa,8 and a wide assortment of ingenious explanations for its unique design have been suggested. 9 In 1895, the French archaeologist Lucien Foumereau likened the ovoid dome of the lotus-bud stupa to the onion dome of a mosque;10 in 1912, another French scholar, Lunet de Lajonquiere, identified it as a phallus.” In 1928, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, the leading Thai historian of his day, speculated that the lotus-bud design derived from “beehive” tombs in Weihaiwei, China; 12 and George Coedes, in 1955, 13 saw a resemblance to a Thai funerary um raised high on a pedestal. A. B. Griswold suggested in 1967 that the stupa was a copy of a (hypothetical) reliquary casket in which Buddhist relics were carried from Sri Lanka to Sukhothai.14 Now it is possible to suggest yet another explanation. Close examination of the Mahathat lotus-bud stupa reinforces the conclusion drawn from the inscriptional data that the stupa is a conversion from the older, stepped pyramid located at the center of Sukhothai. Although the lower stories of the pyramid are now encased in promenades of uncertain date, the upper stories are still clearly visible (plate 2.11, frontispiece). Most conspicuous is the uppermost story, distinguished from the others by its moldings: astragals that parallel prominent cavettos at the upper and lower edges of the

122

Chapter Four

story, thereby delineating a broad, central fascia. A double row of stairs converges at the center of the top, molded story. The design of the top story—moldings and stairs— of the Mahathat lotus-bud base is also found consistently in the upper stories of Sukhothai’s four other step pyramids (see chapter 5), and the molded story (without stairs) remained a constant feature in later lotus-bud stupas, (plates 4.59, 4.73, 4.115). The same design (also without stairs) was adopted for the harmikn, or banlang (throne), of the Sinhalese bell-shaped stupas (plates 2.39, 4.77, 4.92, figure 8), which began to be built at Sukhothai around the middle of the fourteenth century. It is not surprising that the double rows of stairs were not adopted, since stairs leading to the summit of a harmikn have no reasonable basis for inclusion in Theravada stupa design. The harmika, along with other attributes of Sukhothai’s bell-shaped stupas, is discussed in the context of middle period architecture, below. When the stepped and staired base of the Mahathat lotusbud stupa is identified as an earlier step pyramid, the composite nature of the building (noted by Coedes) is indisputable. Other elements of the lotus-bud design become apparent in terms of unrelated Sukhothai prototypes. The lotus-bud superstructure itself suggests not so much Islamic, phallic, or funerary associations as it does the small finials (sometimes identified as lotus buds, more often as gems) that surmount Buddhist and Hindu monuments throughout Asia. Examples can be seen on the small stupas that line the sides of the terrace at Wat Phra Phai Luang (plate 2.1). Enlarged in proportion to the huge step pyramid that provides the base of the Mahathat lotus-bud stupa, the finial becomes a major architectural feature in itself. The redented shaft (riian that) directly below the lotus-bud bulb resembles the redented midsection of the Phra Phai Luang towers. Incorporation of these incongruous architectural elements produced a building type that was not only unique but also exemplary of the probing, searching nature of Sukhothai culture in the first half of the fourteenth century. Tentative exploration of diverse cultural traditions is suggested by the series of Jataka engravings reported in Inscription 2 to have once surrounded the large, tall stupa in the center of the city. Although the plaques are now arranged single file in the stairwell of the Wat Si Chum mondop, they were

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

123

designed to form a 4-foot-high panel (figure 4). The positioning of such a panel around the exterior of a stupa is reminiscent of early buildings at Pagan, in Burma (Myanmar), where the easily understood Jdtaka fables enlightened a populace still unattuned to the more complex concepts of Theravada Buddhism.15 But the numbering of the tales follows neither Burmese nor Sinhalese precedents, and the glosses that identify each story are not only written in Thai but also suggest some local narrative innovation (plates 4.98, 4.99). Stylistic prototypes for many of the pictorial details are unidentifiable, and that, too, may be the result of local initiatives. Still, some Sinhalese influence is also discernible. 16 Although there is no real evidence of direct contact between Sukhothai and Sri Lanka in the early fourteenth century, there must have been at least some incipient awareness of the Theravada motherland. It must have been that recognition that prompted Si Satha to make his momentous journey sometime around 1335. Another indication of very early Sinhalese influence at Sukhothai is found in two small bell-shaped stupas that might also predate the overwhelming adoption of Sinhalese styles in the mid-fourteenth century. Unlike later bell-shaped stupas, these two are small, constructed of laterite, and positioned atypically in their monastery complexes. The small stupa at Wat Ton Makham (plate 4.110) is positioned at the corner of a seminal period wihan, where it is partially surrounded by what appears to be a later addition to the wihnn. The second stupa, at Wat Chedi Si Hong (plate 4.31), is also positioned with no discernible topographical relation to the wihan, and like the Jntaka plaques, it provides ambiguous stylistic clues. The stupa is faced with stucco reliefs, which, like the Jutaka plaques (as they were originally arranged), form a deep band around the base (plate 4.32). The Chedi Si Hong relief is composed of crouching elephants that suggest Sinhalese prototypes much earlier than the fourteenth-century ones that followed in Sukhothai’s major period of architectural development. In the Si Hong relief, the elephants support kneeling lions and are separated by standing devatu (minor Buddhist deities) holding auspicious flowerpots (plate 4.33), a theme found in early Sinhalese sculptural reliefs. The exuberantly floating draperies display affinities with those

No. 22 10.56" No. 19 13.63"

No. 15 9.35"

No. 23 11.34"

No. 1 6 9.35"

No. 20 No. 24 17.04" 9.69"

No. 17 15.78"

**

No. 12 21.33"

*8 No. 14 No. 13 25.34" 24"

No. 25 No. 21 17.67" 17.04"

No. 60 9.24" No.61 10.23"

No. 10 No.7 20.03" 20.34"

No. J 8 15.78"

No.56

No, 51

7.99"

9.5”

*57

No 52 13.36"

No.58 11.55"

No. 53 8.53"

No. 59 13.37"

No. 54 8.81" No. 55 7.98"

No. 11 26.40" No. 9 16.5"

No. 4 13.37" *1 No. 5 15.93"

*2

No. 6

No. 3 14.60"

18.69"

No. 48 11.27”

*49

No. 50 13.69”

No. 44 11.99"

No. 40 8.52"

No. 45 12.80"

*41

No. 46 11.73"

No. 42 11.39"

No. 47 14.54”

No. 43 11.39”

No. 36 15.09” No. 37 13.97" No. 38 13.15" No. 39 7.99"

No. 35 15.09”

All extant plaques are 16.5 inches wide. Vertical measurements were calculated from illustrations in Fourhereau, Le Siam ancien (1908). *These plaques are not extant. **The break between plaques 14 and 15 is probably due to the uncoordinated efforts of two groups of artists.

Figure 4 Arrangement of Si Chum Jntaka Engravings as They Would Have Appeared on the Base of the Mahathat Lotus-Bud Stupa

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

125

that adorn Angkorean apsarases (celestial goddesses) and are notable for the naturalistic folds of the skirts. In later decades (at Wat Traphang Thonglang, for instance), such skirts would be rendered in stylized, flat, curvilinear lines. The graceful, gently articulated stance of some of the figures contrasts dramatically with the stiffly frontal figures of devatn that would be created in the post-Sukhothai period. Like the Si Chum Jntaka plaques, the Si Hong stucco reliefs have no stylistic counterparts at Sukhothai. A date of execution prior to the major period of Sinhalese influence that was about to commence is suggested. The Early Period (the Luthai Reign), Mid-Fourteenth Century What is designated here as Sukhothai’s “early” architectural period begins with Si Satha’s return from Sri Lanka around 1345 (see chapter 2) and marks the beginning of the prodigious building program that produced most of what we see at Sukhothai today. The new Sinhalese influence did not alter the basic design of the Mahathat tower at the center of the city, but stucco decor that was added upon Si Satha’s return transformed the old Khmer towers with Gampola styles (plate 2.21), and the comer towers were rebuilt as stupa-prasat (plate 2.20). But, although, the introduction of Sinhalese forms into Sukhothai’s architectural vocabulary began to produce radical changes in the cityscape, some changes were gradual, and the old traditions were not immediately eradicated. In the present periodization, traditional buildings are classified as “early” while the more innovative are assigned to the middle period. It seems likely, however, that the use of traditional and innovative designs overlapped for some years. Wihan attributable to the early period consist principally of seminal period buildings to which low, raised brick podia, 1 to 2 feet tall, were added between the preexisting, ground-level pillars. The very low (approximately 1-foot) height of the huge wihan Inang suggests that it was one of the earliest of the group to be restructured. Other attributes of the early period wihan remain the same as in the seminal period: ground plans are rectangular, without vestibules and porches, and interior space

126

Chapter Four

tends to be crowded. Except for the Wat Si Chum wihan, ground plans are short. Two wihnn with pillars positioned on the podium rather than at ground level are found at Wat Aranyik (plates 4.12, 4.13) and Wat Chetuphon (plates 4.43, 4.44), suggesting that they were built entirely in the' early period. Otherwise, their attributes are the same as those found in other early period buildings. The extensive use of brick and stucco described in Inscription 2, and still evidenced by the Mahathat towers, is also reflected- in the restructuring of the wihan. Podia were paved with brick, and the sides were stuccoed. Sometime around the middle of the fourteenth century, new stucco decor was added to the Khmer towers at Wat Phra Phai Luang, where the new motifs were mixed intermittently with the Khmer reliefs that had been executed about a century earlier. Perhaps the new Phra Phai Luang stucco, as well as that added to the Chedi Si Hong stupa, should be attributed to the years immediately following Si Satha’s return from Sri Lanka when stucco work at Sukhothai was extensive. But, since the reliefs at neither site follow any known Gampola precedent, their origins are uncertain. 17

1

■

'

‘

The Middle Period (Reigns of Luthai and mahadharmaraja n), f c. 1350-80 Sukhothai’s middle period of architectural development overlaps the early period, and the dividing line separating them in table 5 designates a change in architectural type more than it does precise chronological periodization, pie early period is typified by the reconstruction of older buildings that did little to advance Sukhothai’ s overall architectural development. Structures attributed to the middle period include newly constructed buildings whose designs, over the next halfcentury, would contribute much to Sukhothai’ s mature period architecture. -Large bell-shaped stupas, whose design was based oh Sinhalese prototypes, appear for the first time in the middle period, and the construction of three bot, at Wat Pa Mamuang (plate 2.25), Wat Traphang Thonglang (plate 4.122), and Wat Traphang Ngoen (plate 4.117), reflects a new interest in providing the ritually prescribed setting for the ordination of

i ’ ■

8.

10

12 11

4,

walls 5 13 1 km.

1. Chang Rop 2. ChediNgam 3. Chedi YotHak 4. Kamphaeng Laeng 5. Kon Laeng (wihari) 6. Mahathat (center wihari)

7. MumMuang 8. PaMamuang 9. Prong Men 10. Si Thon 1 1. Traphang Ngoen (bot) 12. T. Thonglang (bot) 13. Wihan Thong (wihari)

Figure 5 Location of Middle Period Monasteries, c. 1350-80

128

Chapter Four

Theravada monks. The exceptionally large bat at Wat Pa Mamuang, where Luthai was ordained, is situated at the prominent central position of the monastery complex, a location formerly reserved for the wihan. The bases of middle period assembly halls (both wihan and hot) are higher—up to 40 inches in the bat at Wat Pa Mamuang and 45 inches in the tallest of the middle period structures, in the Wat Mum Muang wihan (plate 4.72). Three wihan— at Chedi Ngam (plate 4.30), at Wat Si Thon (plate 4.102), and in the center wihan at Wat Mahathat (plates 4.51, 4.52)—have vestibules at one end. And, in contrast to the short east-west proportions typical of earlier periods, most ground plans are, mid-length. The use of brick, initiated in the early period, occurred more frequently in the middle period than in any other, earlier or later. Brick pillars are found in the Mum Muang wihan and in the Si Chum and Khao San bat (plates 4.97, 4.48). Heavy laterite pillars, typical of earlier periods, are found only in the center wihan at Wat Mahathat. Their presence there is perhaps due to the building’s extraordinary size and its linear juxtaposition with the seminal period wihan luang (plate 4.53, figure 1). “ Although especially wide center aisles without central pillar, supports are not found in the middle period, interiors are generally more spacious. Only one nave—in the Wat Mahathat center wihan—can be characterized as narrow. There, the position of the pillars seems to have been determined by those in the wihan Iftang, built previously, for the pillars' of the central wihan are aligned so that the old and new form a unified architectural whole. In the Wat Prong Men, Wat Kamphaeng Laeng, Wat Pa Mamuang, and Wat Traphang Thonglang halls (plates 4.82, 4.47, 2.25, and 4.122) there is no evidence of interior pillars at all, suggesting that there may once have been pillars of brick, which collapse more easily than those built of , laterite, or, that no pillars ever existed. The absence of pillars also suggests that at one time there may have been load-bearing brick walls, although that cannot be confirmed. Remnants of walls with vertical, slitted openings, typical of the Ayutthaya period, are found at three monasteries with fifteenth-century (or later) additions, but there is

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

129

insufficient evidence to suggest that that type of wall appeared as early as the mid-fourteenth century. Two mondop in the chedi location(west of a wihnri) reflect the importance of housing religious images in the Luthai period. Both are in the vicinity bf Luthai’s major architectural undertaking at Wat Pa Mamuang: the thewalaimahukset (Brahmanical shrine) (plate 2.26); and the Wat Si Thon mondop (plate 2.27). Both the thewnlaimahnkset and the Si Thon mondop, unlike mondop built in the latter part of the fourteenth century, are notable for their large, square, brick pillars. The design of the large bell-shaped stupas that began to be built in great numbers in theS middle part of the fourteenth century are traceable directly to Sinhalese designs. Griswold considered the Sukhothai bell-shaped stupa to have derived from the large, hemispherical stupas that had been built a t . Anuradhapura, the capital of Sri Lanka, during most of the first millennium A.D;_(plate 4.130)'.18 But there is no indication in Inscriptibn 2 that Si Satha visited the old capital. Conversely, at < Gampola, which, according to Inscription 2, Si Satha did visit, there is evidence that the ancient.,hemispherical stupa design had evolved into something resembling a bell. That bell-shaped design would provide the prototype for stupas built at Sukhothai (figure 6). The evolution from hemispherical to bell-shaped dome is not difficult to explain.- In the postrAnuradhapura centuries, the three large superimposed terraces (berms) on which the hemispherical stupas were traditionally placed were compressed into simple ring moldings that flared gradually at the bottom of the dome. A bell shape resulted. Griswold thought that Sukhothai’s bell-shaped stupas were patterned after a small hemispherical reliquary monument surrounded by recumbent elephants located in the precincts of Anuradhapura’s Mahathupa (plate 4. 13 1). 19 But neither the hemispherical shape of the dome nor the surrounding elephants bear much resemblance to the three elephant-surrounded stupas—at Wat Chang Rop (plate 4.26), Wat Chang Lorn (plate 4.24), and Wat Sarasak (plate 2.37)—built at Sukhothai. The bell shape of the Sukhothai stupa distinguishes it from the hemispherical example at Anuradhapura; and Sukhothai’s standing elephants emerging from niches (plates 2.38, 4.25,

A. Hemispherical stupa, Anuradhapura and Pononnaruwa periods, Sri Lanka

B . Bell-shaped stupa, Gampola period, Sri Lanka

C. Bell-shaped stupa, Sukhothai

Figure 6 The Bell-Shaped Stupa in Thailand and its Antecedents

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

131

4.27) contrast markedly with the small, crouching, Sinhalese figures. On the other hand, at both Gampola’s Lankatilaka temple (built in 1342) and Gadaladeniya temple (dating from 1344) one finds stuccoed images of standing elephants emerging from niches (plate 4.133). Bell-shaped stupas are also found at both sites (plate 4.132), and, as noted above, stucco motifs like those found on the .Lankatilaka temple provided the prototype for the stucco reliefs applied to Sukhothai’ s Mahathat towers. That clustering of architectural and sculptural types suggests certainly that it was fourteenth-century Gampola, instead of Anuradhapura, that provided the inspiration for Sukhothai’ s major architectural monuments. The Sukhothai stupa most closely resembling the bellshaped, elephant-supported stupa at Gampola is the elephantsurrounded stupa at Wat Chang Rop (plates 4.26, 4.27). The Chang Rop stupa is accompanied by a wihun (plate 4.28) attributed here to the middle period, and it seems probable that both the stupa and the wihun were built not long after Si Satha’s return from Sri Lanka. The Chang Rop stupa is unique in that it shares a base with the adjoining wihun, an arrangement for which there appears to be no precedent, and one that was never repeated in other stupa-wiftnn complexes. A very early, experimental stage of Sukhothai stupa construction is suggested. Possibly the Chang Rop stupa is the earliest large bell-shaped stupa built at Sukhothai. But, as discussed above, although the bell-shaped stupa dome would provide the prototype for later stupas built at Sukhothai, the design of the harmiku, the boxlike structure traditionally located at the summit of stupa domes in both Sri Lanka and Thailand, followed Sukhothai tradition. Because the harmiku in Thailand takes a very different form from its Sinhalese counterpart, and because that difference has important bearing on the chronological relationship between the Sukhothai pyramid, the lotus-bud stupa, and Sukhothai’ s bellshaped stupas, it is important that the differences be examined. Harmiku is a Sanskrit word used by art historians; it is used in neither Sri Lanka nor Thailand. In Sri Lanka the harmiku was known in the thirteenth century as sivuras-kotuva, and in modern times as sataras-kotuva, both terms meaning “fourcornered enclosure.” In Sinhalese stupa design, both terms refer

132

Chapter Four

to the muddhavedi, the wooden “top railing” that in the preChristian era surmounted the tops of large stupas in both Sri Lanka and India. On the Great Stupa at Sanchi, in India, the top railing surrounded a cubicle stone box for the storage of relics. Even though top railings began to be replaced by solid, cubicle, masonry harmika as early as the Anuradhapura period, still today, depictions of wooden fences with uprights and crossbars applied in stucco relief adorn the solid, boxlike structures located at the summit of Sinhalese stupas (figure 7, plate 4.134). 2" In Thailand, both etymology and architectural design manifest a harmika tradition distinct from that of the Sinhalese. The Thai word for harmika is banlang, related etymologically to manang, as in manangsilabat (see chapter 2). Manang indicates not an enclosure but a throne of dais. In northern Thailand a similar term, thaen (dais, throne, or altar), is used. 21 In keeping with the name, Thai harmika (banlang or thaen), at least since the Sukhothai period, have taken the shape most commonly used for pedestals or podia, exemplified by the top story of Sukhothai’s step pyramids and of the step pyramids’ successors, the lotus-bud stupas (plates 4.24, 4.39, 4.77, figure 6c). No visual allusions to wooden railings are found on the sides of the banlang, on the pyramids’ top stories, or on the lotus-bud stupas (figure 8). In terms of the Indian and Sinhalese tradition (which the Sukhothai stupa design follows in its other essential attributes), the placement of a base, throne, or dais at the summit of a stupa dome is inexplicable. Only when one considers a local prototype—the upper level of Sukhothai’s step pyramid and that of the lotus-bud stupa —does the placement of a banlang, or throne, on the summit of a Theravada stupa dome become comprehensible. There is no reason to think, however, that the harmika of Thailand’s bell-shaped stupas ever functioned as a throne or altar, for its size is diminutive compared to that of the harmikaHke upper stories of the pyramids and lotus-bud stupas. And the stairways that make their way to the summit of the step pyramids’ harmikd-like story were soon abandoned. Like the depictions of railings on Sri Lanka’s harmikn, the names and the architectural form of the Thai harmika remain as vestiges of

A. Hemispherical stupa with railings at the lower and upper levels (from Snodgrass, The Symbolism of the Stupa, 249).

B . Upper railing of a stupa enclosing a box for the enshrinement of relics (from Snodgrass, The Symbolism of the Stupa, 266).

C. Solid masonry cnrfj.'iuj

■

nona inQatnn

harmika with a railing depicted in low relief: Abhayagiri stupa, Amiradhapura (from Combaz, L 'Evolution du stupa en Asie, 3:116).

Figure 7 Harmika

in India and Sri Lanka

A. Pedestal or podium

C. Top level of lotus-bud stupa base

B. Top level of step pyramid

D. Harmika of bell-shaped stupa

Figure 8 Base and “Throne” Elements in Sukhothai Architecture

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

135

traditions that appear to have been discontinued in the early Sukhothai period. In addition to the Chang Rop stupa, situated on the same plinth as its accompanying wihan, two other bell-shaped stupas found in conjunction with middle period assembly halls are notable for architectural features that would not be adopted in later Sukhothai structures. The stupa at Wat Pa Mamuang (plate 4.75) , built sometime after Luthai’s founding of the monastery in 1361, displays signs of Burmese influence, probably attributable to the contingent of monks from Martaban who came to Sukhothai to occupy the monastery. The Pa Mamuang stupa is accompanied by an indrakhila, “Indra post” (plate 4.76) , commonly found in Burmese monasteries but unique at Sukhothai. The stupa dome is situated on a broad terrace with railings, a feature also found in Burmese temple compounds but not found elsewhere at Sukhothai. The low wall surrounding the stupa (perhaps the ntalaka mentioned in Inscription 95) separates the stupa from the surrounding monastery grounds (plate 2.28). The exceptionally large stupa at Wat Chedi Ngam (plate 4.29) foreshadows the huge monuments that would become common at Sukhothai in the late fourteenth century. But, unlike transitional and mature period structures, its unusually wide base relates it stylistically more closely to the Chang Rop and Pa Mamuang stupas than to later monuments. The Transitional

Period (First Decade of the Reign of 1380-90

MAHADHARMARAJA ID), C.

In what is designated here as the transitional period, the diverse strains of architectural development and the new architectural attributes noted for the middle period are brought together and consolidated in what might be described as the earliest of the mature period structures. Thus, the transitional period marks the beginning of the fully developed Sukhothai style of architecture, and the buildings are distinguished from their later counterparts only by a few experimental details and a tentativeness of expression that would be refined in the mature period structures. As might be expected, a clear distinction between transitional and mature buildings cannot always be made. Some transitional features are

12 19 ,.17 20

16 10

18

21

J

walls

1 km.1 t -------

1. Asokaram 2. Ghana Songkhram 3. ChangLom 4. Chedi Sung 5. Khao San 6. Mangkon 7. MumLangka 8.OmRop 9. Prichitkiratikanlayaram 10. PhraYun

11. Sa Si 12. Sangkhawat 13. Sarasak 14.SiSawai 15. Son Khao 16. ThamHip 17. Trakuan 18. Traphang Ngoen 19. Traphang Phan 20. Tuk 21. Ya Kron

Figure 9 Location of Mahadharmaraja HI Monasteries, 1380-1412 (transitional and mature periods). Does not include additions and reconstructions.

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

137

found in the Wat Chana Songkhram wihan (plates 4.17, 4.20, 4.21) and bot (plates 4.17, 4.18, 4.19), which, because of the predominance of their mature period characteristics, have been relegated to the mature period. The predominantly transitional Sangkhawat wihan, on the other hand, despite the lateral cloisters indicative of mature period design, is placed in the transitional group. A double row of bai sima surrounding the Sangkhawat bot suggests two different periods of religious activity, and it is possible that the wihan’s cloisters postdate the main part of the structure. As in earlier periods, assembly halls in the transitional period are typically either rectangular or have a single vestibule, and the east-west proportions are short or medium. Plain bases reach their maximum height—up to 5 feet in the Khao San bot (plate 4.48) and the Wat Sa Si wihan (plates 4.92, 4.93). Base moldings appear for the first time—on the short ends of the wihan at Wat Sa Si (plate 4.94); on both the short and long sides of the wihan east of the Ha Yot pyramid (plate 4.57); and at Wat Sangkhawat (plate 4.85). Four bot have base moldings—at Wat Sangkhawat (plates 4.86, 4.87), Wat Chang Lorn (plate 4.23), Wat Chetuphon (plate 4.45), and Wat Mum Langka (plate 4.71). Base moldings (except on the Wat Sa Si wihan; where the base is primarily plain) range in height from 35 to 42 inches. Following the transitional period, the height of bases with moldings continued to increase while those with plain sides began to decrease, a trend that appears to have begun in the transitional period. To the twentieth-century eye, and apparently by fourteenth-century standards as well, the exceptionally high, plain bases look austere and barren, a situation rectified in the late Sukhothai period by either adding moldings to the sides of the bases or by gradually decreasing the height of the plain bases. Particularly indicative of the experimental nature of the transitional period is its variety of pillar designs. The heavy, stocky, round pillars of earlier periods were not copied, and a variety of transitional forms that eventually led to the attenuated octagonal pillars that epitomize mature period aesthetics made their appearance. Octagonal pillars are found in the Wat Sangkhawat bot (plate 4.86) and in the Wat Si Sawai wihan

138

Chapter Four

(plate 4,100), but in both cases the pillars are short and stocky. Tall, fairly attenuated pillars are found in the Wat Sangkhawat wihan (plate 4.85), but they are round. The tall, attenuated, octagonal pillars in the Wat Sa Si wihan (plates 4.91, 4;92), which closely resemble those of the mature period, are in some instances—and unlike later examples—shaped by stucco veneer rather than sculpted from laterite. Although there was much less use of brick in the transitional period, a few examples of brick octagonal (but not square) pillars are found in the Wat Chana Songkhram bot (plate 4.18). In the Wat Chang Lorn wihan (plate 2.34) there are a few square, laterite pillars, a feature found elsewhere only in Ayutthaya period buildings. Spacious central areas without central pillar support appear for the first time in the bot at Wat Sangkhawat (plate 4.86) and at Wat Chetuphon (plate 4.45). But the Sangkhawat wihan (plate 4.85) and the Chang Lorn bot (plate 4.23) have pillars at center front and center rear as in previous periods. The Wat Chang Lorn wihan is unusual in that it includes two extra rows of lateral pillars, apparently to provide support for a complex roofing system that included roof segments of various heights. The additional rows of pillars resulted in a somewhat cluttered, crowded interior, atypical of most transitional buildings. The problem of supporting complex roofs with segments of varying heights and pitches would be solved in the mature period by the placement of lateral rows of pillars outside the building, thereby producing narrow exterior “cloisters.” In what appears to be the latest of the Sukhothai period bot, the structure at Wat Trakuan (dated to 1417 or later) (plate 4.113), additional rows of pillars are again found inside, but, in this case, it was possible to preserve the spacious central area that had become the norm in the latter decades of the Sukhothai period. The transitional period is notable as the first in which one of Sukhothai’ s large bell-shaped stupas (at Wat Sa Si) was constructed within the city walls. Large bell-shaped stupas were also built east, north, and south of the city walls: at Wat Chang Lorn (plate 4.24), Wat Sangkhawat (plate 4.84), and Wat Mum Langka (plate 4.69). The Sa Si stupa (plate 4.91), one of Sukhothai’s largest and most impressive monuments, has a large, bulky, boxlike base that can be characterized as

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

139

intermediate to the large, flat bases of the middle period and the very tall, attenuated bases of the mature period. The Wat Chang Lom stupa (plate 4.24), with stuccoed images of standing elephants emerging from niches (plate 4.25), follows the design of what is considered here to be Sukhothai’s earliest large bellshaped stupa, located at Wat Chang Rop (plates 4.26, 4.27). But the two stupas are stylistically distinguishable by the Chang Lom stupa’s attenuated, complex, and balanced form. The three-ring moldings at the base of the bell-shaped dome are less obtrusive, and, rather than functioning as a design element in their own right, provide a modulating element between the dome and base. The base is remarkable for neither its horizontal nor vertical dimensions, and the overall form, with its pleasing interrelation and balance of component parts, might be considered to mark the “classic moment” in the evolution of Sukhothai’s bell-shaped stupa design. The Chang Lom stupa is surrounded by colonnades, an architectural device that would find extensive use in the designs of mature period wihan and bdt. For the first time in Sukhothai’s history, the construction of bdt (six) exceeded that of the wihan (four). In most cases, the bdt are smaller than the wihan and do not occupy primary positions within the monastery, complexes. The impressive size and prominent location of the bdt at Wat Pa Mamuang (plate 2.25), the royal bdt built in 1361 for Luthai’s ordination, would not be equaled until the mature period. Nonetheless, the number of transitional period bdt, as well as the predominance of their molded bases, distinguish them from the transitional period wihan, thereby foreshadowing an even more pronounced differentiation in the assembly halls used by laity and sangha in the mature period. The Mature Period (Latter Decades Mahadharmaraja DI), c. 1390-1419

of the Reign of

Sukhothai’s mature architectural period is notable not only for its prodigious building activity—more buildings were constructed during this period than in any other—but also for the buildings’ monumental proportions. After the transitional period, the construction of very large bdt outshone that of wihan, and the size and complexity of the former reinforced the

140

Chapter

Four

hierarchical distinction between buildings used by laity and sangha. In the most monumental of the bat —those at Wat Chana Songkhram (plate 4.19) and Wat Trakuan (plate 4.114) — the molded bases are 5 feet high or more, and at Wat Phra Yun (plates 4.80, 4.81) a 5-foot base is supported by a 5-foot sub-base. Vestibules are found at both ends of the bot at Wat Mahathat (plate 4.58), Wat Mangkon (plates 4.65-4.68), and Wat Trakuan (plate 4.113), Wat Trakuan has pillars of different heights, suggesting that the roof had been made up of several sections that varied in height and pitch — a complexly designed roof that pillars of a single height could not have accommodated. Exterior colonnades consisting of still shorter pillars that form cloisters along the sides of the bat are found at Wat Mangkon (plate 4.68), Wat Mahathat (plate 4.58), and Wat Phra Yun (plate 4.81). The vestibules in these buildings are small and provide little usable interior space but probably, like the exterior colonnades, would have contributed to variations in the size and pitch of different sections of the roof. Exterior pillars positioned at the short ends of wihan at Wat Phra Yun (plate 4.81) and Wat Asokaram (plate 4.14) would have supported roofs for porches. The exterior appearance of these mature period buildings was probably an important factor in their design, and when the roofs were intact, their monumentality would have rivaled that of mature period stupas. Vestibules at both ends of the Wat Trakuan bdt are “complex” rather than rectangular, and the reentrant angles at the comers of the vestibules accentuate the complexity of the overall design of the building. The east-west proportions of the mature-period bOt at Wat Mahathat (plate 4.58) are significantly longer than those attributed to earlier periods, about twice the width. Attenuation is also notable in the tall, slender, octagonal pillars at Wat Mahathat and Wat Mangkon. Two mature period wihan located at Wat Ya Kron (plates 4.127-4.129) and Wat Son Khao (plate 4.105) have some attributes more typical of bot: high molded bases, double vestibules, cloisters, and, at Wat Ya Kron, octagonal pillars. One wihan in particular, at Wat Asokaram (plates 4.14-4.15), built by Queen Chulalaksana, is notable for its highly evolved

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

141

style. Although it lacks the high molded base and vestibules typical of mature period but, its east-west proportions are long; the pillars are tall and slender, and rows of exterior pillars provide lateral colonnades and cloisters. The majority of wihUn attributable to the mature period have more conservative traits: rectangular ground plans, absence of vestibules, and plain, slightly beveled, or stepped bases no more than 3 feet tall. There are no mature period bot with such “old-fashioned” characteristics. In most cases, the relatively late date for the conservative wihun is suggested by their long east-west proportions—about twice their width in six of them. As for the others, the wihan at Wat Chedi Sung (plate 4.38) is attributed to the mature period only because of its comparatively wide center aisle, and the Wat Sarasak wihun (plate 4.90) has an inscriptional date of 1412. Thus, Sukhothai’s architecture poses a problem not unlike that faced by art historians in other parts of the world: the difficulty of distinguishing between very early and very late forms within a chronological sequence. One especially troublesome building at Sukhothai is a small wihan at Wat Phra Bat Noi (plate 4.79), which is attributed here to the mature period because of its wide aisle and extremely low, 10-inch base. Although its location on a hill west of the city and its very short ground plan suggest an early date, and the spacious central area may appear so only because of the small size of the wihUn, overall, there is no indication of ground-level pillars, established in the present study as the major indicator of seminal period construction. .The Ayutthaya-style stupa with which the wihun is associated suggests extensive construction in the post-Sukhothai period. It can be hypothesized that if ever a seminal period structure dominated the site, it was later obscured by thorough renovation. Ten bell-shaped stupas can be safely dated to Sukhothai’s mature period. While the classic, balanced proportions observable in the Chang Lorn stupa (plate 4.24) were not surpassed, an especially graceful and elegant stupa west of Wat Mahathat’s mature period bot (plate 4.62) accentuates the developments in the Chang Lom stupa and should certainly be attributed to the mature period. The bell-shaped dome is. smaller and higher than those incorporated in previouly built stupas,

142

Chapter Four

and there is a light, soaring quality that contrasts decisively with even the earlier, heavier monuments that were securely grounded on their large, flat bases. The ring moldings of mature period stupas are thoroughly incorporated into the overall profile so that dome, moldings, and base, in essence, become one. Attenuation of stupa design—as evidenced in both wihan and bot—is a hallmark of the mature period. Extreme examples are found at Wat Phichitkiratikanlayaram (plates 2.35, 4.77) and Wat Chedi Sung (plate 4.39). The height of the Wat Phichit stupa is achieved in part by duplication of the uppermost story of the base. The overall appearance is less ethereal than that of the tall stupa west of the Mahathat bot, but reentrant angles at the comers accentuate the increased height and lead the eye upward in much the same way that the arrises of octagonal pillars accentuate the verticality of mature period wihan. and bot. At Wat Chedi Sung the stupa base is so tall that it resembles a mondop. Here, too, reentrant angles play a role in accentuating the monument’s verticality, for they eat away at the comers of the base, mitigating its cubical, boxlike proportions (plate 4.40). As in the Wat Mahathat and Wat Phichit stupas, the lofty structure supports a comparatively small bell-shaped dome, a crowning element that nonetheless manages to retain its visual importance as the focal point of the building. Comer redentions also play a role in the.design of two other buildings found in conjunction with mature period wihan.: the mondop at Wat Tuk (plates 4.123, 4.124) and the.-stupa at Wat Son Khao (plates 4.103, 4.104). Bell-shaped stupas of more traditional, less attenuated design continued to be built, and are found in conjunction with mature period wihan and bot: at Wat Trakuan (plate 2.39), Wat Ya Kron (plate 4.127), Wat Mangkon (plate 4.65), Wat Chana Songkhram (plate 4.17), and Wat Traphang Phan (plate 4.118). At Wat Ton Chan (plate 4.107) the stupa has directional niches for Buddha images, as does the eastern side of the Wat Phichit stupa. Three lotus-bud stupas are found in association with mature period wihan: at Wat Traphang Ngoen (plate 4.115), Wat Om Rop (plate 4.73), and Wat Son Khao (plate 4.103). A small

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

143

lotus-bud stupa is also located near the pathway leading to the Saphan Hin wihun, which shows some signs of mature period reconstruction. The Saphan Hin stupa, as well as a secondary lotus-bud stupa at Wat Mahathat (plate 4.59), might also be dated to the mature period. The lotus-bud stupas associated with mature period wihan differ considerably from those built earlier. What appear to be the first lotus-bud stupas to have been constructed following the addition of the lotus-bud tower atop the step pyramid at the middle of the city are located not at Sukhothai but at the center of Si Satchanalai. Although those stupas—at Wat Chedi Chet Thaeo and Wat Suan Kaeo Utthayan Noi (plate 4.135)—appear to have been designed and built entirely as such, some disjunction between their pyramid-like base and the lotus-bud tower suggests that base and tower were still perceived by the builders as separate components. The Si Satchanalai lotus-bud stupas are the only ones that include the double rows of stairs invariably found on Sukhothai’s step pyramids. At Wat Chedi Chet Thaeo, eight subsidiary towers of various types surround the main stupa, just as they do around the Mahathat stupa in Sukhothai. At Chedi Chet Thaeo,. however, the towers are separate and do not occupy the pyramidal base itself. In contrast to the early lotus-bud stupas, later examples display an integration of pyramidal base and lotus-bud tower not evident earlier. The lotus-bud tower increases in height and visual importance while the size of the pyramidal base diminishes proportionally. Most significantly, in terms of both iconography and function, stairways are never included. The most perfectly balanced, integrated, and attenuated of the lotusbud stupas is an exceptionally large one at Sukhothai’s Wat Traphang Ngoen (plate 4.115), positioned west of a mature period wihan. In contrast, the lotus-bud stupa at Wat Son Khao (plate 4.103), which accompanies a mature period bat, has the proportions of a bell-shaped stupa. The usual pyramidal base was eliminated, and until the lotus-bud bulb was recently rebuilt, only the redented shaft of the tower identified the building as a lotus-bud rather than a bell-shaped structure. Another example of the survival of an older, pre-Sinhalese, architectural form in the mature period is a stupa in the form of a step pyramid built at Wat Asokaram and inscriptionally dated

144

Chapter Four

to 1399 (plate 4.16). The pyramidal stupa design, which bears no stylistic or iconographic relation to the profusion of round, bell-shaped stupas built in the latter part of the fourteenth century, and only a progenitorial relation to the lotus-bud stupa, poses problems yet to be considered. These are given special attention in chapter 5, where Sukhothai’s other step pyramids are examined in detail. The Ayutthaya

Period, from 1438

No architectural works can be attributed to the last two decades of the Sukhothai period, that is, to the reign of Mahadharmaraja IV, which commenced in 1419 and ended in 1438, when Sukhothai fell to Ayutthaya. It appears that the construction of new monasteries came to a rather abrupt halt during the years preceding the Ayutthayan conquest. The only wihan and bot at Sukhothai attributable in their entirety to the Ayutthaya period—the easternmost of the three wihan located east of the Mahathat lotus-bud stupa (plate 4.60) and the hot at Wat Mai (New Wat) (plates 4.63, 4.64) — preserve characteristics typical of Sukhothai’s mature period, further extending the evolutionary stylistic curves outlined above. Nonetheless, the extreme height of both the Wat Mai bot and the Mahathat wihan indicate gaps in the Sukhothai tradition that might be filled by intermediate structures in Ayutthaya that developed out of the Sukhothai tradition. The 10-foot height of Sukhothai’s Mahathat and Wat Mai structures (not including a 6-foot earthen sub-base for the Wat Mai bat) are roughly twice the height of the tallest mature period Bases and are stylistically more closely related to buildings found at Ayutthaya than to those at Sukhothai. Of the two buildings, the Mahathat wihan shows less Ayutthayan influence. Because the wihan has been extensively restored, conclusions about its original appearance must be drawn with caution. But the attenuated length of its ground plan (which probably has not been altered) is about twice its width, the same proportion found in mature period buildings. The base moldings, which may or may not reflect the original, provide a magnified version of the base profiles typical of the mature period. Of course, the wihan’s rectangular ground plan, and the

Sukhothai Architecture by Period

145

absence of vestibules and cloisters are attributes found in buildings constructed throughout the Sukhothai period. More typical of Ayutthayan assembly halls is the Wat Mai bot, which has a length three times its width, a ratio that has no counterpart in the Sukhothai period buildings. Conversely, the proportions—both horizontal and vertical—are similar to those in the wihnn and bot at Ayutthaya’s Wat Maheyong, reported to have been built in 1438, the year Sukhothai was incorporated into the Ayutthaya kingdom.22 The bases of later Ayutthaya wihnn and bdt are even more attenuated —for example, those at Wat Yai Chai Mangkon and Wat Na Phra Men.23 The type of sub-base that supports the Wat Mai bot occurs elsewhere at Sukhothai only in the mature period Wat Phra Yun bot, but there the sub-base is considerably lower. Such sub-bases are commonly found, however, in the buildings at Ayutthaya. The complex Wat Mai vestibules incorporate reentrant angles similar to those in the Trakuan bot, but resemble even more those in Ayutthaya’s Wat Yai Chai Mangkon and Wat Na Phra Men, where the vestibules are partitioned to form separate rooms. Base moldings on the Wat Mai bot incorporate a complex arrangement of detail in which curvilinear Ayutthayan-style motifs override the string rows typical of the Sukhothai period. The only other structure at Sukhothai in which moldings other than parallel string rows are found is in the reconstructed wihnn at Wat Chedi Si Hong (plate 4.36), and a date no earlier than the fifteenth century is suggested for that phase of construction. Wat Chedi Si Hong (plate 4.35), Wat Chetuphon (plate 4.46), and Wat Si Sawai all show signs of Ayutthaya period additions, including remnants of brick walls with vertical, slitted openings. At Wat Phra Bat Noi the stupa west of the wihnn (plate 4.79) shows unmistakable signs of Ayutthaya period workmanship. At the present time, the dating of Ayutthaya period architecture is a controversial subject and must be researched further before conclusions can be drawn about the Ayutthaya period buildings at Sukhothai.

146

%

V/ *.

•

•

•

■

’•

‘‘ •

A

x

;?, z-

*s

Plate 4.1 San Phra Sua Muang (Tha Pha Daeng shrine)

■ '

•

147

Plate 4.2 Wat Phra Phai Luang, north tower or triad

148

Plate 4.3 Wat Phra Phai Luang, Khmer towers and Khmer-style terrace supporting small stupas and Thai-style wihan

-nr-’.*-

■ • ■

LS|g| ... Plate 4.4 Wat Phra Phai Luang, small stupas aligning the sides of the Khmer-style terrace

149

■'

'

■

■

■

-

.

Plate 4.5 Wat Phra Phai Luang, base of laterite Khmer-style terrace, repaired with brick

’''■'V ' 4

Plate 4.6 Wat Phra Phai Luang, base of brick wihan on base of the Khmer-style terrace

150

bj Plate 4.7 Wat Phra Phai Luang, base of Khmer-style bot and one of its eight sima stones (left)

Plate 4.8 Wat Phra Phai Luang, northeast wihan

151

Plate 4.9 Wat Phra Phai Luang, northeast wihan, showing pillars constructed of pie-shaped segments

Plate 4.10 Wat Phra Phai Luang, laterite base of northeast wihan, repaired with brick

152

Il '« ' .

Plate 4.11 Wat Aranyik, bot

v :> A:?-.. '

Plate 4.12 Wat Aranyik,

wihan

;K

153

Plate 4.13 Wat Aranyik, base of wihan

*5 WWK J

Plate 4.14 '■

Wat Asokaram, wihan with pillars of porch in foreground; pillars of cloister at left

154

Plate 4.15 Wat Asokaram, cloister on one side of the wihan

Plate 4.16 Wat Asokaram, pyramidal stupa

Plate 4.17 Wat Chana Songkhram, wihan (left foreground), stupa (center foreground), and bot (right foreground). Wat Mahathat in background

* l '■i

155

156

isesi/'

t

\:

...

Plate 4.18 Wat Chana Songkhram, bot

Plate 4.19 Wat Chana i&ggg Songkhram, base of bot ' .

157

Plate 4.20 Wat Chana Songkhram, wihan

Plate 4.21 Wat Chana Songkhram, base of wihan

158

st.'

v -■V.

,,-r-r . . . . . r ‘ ■(• k” ■.' .‘wi'e B'sw ‘ **-•- «-» - •-* .. ,

l&e' ------........... ' Plate 4.22 Wat Chang Lorn, base of wihan

Plate 4.23 Wat Chang Lom, bdt

159

Plate 4.24 Wat Chang Lorn, stupa

Plate 4.25 Wat Chang Lom, figures of elephants surrounding stupa

*•1 •

■\

?»?*.

.'., B fii

Wat Chang Rop, stupa

Plate 4.26

S

''

-*3

7 ■' ’AH V\ 1

” r'

A

Plate 4.99 Wat Si Chum, engraving of a scene from the Devadhamma Jataka. From Lucien Foumereau, Le Siam ancien, pt. 2, 1908

|j ii 1

200

Plate 4.100 Wat S i Sawai, wihan (triple towers in background)

Plate 4.101 Wat Si Sawai, base of wihan

201

k

■ J-!*

Plate 4.102 Wat Si Thon, wihan

Plate 4.103 Wat Son Khao, stupa

202

...

Plate 4.104 Wat Son Khao, redentions at comer of stupa

Plate 4.105 Wat Son Khao, wihan

203

I 3

r, £

J• 'J*.

Plate 4.106 Wat Tham Hip, wihan

Plate 4.107 Wat Ton Chan, stupa and wihan, showing round and octagonal pillars and cloister (left)

204

Plate 4.108 Wat Ton Chan, wihan, showing utsana sangh and pillars constructed of pie-shaped wedges

Plate 4.109 Wat Ton Chan, base of wihan with ground-level pillar

205

Plate 4.110 Wat Ton Makham, peripheral stupa

Plate 4.111 Wat Ton Makham, principal stupa

206

a-

Plate 4.112 Wat Ton Makham, wihan

Plate 4.113 Wat Trakuan, bot

207

Plate 4.114 Wat Trakuan, base of bot

A. . ' O Plate 4.115 ‘

'V

4C-..

Wat Traphang Ngoen, stupa

208

• -

* ' -Jj.

• ’X • J . , SEj

J

W’JPlate 4.116 Wat Traphang Ngoen, wihan

• J’-

Z

'

-7

*

.

?■

■■

«r? i.

~ -

.. :

Xr-'t ,

. ,. -

«—4

—

Plate 4.117 Wat Traphang Ngoen, bdt

209

Plate 4.118 Wat Traphang Phan, stupa

Plate 4.119 Wat Traphang Thonglang, mondop and wihan

210

Plate 4.120 Wat Traphang Thonglang, mondop, stucco relief depicting the Buddha’s descent from Tavatimsa. From an old Fine Arts Department (Bangkok) photograph

211

MM Plate 4.121 Wat Traphang Thonglang, base of wihan and ground-level pillar

Plate 4.122 Wat Traphang Thonglang, base of bot

212

;2it

J-

Plate 4.123 Wat Tuk, mondop and wihan

Plate 4.124 Wat Tuk, mondop, showing comer redentions

213

Plate 4.125 Wat Wihan Thong, pyramid

: !

*"£■ ■

-

Plate 4.126 Wat Wihan Thong, wihan

214

Plate 4.127 Wat Ya Kron, wihUn with vestibules, and stupa

Plate 4.128 Wat Ya Kron, wihun

215

■

.

Plate 4.129 Wat Ya Kron, base of wihan with cloister (left)

Plate 4.130 Mahathupa, Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka

216

* 1 ••

r *.

Plate 4.131 Small stupa surrounded by figures of crouching elephants in the precincts of the Mahathupa, Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. From H. Parker, Ancient Ceylon, (London: Luzak and Co., 1909)

Plate 4.132 Lankatilaka temple, Gampola, Sri Lanka, bell-shaped stupa (under reconstruction)

217

1 I

Plate 4.133 Lankatilaka temple, figure of elephant in niche, Gampola, Sri Lanka

Plate 4.134 Mahathupa harmika,

Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka

218

I0W _______ Plate 4.135

Lotus-bud stupa, Wat Suan Kaeo Uthayan Noi, Si Satchanalai

5 THE SUKHOTHAI PYRAMIDS / \ f all Sukhothai’s architectural works, its five large step v-/ pyramids, mentioned intermittently above, provide some of the most intriguing investigative material and pose some of the most challenging questions. In the above chapters, four of the pyramids were assigned to three very different architectural periods that span almost the entire Sukhothai period. Two pyramids, one at a site known today as Wat Kon Laeng (plates 2.16, 4.49), and one at the center of what is now Wat Mahathat (plates 2.11, 2.12), were assigned to the Ram Khamhaeng, or seminal, period (latter decades of the thirteenth century). The Ha Yot pyramid (plates 2.32, 2.33, 4.55), also located in what is now Wat Mahathat, was dated to 1384 (in Sukhothai’s transitional period). The pyramid located at Wat Asokaram (plate 4.16), dated to 1399, was included among Sukhothai’s mature period works. (There was no apparent inscriptional reference to the fifth of the step pyramids (plate 4.125), located at what is now known as Wat Wihan Thong.) As discussed above, the ascribed dates were based on inscriptional references to sites at Sukhothai and the identification of those references with individual pyramids. Also providing some basis for those identifications were the physical attributes of the pyramids themselves, and that evidence must still be considered. Because they form a very small but distinctive group of monuments that fall well outside Sukhothai’s mainstream of architectural development, and because they pose problems not encountered in the dating of other buildings, the step pyramids are considered separately here. The physical evidence must be taken into account if the inscriptional identifications are to be taken seriously. Unlike Sukhothai’s bell-shaped stupas, which could be arranged in a chronological continuum suggested first by the 219

220

Chapter Five

stylistic evolution of the wihan and bot that accompany them, the assembly halls associated with the pyramids were not always helpful. At Wat Kon Laeng and Wat Wihan Thong, in particular, the wihan appear to have been built much later than the pyramids. Wat Mahathat’ s wihan laang showed signs of reconstructions dating from several periods, any one of which might, without thorough analysis, be linked to construction of the pyramid. Only at Wat Asokaram could both the inscriptional and archaeological evidence substantiate a pyramid and wihan having been built concurrently. Also hampering the pyramids’ chronological attribution on the basis of physical evidence was the absence of a Sinhalese (or any other) prototype that might provide clues to the times of construction. While the introduction of Sukhothai’s bell-shaped stupas could be traced to contact with Sri Lanka in the midfourteenth century, there is no question that the pyramids derive from a tradition different from the one that produced the round stupas with dome, harmika, and yasti so common at Sukhothai in the latter half of the fourteenth century. No chronological analogues to the pyramids could be found. Past studies of Sukhothai art and architecture have not recognized Sukhothai’s pyramids as. a unique architectural type. That omission rests principally on the failure to identify the pyramidal base of the Mahathat stupa as a distinct constructional entity conceived and built before its eight surrounding towers and its lotus-bud superstructure were added. Thus, it is not surprising that when the remaining four step pyramids have attracted any notice at all they have been dismissed as the bases of lotus-bud stupas that have, over time, lost their superstructures.' However, the step pyramids and the lotus-bud stupas (other than the converted Mahathat stupa) are distinguished by a number of features that firmly identify them as a distinct building type. Briefly, the Sukhothai pyramids can be described as rectangular, 30-50 feet square at the ground level, stepped, and truncated. Three are constructed of laterite blocks of varying sizes and shapes, one is half laterite and half brick, and one is primarily brick, with laterite used only for the ground story. Traces of stucco veneer, which may or may not have been part of the original structure, can still be seen. The ground stories

The Sukhothai Pyramids

221

support three or four additional stories of receding breadth. Regardless of its other dimensions, the ground-level story has a height of 4 feet. And, contrary to what one might expect, the surmounting stories increase in height as they approach the top. In every case the visual significance of the oversized top story is enhanced by horizontal moldings: prominent cavettos at the lower and upper edges paralleled by narrow astragals that delineate a broad fascia midway between the top and bottom of the story. On the Kon Laeng pyramid, the astragals are sculpted from the stone, while on the remaining four pyramids they are applied in stucco. The most distinguishing feature of the pyramids is the double flights of very narrow stairs that lead from the northeast and southeast comers to converge near the center of the top level, reinforcing the visual as well as the functional significance of the summit. The pyramidal bases of the lotus-bud stupas (with the exception of the additive Mahathat stupa) differ in a number of ways from the true pyramids. The attenuated outlines of the lotus-bud stupa bases contrast with the formidable, massive, more flattened outlines of the pyramids; the 4-foot base, standard in all the pyramids, is not found in the stupa bases; and all the lotus-bud stupas are constructed of, or faced with, brick. Whereas the lotus-bud stupas are found in various locations throughout the city, the pyramids are more localized. Three are situated on the western side of the north-south road, which appears to have been Sukhothai’s major thoroughfare before the walls of the city and the walls and moats delineating Wat Mahathat had been planned (see figure 10). Perhaps the most significant distinction—in terms of both function and iconography—between the pyramids and the lotusbud stupas is the consistent presence of stairways on the pyramids and (except for the converted Mahathat pyramid) their absence on the lotus-bud stupas. As noted in chapter 3, stairways leading to the top of the molded, harmika-Wke upper story of the pyramids defy explanation in terms of traditional Indian and Sinhalese stupa design. Their absence on the lotusbud stupas manifests the different uses to which the stupas were put.

1* 2

walls

1 km.

1. Mahathat 2. ChediHaYot 3. KonLaeng 4. Asokaram 5. Wihan Thong

Figure 10 Location of Pyramids

The Sukhothai Pyramids

223

Nor can the pyramids be explained as provincial versions of Angkorean monuments, massive, stepped pyramidal buildings, which might possibly be suggested as prototypes for Sukhothai’ s pyramidal design. Although it seems likely that the size of Sukhothai’ s pyramids may have been inspired by the monumentality of the Khmer buildings at Sukhothai (the Phra Phai Luang towers and the San Phra Sua Muang), and perhaps even by Khmer buildings at Angkor, direct stylistic, symbolic, and ceremonial links between the Khmer buildings and the Sukhothai pyramids cannot be identified. The sophisticated proportions and expert workmanship that are discernible in the Khmer towers at Wat Phra Phai Luang and in the San Phra Sua Muang were not reproduced in the pyramids. Nor are the decorative reliefs, sculpture, and galleries that characterize Angkorean monuments ever found in association with the Sukhothai pyramids. The four axial, securely pivoted stairways that characterize Angkor’s “temple mountains” and accentuate those buildings’ cardinally directed orientations are not part of Sukhothai’s architectural vocabulary. The Sukhothai pyramids’ double flights of converging stairways, like the pyramids themselves, have no apparent prototype. More than cosmic symbolism, which inspired the designs of Angkorean pyramidal monuments, the Sukhothai pyramids’ double stairways suggest functional necessity. Thus, the pyramids’ attributes clearly identify the structures as a distinct architectural type, apparently unique. However, within the limits that define the five pyramids as a type, each is distinguished by minor variations, which, it will be demonstrated, are indicative of different periods of construction. Below, those distinctive features are noted, and, on the basis of those data, a chronology is suggested. The Kon Laeng pyramid (plates 2.16, 4.49, 5.1) is located less than a kilometer south of the city gate just west of what appears to have been Sukhothai’ s first major thoroughfare, the north-south road that now bisects the walled city. The pyramid’s orientation of 79-81 degrees places it perpendicular to the northwest-southeast direction of the main road, which in turn parallels the low chain of mountains west of the city. The smallest of the pyramids, with a base measuring 28 by 30 feet,

224

Chapter Five

the Kon Laeng pyramid is further distinguished by its four, rather than five, stories. Especially noteworthy is the unusually large top story, accentuated by heavy astragals cut from the stone. A visual incongruity among the stories suggests that the design was visually conceived as an assemblage of parts (or stories) stacked one upon the other rather than as a predesigned, unified whole. A top-heavy, somewhat awkward profile is the result. The two rows of stairs terminate about 18 inches below the summit. The top story supports a low raised platform consisting of three levels of receding size marked by five redentions at each comer. The Kon Laeng pyramid is constructed of atypically large and randomly shaped laterite blocks (plate 5.1). Although they are laid in fairly even rows, the height of the rows varies from 6 to 14 inches, and the relatively high vertical proportions of some of the stones (compared with their width) give the pyramid a somewhat jumbled, piled-up appearance. The length of the stones varies from about 9 to 24 inches, and differentsized stones are randomly positioned. A few slabs in the bottom story are 40 inches or more in length. Although dimensions of 8 by 18 inches are fairly common, there is too little consistency to suggest that the use of modular units was an underlying constructional concept. The construction and style of the pyramid contrast starkly with those of its' accompanying wihan (plates 4.49, 4.50), built of evenly laid rows of brick. As noted in chapter 4, the wihan’s short ground plan, the medium height of its podium (32 inches), and the absence of vestibules, cloisters, and pillars all suggest a middle period date of construction (c. 1350-80). One of the largest of the five pyramids, the one located at Wat Wihan Thong (plate 4.125), about three-quarters of a mile southeast of Wat Kon Laeng, has a base 52 feet square. The five stories of the Wihan Thong pyramid constitute a more integrated pyramidal form than that of the four-storied Kon Laeng pyramid, and the top story, though partially destroyed, appears not to have dominated the structure, by an overwhelming size. Also, judging primarily from the lower four stories and the angles of the double flights of stairs, a more flattened profile is suggested. The laterite blocks of which the Wihan Thong pyramid is constructed are generally smaller and

The Sukhothai Pyramids

225

more uniform in size than those used in the Kon Laeng pyramid; stones measuring 4 by 9 by 18 inches are common (plate 5.2). But, in spite of the differences between the Kon Laeng and Wihan Thong pyramids, a number of features are common to both. The 4-foot base is surmounted by stories of gradually increasing height, and the two flights of 'converging stairs provide access to the summit. Like the Kon Laeng wihan, the wihan at Wihan Thong has a rectangular ground plan without vestibules and cloisters, and its stepped base (plate 4.126), about the same height (34 inches) as the Kon Laeng wihan base, suggests a similar date of construction, sometime in the middle period. But the Wihan Thong wihan is more conservative in some of its attributes: a short ground plan, a narrow nave, and heavy pillars. In some respects the most distinctive of the Sukhothai pyramids, the Chedi Ha Yot (Five Spires Stupa) (plates 2.32, 4.55), is one of the three (Chedi Ha Yot, Mahathat, and Kon Laeng) that face onto the old north-south road. Like the Mahathat pyramid, it is now located in the Wat Mahathat compound. But, unlike the 79-degree orientation of the Kon Laeng and Mahathat pyramids, which positions them perpendicular to the old road, the Chedi Ha Yot pyramid’s orientation of 83-85 degrees bears no directional relation to the early thoroughfare. The Chedi Ha Yot, with a base measuring 47 square feet, is similar in size to the Wihan Thong pyramid and is also composed of five stories. But its overall shape is more assured and well-defined, and its attenuated proportions contrast with those of the squatter Wihan Thong pyramid. The extremely tall top story, which, like those of the Wihan Thong and Kon Laeng pyramids, is embellished with cavettos and astragals, contributes to an attenuated rather than top-heavy appearance, and a mound of rubble at the top suggests that the building may once have been even taller. But if the superstructure ever included five spires {ha yot) as the pyramid’s name suggests, the evidence has disappeared. Although the stairs at the uppermost level are not intact, judging from the angle of those at the lower levels, they would not have reached the top of the building.

226

Chapter Five

The bottom story of the pyramid is constructed of large, randomly sized laterite blocks; those of the second and third stories are smaller, modular, and evenly laid in English bond, that is, with alternate rows of exposed headers and stretchers. The upper stories and stairways are constructed of brick, also laid in English bond (plate 5.3). Around the base of the pyramid, a low wall, only a few feet high (plate 4.56) is notable for its Sinhalese-style stucco decor. But, unlike the easily identified Theravada themes depicted in the stucco on the Mahathat pyramid, the figures on the Ha Yot wall portray a variety of mythological animals, acrobats, and dwarfs. What appear to be later additions to the Ha Yot pyramid are niches for large, seated, Buddha images on the south, west, and north sides (plate 4.54). An opening in the center of the eastern side of the fourth story (plate 4.55) seems to have been knocked out rather clumsily after that section of the building was completed. The opening leads into a deep, well-like shaft that extends nearly to ground level. The wihan (plates 2.32, 2,33) east of the pyramid is crudely attached to the stuccoed wall and partially hides some of the stucco figures (plate 4.57), implying that the stucco work must have been completed before the addition of the wihan was contemplated. Like other subsidiary buildings in the Mahathat compound, the Ha Yot wihan was not included in the chronology outlined in chapter 4, but its 42inch-high base embellished with string moldings places it in the transitional period (c. 1380-90). The Asokaram pyramid (plate 4.16) is the only one of Sukhothai’s five pyramids known from the inscriptional evidence to have been built at the same time as its adjoining wihan (plates 2.36, 4.14, 4.15) and to have functioned as a stupa for the enshrinement of Buddhist (as opposed to royal) relics. Nothing in the physical evidence contradicts the inscriptional report that both the pyramid and the wihan were built in 1399. Unlike the earlier pyramids, the Asokaram pyramid’s double stairways are not accessible from the ground. Nor, at least in their present state of reconstruction, do they reach the top of the pyramid. This, plus a curious switchback arrangement of stairs at each of the four upper levels, implies that the stairs were symbolic, or perhaps merely traditional, instead of functional.

The Sukhothai Pyramids

227

The Asokaram pyramid is also distinguished by its construction primarily of brick rather than laterite. Only the ground level is composed of laterite blocks, cut evenly in modular units and laid like brick, and there is nothing to suggest that the laterite base belongs to an earlier period. The base is 44.5 feet square and, like all the other pyramidal bases, it is 4 feet high; the surmounting stories increase in height toward the top. The Asokaram pyramid is located southeast of the walled city, but its orientation, 79-81 degrees, conforms with neither the adjacent road nor with any neighboring building. Instead, it follows the orientation of the Kon Laeng and Mahathat pyramids and the north-south road. To anyone who has looked closely at the main stupa at Wat Mahathat it should come as no surprise that the structure that functions as the base of the lotus-bud superstructure is in fact a step pyramid similar to the four described above. The Mahathat pyramid-stupa, the most imposing-of all Sukhothai’ s buildings, is the focal point of the large, rectangular Wat Mahathat complex and of the walled city. But, like the Kon Laeng and Ha Yot pyramids, it occupies a site just west of the old north-south road, which must have existed before the Mahathat walled complex was laid out. Like the Kon Laeng pyramid—but unlike Chedi Ha Yot—the Mahathat pyramid’s 79-degree orientation positions it perpendicular to the road, the city’s oldest identifiable landmark. The Mahathat pyramid is now largely hidden behind eight axial and comer towers, which appear to have been added in the second quarter of the fourteenth century, and broad terraces, which were probably added even later. But the third, fourth, and top stories of the pyramid are still clearly visible (plate 5.4). A few bare spots reveal large laterite slabs similar to those used to construct the Kon Laeng pyramid. Several architectural features common to all the pyramids are discernible in the Mahathat pyramid (see frontispiece). The top story is embellished with cavettos and astragals, and two flights of stairs, designed to provide access to the summit, converge at the center of the top story. But access to the top of the pyramid is partially blocked by two of the comer towers, which must have been added as an afterthought after the stairs were completed. The standard stairway design (evidenced in the

228

Chapter Five

Kon Laeng, Ha Yot, and Wihan Thong pyramids) calls for double stairways to begin at ground level at the northeast and southeast comers of the eastern side of the building. Judging from the angle of the stairs on the upper levels of the Mahathat pyramid, that was the original configuration there, too. In its present phase of construction, however, the towers at the northeast and southeast comers of the pyramid block both flights of stairs on the lowest two pyramidal levels. At the northeast comer, the obstructed stairs are still visible behind the tower, although they are functionally inaccessible. At the southeast comer, where the stairs are entirely hidden by the tower, the problem of accessibility was solved by the addition of a new flight of stairs, perpendicular to the old (plate 5.5). This atypically positioned stairway connects with the traditionally placed, still usable flights on the third, fourth, and fifth levels of the pyramid. Both the comer and the axial towers are attached to the pyramid with crude, heavy, buttresslike constructions that are integrated with neither the pyramid nor the towers (plate 5.6). Judging from this makeshift construction and the way in which the stairs were altered to accommodate the towers, it is indisputable that the towers were not part of the building’s original design. One bit of evidence that helps us visualize the ground story of the Mahathat pyramid prior to the addition of the terraces is a set of stone engravings of the ha roi chat (five hundred Jataka}, reported in Inscription 2 to have surrounded the large, tall chedl (see chapter 2). Although the plaques are now arranged in single file in the Wat Si Chum mondop, the dimensions of the plaques indicate that they were originally designed to form a 4foot frieze (see figure 4). As such they would have fitted the 4foot ground stories that are a standard feature of all the pyramids with observable lower stories. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the Mahathat pyramid, on which the Jataka plaques are thought to have been originally placed, also had a 4foot base. A number of theories about the origin of the Mahathat stupa have been proposed. According to one that has persisted for some time, the Mahathat’ s “pyramidal basement” was built to encase the central tower of a previously constructed building,

The Sukhothai Pyramids

229

and the four axial, Khmer-style towers are all that remain of the earlier structure. 2 Investigations by Thailand’s Fine Arts Department have produced no evidence of such an interior building, however,3 and in any case the towers clearly postdate the pyramid. Another theory suggests that the entire structure (both pyramid and towers) was built to commemorate victories over the Khmer and Sri Vijaya kingdoms, thereby accounting for the variety of tower designs. 4 1 have not been able to trace the source of these conjectures; it would appear that the confusion resulted at least in part from a failure to recognize the pyramid as the original structure to which the Khmer, “Sri Vijayan,” 5 and lotus-bud towers were added. The huge wihan, or wihan luang, just to the east of the Mahathat pyramid-stupa, with pillars embedded in the ground rather than on the podium, identifies it as a. seminal period structure (late thirteenth century), The low, raised brick floor and stuccoed base have been identified in chapter 2 with some of the renovations undertaken by the monk Si Satha around 1345, the same time that brick towers and stucco were added to the pyramid. The Sukhothai

Pyramids: Relative

Chronology

The Asokaram pyramid. As discussed above, the dating of the Asokaram pyramid poses no problems, for Inscription 93, found in its monastery precincts, states that it was built in 1399 by Queen Chulalaksana, wife of Mahadharmaraja HI and daughter of Luthai, to enshrine authentic mahathat (great relics) brought from Sri Lanka. The curious arrangement of the pyramid’s double stairways, which are nonfunctional, implies a period of construction in which early pyramidal rituals were no longer practiced. Like the placement of banlang, reinterpreted as harmika, at the summit of the domes of Sinhalese bellshaped stupas, the construction of a step pyramid to enshrine mahathat appears to have been a vestigial reminder of an older, abandoned tradition. Construction of the Asokaram pyramid placed the major architectural symbol of the old, indigenous traditions well within the politico-religious framework of more recently adopted Buddhist practice. Although it was royally supported, the stupa was, first and foremost, religious.

4 feet (?)

4 feet

Flat and tentative 1st half of 14th centuiy

Large and irregular

Ground to top

Top-heavy

Late 13th century

Size and arrangement

Stairs

Integration of stories

Suggested date

of laterite

Laterite

Laterite

Laterite

Material

Ground to top

1384

Good

Ground not to top

Small; modular English bond

Laterite and brick

Table 10. The Sukhothai pyramids: Attributes and suggested dates

1292

Ground (?) to top

HaYot 4 feet >n

i Large and 1 Small; some modular irregular (?)

E-W road

N-S road

4 feet

Wihan Thong

N-S road