Journal of the Siam Society; 81

Table of contents :
JSS_081_1a_Front
JSS_081_1b_PiriyaKrairiksh_HistoriographyOfSukhothaiArt
JSS_081_1c_Eade_MangraiBuddhaImage
JSS_081_1d_Glover_OtherPeoplesPasts
JSS_081_1e_MooreMyint_BeadsOfMyanmar
JSS_081_1f_Smithies_RobertChalleAndSiam
JSS_081_1g_StuartFox_WhoWasMahaThevi
JSS_081_1h_Webb_HilltribesAndCatholics
JSS_081_1i_Fordham_AncestorsAndChristiansInNThailand
JSS_081_1j_Wyatt_KingsMikado
JSS_081_1k_Brereton_NorthernPhraMalaiText
JSS_081_1l_Brereton_NewLightOnShadows
JSS_081_1m_Reviews
JSS_081_1n_Back
JSS_081_2a_Front
JSS_081_2b_Sternstein_LondonCompanysEnvoysPlotSiam
JSS_081_2c_GodleyBishopThiva_ThanonPhraRuang
JSS_081_2d_Smithies_JacquesDeBourgesAndSiam
JSS_081_2e_EggersLura_DanesInSiam
JSS_081_2f_Eade_IrregularYearNotation
JSS_081_2g_Smith_MedicalMemoriesOfBangkok
JSS_081_2h_Reviews
JSS_081_2i_Back

Citation preview

The Journal of the Siam Society

VOLUME 81, PART 1

1993

All Rights Reserved The Siam Society 1993 ISSN 0857-7099

Front cover :

Stucco image of the Walking Buddha at Wat Mahathat, Old Sawankhalok.

Printed by

Amarin Printing and Publishing Public Company Limited, 65 I 16 Chaiyapruk Road, Taling Chan, Bangkok 10170, Thailand. Tel. 424-2800-1, 424-1176

THE SIAM SOCIETY PATRON

His Majesty the King

VICE-PATRONS

Her Majesty the Queen Her Royal Highness the Princess Mother His Royal Highness Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Her Royal Highness Princess Galyani Vadhana

HONORARY PRESIDENT

Her Royal Highness Princess Galyani Vadhana

HONORARY VICE-PRESIDENTS

Mom Kobkaew Abhakara na Ayudhaya H.S.H. Prince Subhadradis Diskul Maj. Gen. M.R. Kukrit Pramoj Professor Chitti Tingsabadh

HONORARY MEMBERS

The Ven. Debvedi (Payutto) Dr. Fua Haripitak Dr. Puey Ungphakorn Dr. Sood Saengvichien Professor William Gedney Professor Prawase Wasi, M.D. H.E. Mr. Anand Panyarachun Dr. Tern Smitinand Mr. Dacre F.A. Raikes Mr. Jan J. Boeles

HONORARY AUDITOR

Mr. Pisit Chiwaruangroch

HONORARY ARCHITECT

Mr. Sirichai Narumit

HONORARY LEGAL COUNSEL

Mr. John Hancock

HON. LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT

Mr. William Warren

COUNCIL OF THE SIAM SOCIETY FOR 1993/94 Dr. Piriya Krairiksh Dr. Rachit Buri Mr. James V. Di Crocco Mr. Athueck Asvanund Mrs. Bilaibhan Sampatisiri Dr. Charit Tingsabadh Mrs. Bonnie Davis Dr. Warren Y. Brockelman Mrs. Patricia M. Young MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL: Mr. Hasan I. Basar Mrs. Boonyavan Chandrviroj M.R. Chakrarot Chitrabongs Mrs. Virginia M. Di Crocco Dr. Chaiyudh Khantaprab M.L. Plaichumpol Kitiyakara Mr. Henri Pagau-Clarac

President Vice President Vice President and Honorary Editor of the JSS Vice President Honorary Secretary Honorary Treasurer Honorary Librarian Honorary Editor of the NHB and Honorary Leader of the Natural History Section Honorary Officer Mrs. Vipavadee Patpongpibul Mr. Peter Rogers Dr. Vichit Surapongchai Mr. Sidhijai Tanphiphat Mr. Pakorn Thavisin Dr. Steven J. Torok Mrs. Jada Wattanasiritham Mr. Albert Paravi Wongchirachai

Editor's Notes

The Honorary Editor welcomes the advent with this issue of Acharn Pitya Bunnag as Honorary Deputy Editor of the JSS, and, as supporting editors, Dr. Howard Graves, Mr. Michael Notcutt, and Dr. Hans Penth. The assistance afforded by these distinguished gentlemen has been noteworthy in helping to ensure the timeliness of the publication of the JSS. Editorial support was provided as follows: Dr. Graves, "Robert Challe and Siam" and "Beads of Burma;" Mr. Notcutt, "Other Peoples' Pasts," "Ancestors and Christians," and "New Light on Shadows;" and Dr. Penth, "The Mangrai Buddha Image." All typesetting and page layout for this issue was carried out with Siam Society resources. Thanks are due to Khun Kanitha Kasinaubol, Publications Coordinator, and her staff for production assistance. Nyle Spoelstra assisted with the page layouts. Euayporn Kerdchouay prepared the cover.

5

The Journal of the Siam Society VOLUME 81, PART 1 1993

CONTENTS In This Issue

7

Section 1: Dating the Past

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART A Framework in Need of Revision

11

PIRIYA KRAIRIKSH

THE MANGRAI BUDDHA IMAGE OF CHIANG MAl A Computer-Assisted Rereading

37

J.C. EADE

45

IAN GLOVER

Section II: Archaeology

OTHER PEOPLES' PASTS Western Archaeologists and Thai Prehistory

BEADS OF MYANMAR (BURMA) 55 Line Decorated Beads Amongst the Pyu and Chin

ELIZABETH MOORE AND U AUNG MYINT

Section III: History

ROBERT CHALLE AND SIAM

91

WHO WAS MAHA THEVI? 103

MICHAEL SMITHIES MARTIN STUART-FOX

6

Section IV: Religion HILL TRIBES AND CATHOLICS 111 ANCESTORS AND CHRISTIANS IN 117 RURAL NORTHERN THAILAND

R.A.F. PAUL WEBB GRAHAM FORDHAM

Section V: Royal Operetta THE KINGS' MIKADO 131

DAVID K. WYATT

Section VI: Notes and Comments SOME COMMENTS ON A NORTHERN 141 PHRA MALAI TEXT DATED C.S. 878 (A.D. 1516) NEW LIGHT ON SHADOWS 147 The Use of Shadow Theater as a Technique in Psychotherapy

BONNIE BRERETON

DEREK P. BRERETON

Section VII: Reviews MICHAEL SMITHIES, trans. 150 Abbe de Choisy: Journal of a Voyage to Siam, 1685-1686 MICHEL JACQ-HERGOUALC'H 151 L 'Europe et le Siam du XVIe au XVIIIe siecle: Apports culturels IAN MORSON 152 The Connection Phuket Penang and Adelaide J.D. TAYLOR 153 Forest Monks and the Nation State: An Anthropological and Historical Study in Northeastern Thailand PIERRE PICHARD 155 Inventory of Monuments of Pagan. Volume One, Monuments 1-255

Dontri Chao Sayam 156 Traditional Folk Music of Siam

DIRK VAN DER CRUYSSE

MICHAEL SMITHIES

DAVID BUTLER MICHAEL SMITHIES WILLIAM

J.

KLAUSNER

VIRGINIA M. DI CROCCO

MICHAEL WRIGHT

7

In This Issue Figuring out what actually happened in history can be a formidable challenge-how events happened, a greater one. Analyzing why they happened brings research and discussion to a new level of complexity. Determining when things really happened, however, can sometimes be more vexing than any of these problems, especially in fields such as art history, where firm evidence is frequently sparse, confusing, or nonexistent. One of the major present projects of PIRIY A KRAIRIKSH is to review the chronology of Thai art history anew, bearing in mind the traditional conclusions and conjectures but putting all to the objective test of a rigorous fresh analysis, setting all preconceptions aside. Readers of the JSS are familiar with Dr. Piriya's rethinking of the dates of the architecture of Ayudhya as presented in Volume 80, Parts 1 and 2-a study whose further results will be published in subsequent issues. Now Dr. Piriya turns his attention to the art of Sukhothai. He begins with a detailed review of the historiography of the subject, seeking out the chief sources of the concepts and interpretations which have prevailed-unchallenged-to the present day. These he finds in the intensive consideration of Sukhothai by King Rama VI, based upon His Majesty's visit to the cities of the north in 1907, when he was still Crown Prince Maha Vajiravudh. The Prince attempted to date the monuments and to place them in the proper perspective on the basis of the knowledge available to him in his day and his own thoughtful interpretation of what he had seen and read. However, he urged his readers not to accept his findings as a textbook, but to use them as a framework for future research. "... [I]f anyone who does not agree with me on any point can clarify it for me, I should be delighted and be thankful to him," he wrote. Dr. Piriya begins his response to the Prince's invitation in this issue. J.C. EADE is also one of those scholars now active in attempts to make historical dating more precise. He is a specialist in the application of computer techniques to these efforts. In his contribution to this issue he analyzes the calendrical and planetary detail contained in the inscriptions on a Buddha image cast in celebration of Chiang Mai's famous founder, King Mangrai. He establishes the dates on the pedestal with more confidence than before, is able to read the unusually copious data with greater comprehension, and can fill out several lacunae in the reading. Patriotism, nationalism, and even chauvinism have sometimes tended to color a given country's attitudes toward foreign specialists who have come to assist local personnel in various technical fields. One of these fields is archaeology. IAN GLOVER examines the role of foreign archaeologists in

developing a prehistory specifically for Thailand, and raises the question as to whether the research of Western archaeologists working in Southeast Asia can be considered the legitimate application of universally valid scientific methods, or is no more than a form of cultural imperialism which may tend to control a people's knowledge of its own past. ELIZABETH MOORE and U AUNG MYINT focus their attention on the relationship between line-decorated Pyu and Chin beads of Burma, found in Pyu and Mon sites dated to the early first millennium. The types and decorations of the beads are discussed in detail. The article is copiously illustrated; a database of ancient Pyu beads is presented in an appendix which constitutes an annotated survey of design categories. Generally forgotten for years, the French writer Robert Challe has recently become something of a cult figure. His lively Journal d'un Voyage fait aux Indes Orientales, containing his sharp comments on the French adventure in Siam in the 1680s, has attracted the attention of historians of that turbulent period even though Challe never set foot in Siam. MICHAEL SMITHIES describes Challe's rise as a man of letters and his experiences as a widely-traveled observer, and then presents a detailed examination of the voyage, particularly as it relates to Siam. Well educated, a skeptic, author of several novels, Challe fished and hunted in Canada, wandered off to Rome, Stockholm, Jerusalem and Burma among other places, and in the journal of his visit to Southeast Asia made numerous cutting comments about the key French personalities active in Siam at the time. Although he based his work largely on the previous account by the Abbe de Choisy, he freely challenged the earlier writer, and came up with a spicy, anecdotal and gossipy narrative. One of the mysteries of Lao history is the question of who the woman referred to only as Maha Devi, the Great Queen, really was. MARTIN STUART-FOX addresses the problem of identifying this personage, whose image is that of a murderous, scheming crone. He reviews the chronology of royal succession in Laos in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century, describes Maha Devi's ascent to power, and analyzes the conflicting evidence and various theories as to her identity. He concludes that she may actually have been Keo Lot Fa, the venerable queen of King Fa Ngum. Machiavellian, with blood on her hands? Perhaps, but just as likely a querulous old lady who became the unwitting focus of factional hatred. Drawing on his findings during one of his regular visits to areas of Christian missionary activity among the Hill Tribes of Thailand, R.A.F. PAUL WEBB describes the efforts of the Pontifical Institute of Foreign Missions in Lampang to care

8

not only for the spiritual needs of the people to whom they minister but also to improve their socioeconomic condition and raise them from poverty to a less difficult practical existence. Problems generally include resistance to new ways, opium addiction, and the burdens imposed by the need to placate evil spirits. Freedom from propitiation of these last constitutes one of the reasons why some of the Hill Tribes turn to Christianity. GRAHAM FORDHAM analyzes the persistence of the annul ritual of homage to ancestors among the descendants of the first Northern Thai converts to Christianity. He traces the ancestor cult to the transformation in the nineteenth century of Buddhist mortuary rites and rituals connected with the old matrilineal spirits, synthesized with rudimentary Christian understandings about death and the person of the deceased. He sees these syncretic ritual practices as creative cultural responses to a broader social context rather than merely as assimilation into Thai cultural patterns. The artistic creativity of Thai royalty is well known. Therefore it is perhaps not too surprising that the cosmopolitan Thai monarchs King Chulalongkorn and King Vajiravudh were both captivated by the wit, satire and music of Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado. Historian DAVID K. WYATT, himself a card-carrying Savoyard, tells the story. Even King Chulalongkorn's children were involved; they translated the libretto of The Mikado into Thai. His Majesty looked at their

translation and said, "The English original was a drama; this translation is almost like a sermon." Amused, the monarch rewrote it as a real sermon. Later King Vajiravudh, an experienced dramatist, translated The Mikado himself, actually in two versions, one following the original fairly closely and the other changing its title and renaming the characters and the setting. The royal translator actually went Gilbert one better by improving the weak ending of the original. BONNIE BRERETON contributes a note on a palmleaf manuscript acquired by Chiang Mai University in recent years that may be one of the oldest books written in a Tai language. The text, a copy of the Malai Plai, is the second of a pair of Malai texts containing the story of the compassionate monk who went to hell to bestow mercy on the beings there, and who upon his return to the human realm persuaded their relatives to make merit for them so that the hell beings were reborn in heaven. It constitutes an important landmark in the development of the Phra Malai story. Dr. Brereton includes a summary of the basic narrative. DEREK P. BRERETON is an individual and family psychotherapist who has traveled extensively in Southeast Asia and has studied ritual drama and shamanistic curing. Putting to use his experience with shadow-play techniques in Thailand, Malaysia and Java, he originated the use of shadow-drama as an aid in family therapy in the United States. He describes the methods and results of this innovative therapeutic approach.

SECTION I

DATING THE PAST

Fig. 1. Crown Prince Maha Vajiravudh. Photog raphed in 1907.

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART A Framework in Need of Revision PIRIYA KRAIRIKSH PRESIDENT THE SIAM SOCIETY UNDER ROYAL PATRONAGE

When, from 4 January to 9 March 1907, Crown Prince Maha Vajiravudh (fig. 1) paid a visit to the cities in the North (Muang Nua), whichatthattimereferred to cities lying betweenNakhon Sawan to the south and Uttaradit to the north, comprising Kamphaeng Phet, Sawankhalok, Sukhothai and Phitsanulok, he could have been visiting terra incognita as far as the history of the monuments was concerned. After his return, he published in 1908 his attempt to throw light on these northern cities, entitled Rueng thieo Muang Phra Ruang (Story of An Excursion to the Cities of King Ruang). He stated that he was publishing it "in the hope that it would give an opportunity for specialists in archaeology to further their deliberations and to make hypotheses on statements pertaining to the cities of Sukhothai, Sawankhalok and Kamphaeng Phet" (Somdet Phra Borom 1908, 1). He also attempted to date the monuments and to place them in their historical perspective. It is not my intention to have this book become a

textbook. My aim is to set up a framework so that those who are knowledgeable and enjoy archaeological research can make a better picture of it. Hence, even if there are readers who have different opinions from my own, I shall not be disappointed. On the contrary, if any one who does not agree with me on any point, can clarify it for me, I shall be delighted and be thankful to him. Also I would feel that I had learnt more (pp. 2-3) The Prince probably would have been pleased to know that his "framework" has been in use for over eighty years, and that scholars continue to embellish it just as he wished they would. His methodology for dating was to correlate existing monuments with those mentioned in chronicles and inscriptions. He thought that the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription (Inscription I) was the most dependable and the Phongsawadan Nua (the Chronicle of

the North) the least trustworthy. His hypotheses were accepted and improved by prominent scholars of his time, such as his uncle, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, and the historian George Coedes. In deference to their works, scholars today continue to build their hypotheses on the opinions of these eminent scholars which in tum were based on the original framework laid down by the Prince. Prince Vajiravudh spent eight days in Sukhothai using the Prince Patriarch Pavares Viriyalongkom' s transliteration of the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription as his guide. First he consulted the inscription, which says" Around this city ofSukhothai the triple fortifications measure 3,400 wa (6,800 metres)," so he measured the circumference of the inner walls, which came to 170 sen (6,800 metres); this corresponded exactly to the 3,400 wa given in the inscription (Somdej Phra Borom 1908, 60). Thus the inner walls had to be the original walls of King Ram Khamhaeng's time and the middle and outer walls must have been later additions. At the time of the Prince's visit there were three large ponds (traphang)insidethecitywalls:TraphangThong(GoldenPond)to the east, Trap hang Ngoen (Silver Pond) to the west and Traphang So (Lime Pond) to the north (fig. 2). The inscription says In the middle of this city of Sukhothai the water of the Pho Si Pond is as clear and good to drink as the water of the Khong (River Mekhong) in the dry season (Quoted in Somdej Phra Borom 1908, 61) The Prince assumed that this passage probably referred to these ponds. In the middle of Traphang Thong is an island with Wat Traphang Thong on it. A large bell-shaped chedi (stupa) stood there, built of bricks on a laterite base with eight subsidiary chedis. The latter were mostly in a dilapidated state. There was also an ubosot (convocation hall for monks) in the process of

PIRIY A KRAIRIKSH

12

d'l;;1FiL1ib1t1 ~~11 1

mt~~nM-u

=:oo

.l I i

Fig . 2. Map of Su kho th ai, pu blished in 1908.

Fig. 3. The wilwn of Wat Ma i, Su kh o th ai, s howing a n Ay ud hya prang in side the weste rn por ch . Ph o tographed in 1907.

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART

Fig. 4. SanTa Pha Daeng, Sukhothai. Photographed in 1907.

construction. The Prince thought that the monastery might not have been an important one and probably was not very old. From WatTraphangThong the Prince went to see a ruined monastery whi ch the local people called Wat Mai (New Monastery). It had a ditch surround ing it, wh ich led him to generalize that "old monasteries had ditches surrounding them all. The ancients must have thought that the water simns [consecrated areas defined by boundary markers or by water] were more durable [than stone markers]" (Somdet Phra Borom 1908, 62). There was a wihnn (image house used as an assembly hall) with a porch to the east and west. The western porch had a small Ayud hya prnng (Khmer-sty le tower) on it(fig. 3). The wall to the north still contained large rectangular windows, "l ike the windows of the present-day ubosot." So the Prince concl uded that "having seen the windows, it is possible to guess that the construction is modern" (p. 63). Next he came to a ruin which some people called Wat Takon (sediments); others ca lled it Wat Ta Khuan (Grandfather

13

Fig. 5. The prang of the Great Relic Monument at Wat Mahathat, Sukhothai. Photographed in 1907.

Khuan); but the Prince thought that it should be corrected to Wat Trakuan (Khmer language for an aquatic plant, Ipomea aquaticn), because the Khmer lang uage was used in King Lithai' s time. Since the Prince decreed that the correct nam e be Trakuan, Trakuan became the name of this ruin. There was a lone chedi with an ubosot to the east of it. Here the Prince discovered a head of a maknrn (myth ical aquatic animal) which looked to him like a Thai makara on account of its facial expression (shown on table in fig . 1). It was made of underglazed black painted pottery like Sawankhalok ware. He thought it must have been a decoration for staircases or for architectural ornaments like roof finials . North of Wat Trakuan was a shrine for a gu ardian spirit wh ich the people called San (shrine) Ta Pha Daeng (Grandfather with the red cloth). It had the form of a prasat (a building erected on a high foundation with multiple storeyed roof, whose use is reserved for kings or gods) constructed of large blocks of laterite (fig. 4) just like theprasats atPhimai and Lopburi. The superstructure had fa llen down, but it probably had the

14

PIRIYA KRAIRIKSH

~ ~:~ . '

Fig. 7. The three prangs at Wat Sri Sawai. Photographed in 1907.

(Large Assembly Hall), wh ich was slightly bigger than the wihan of the Chinara t Image at Phi tsanulok. He believed that the

Sri Sakyamuni image which had been brought d own to Bangkok to be ensl11·i.ned in Wat Suthat originally had been the presiding image there. He specula ted tha t Wat Mahathat m ust have been the royal temple and must have had the same function as that of Wat Phra Si Sanphet at Ayudhya, since it was located next to the royal palace. H e then cross-checked w ith the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription, whi ch says

Fig. 6. Niche con taining a stucco Buddh a image decorating the Great Relic Monument at Wat Mah athat, Sukhothai. Photographed in 1907.

form of a prang. Sin ce the prasat did not have a covered ga llery around it, the Prince thought that it could not have been a Brahmanical temple, but probably was a sh rine for a guardian sp irit whi ch must have been highly venerated in ancient Sukhothai because it was well built and of excellent workmanship. Hence he gave it the name San Phra Sua M uang (Shrine of the Guard ian Spirit of the Kingdom). Next the Prince visited the ruined monastery which some people called Wat Yai (Large Monas tery); others called it Wat Mahathat (Monastery of the Grea t Relics), located at the centre of the city. He no ticed that it was a large monastery with coun tless buildings. The most important structure there was the Great Reli quary Monument, w hose finial was in the form of a slender prang, beautiful and curious to behold (fig. 5). On the upper terrace were four w ihans at the cardinal points whose niches are beautifully d ecorated w ith sculpture (fig. 6). To the east of the Great Reliquary Monument was the Wihan Luang

In the m idd le of this city of Sukhothai there is a wihan. There is a gold image of the Buddha. There are sta tues of the Anharasa (18 cubits or 8.37 m etres in height] Buddha. There are Buddha images. There are large images of the Buddha and m edium-sized ones; there are large wihans and medium-sized ones (Quoted in Somdej Phra Borom 1908, 67). So he concluded that this passage must have referred to Wa t Mahathat, for " ... there is a wihan; There is a gold image of the Buddha" could only h ave meant the Wihan Luang and p robably the Sri Sakyamuni image. "Anharasa" meant standing Buddha images 18 cubits high, many of w hi ch were represented there. As for the "large images of the Buddha and med iumsized ones" and "large wihans and medium-sized ones," they were all there to be seen. Thus by correlating the ruins of Wa t Mahathat with the above passage in Inscription I, the Prince dated the monuments a t Wat Mahathat to King Ra m Khamhaeng' s reign. To the east of Wat Mahathat the Prince noticed a platform bereft of any sign of walls or pillars, w ithout even a pile of stucco or brick, which prompted him to speculate that it must have been the palace platform (ian prasat) on which palace buildings of wood were constructed. Hence the area around the platform must have been the palace of the Sukhothai kings.

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART Another site worth seeing within the city wall was the ruin the local people called Wat Sri Sawai (fig. 7), whose three prangs reminded Prince Vajiravudh of the Prang Sam Yod at Lopburi. Inside the central prang the Prince saw two wooden posts which led him to speculate that they must have been the posts which used to support the seat of the presiding official who represented the gods during the Swinging Ceremony. His search also turned up a stone stele depicting the god Siva, which confirmed his suspicion that Wat Si Sawai had been a Brahmanical temple. Following the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription, which first describes sites within the city's centre, then moves outside the city walls to the west, east, north and south respectively, Prince Vajiravudh traveled in a like manner on his tour of Sukhothai. Close to the city wall on the west was Wat Pa Mamuang (Mango Grove Monastery), accessible from the city by a raised road. The Prince consulted a Khmer language inscription of King Lithai (Inscription IV), which had been translated by the Prince Patriarch Pavares Viriyalongkorn (Somdet Phra Maha Samana 1899, 3566-3574). From this he surmised that the wat had probably been built when the Sangharaja (Supreme Patriarch) came to reside at Wat Pa Mamuang at the invitation of King Lithai. The road went on to an ubosot with a square platform to the west of it. On this platform stood four square pillars at each of the four corners, and in the centre was a mound of bricks. He thought that the platform had represented a mondop (an image house on a square plan) connected to the ubosot. The Prince reasoned that had the monastery not been important, the road would not have ended there, so he thought that it was reasonable to assume that this was the WatPaMamuangmentioned in the Khmer language inscription of King Lithai. The Prince inquired whether there were any mango trees left and was told that there was none. Nevertheless, since the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription mentions mango groves, the prince thought that the mango grove must have been planted during that reign. According to Prince Pavares's translation, King Thammikarat (Lithai) liked the mango grove so much that he had statues cast of the gods Naresuan, Mahesvara, and Vi!?r:tukarma, and of the Hermit Sumedha and the Future Buddha, Ariyametteyya, and had these five images set up in the Thewalai Mahakaset in the Pa Mamuang District. In the present-day translation only Mahesvara and Vi!?I).U are mentioned in the text. King Lithai then invited the Sari.gharaja, who had studied Buddhism in Sri Lanka, to come from Burma to spend the rainy season retreat in the Mango Grove, where a residence had been built for him. Prince Vajiravudh, however, was troubled by the difference between the description of the Wat Pa Mamuang, which in the Pavares translation appeared to have been a large establishment, with the modest remains consisting of an ubosot and a mondop, so he offered an explanation for the disparity by saying that King Lithai did not intend to build a permanent monastery, because the Sari.gharaja only came for a temporary visit. Today the monastery Prince Vajiravudh identified as Wat Pa Mamuang is called Wat Si Thon. Prince Vajiravudh's identification of Wat Pa Mamuang was made by correlating the ruins of W at Si Thon with the Khmer language Inscription of King Lithai (Inscription IV). He

15

thought that the site was an important one on account of the raised road leading to it. He was oblivious of the fact that both the monastery and the road could have been built at any time between 1361, when the Sari.gharaja came to reside at Wat Pa Mamuang, and 1907 when he himself visited Sukhothai. When a discrepancy arose between the present reality and his interpretation of the inscription, the Prince found reasons to support his hypothesis. He did not question the validity of his hypothesis nor the correctness of the translation of his source, for he had complete faith in the inscription and never suspected that the translation might have been erroneous. Next the Prince visited a wihan which the local guide called Wat Tuk (Masonry). It consisted of a square platform with eight laterite pillars, four at the corners and four in between, accessible through two doors. Phra Wichien Prakan, the governor of Kamphaeng Phet, who accompanied the Prince, guessed that it was the Thew alai Mahakaset where the five statues cast by King Lithai were enshrined. Moreover, it probably was in the compound of the mango grove as evinced by two mango trees growing beside the wihan. The Prince, however, was sceptical whether the wihan had been the Thewalai Mahakaset of the inscription, for he thought that the shrine might have been built of wood, but the Fine Arts Department accepted Phra Wichien Prakan's argument and labeled it the Thewalai Mahakaset. Another site worth seeing, according to the Prince, was Khao Phra Bat Noi (The Lesser Footprints Hill) where the local people still went to pay respect to the Buddha's footprints. Many roads led to it, so the Prince guessed that they must have been made by King Ram Khamhaeng, for Prince Pavares's translation of the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription says On the day of the new moon and the day of the full

moon, the King caparisons the white elephant named Rubasi with ropes and tassels and gold for its tusks. King Ram Khamhaeng mounts and rides him to pay respect to the wihan in Arafiftika (Quoted in Somdet Phra Borom 1908, 81). So the Prince decided that King Ram Khamhaeng often came this way. On the Khao Phra Bat Noi was a chedi having the form of a fishing net (cham hae) and with four porches. He thought that it was exemplary of its type (fig. 8). East of the chedi was a small wihan connected to the former by a platform on which a footprint of the Buddha was enshrined. Nearby on another hill was the large octagonal base of a chedi built of laterite on a brick foundation. The Prince attributed its destruction to the human greed of robbers looking for the valuables deposited within it. "Had these people used their ingenuity in the right direction instead of destroying antiquities, our country might have made greater progress," mused the Prince (p. 83). Descending the Lesser Footprints Hill, the Prince came to Wat Mangkon (makara), which at that time was also called Wat Chang Lorn (Surrounded by Elephants), since the base of the bellshaped chedi was supported on the four sides by stucco elephants (none survives today). There was also a modest ubosot. The prince surmised that someone might have built it not too long ago.

16

PIRIY A KRAIRIKSH

Fig. 8. Stupa having the form of a fishing net at Wat Khao Phra Bat No i, Sukhothai. Photographed in 1907.

Fig. 9. Buddha image 18 cubits high at Wat Saphan Hi n, Sukhothai, Photographed in 1907.

From Wat Man gkon the Prince went to the "Arai1iiika" (res id ence of th e for es t-dwelling monks) of King Ram Khamhaeng, w here, according to Inscription I,

In the excitement of ha ving found an At ~h arasa image wh ere the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription says it would be, it could n ot h ave occurred to the Prince that the image h e saw m ight not h ave been the same on e menti oned in the inscrip tion. His correlation n ot only confirmed that the image had existed since Kin g Ram Khamhaeng's time, but that its ex istence supported the trus twor thiness of the inscription. The Prince was di sappo inte d th a t th e in scription d id not mention any s ite wor th seeing east of th e city. ev er theless, h e v isited Wat Trapha n g Thong Lang (Cora l Tree Pond) w hi ch h ad a mondop an d a wihan sim ilar in plan to Wat Si Chum . He identifie d th e stucco d ecora tion on th e so uth face of th e mondop as th e Buddh a d escendin g th e s tairs from Tava timsa Heaven (fig . 10 ). Sin ce t hi s sc ulp tu ra l p a n e l exhibite d fine workma n s hip and was we ll preserved, the Prince pronounced th a t

To the west of this city ofSukh othai is the Araiiii.ika ... in the m iddle of the Arafu"'iika there is a large wihan, tall and beautiful, and there is an A Hharasa image standing up (Somdet Phra Borom 1908, 84). So, following the inscription, the Prince came to WatSaphan Hin (Stone Bridge), and ha ving walked up the stone path, arrived at a tall wihan housing an linage of a standi.J.1g Buddha which exactly correlated with the above passage in Inscription I (fig. 9). "Now that I have seen the site," the Prince enthused, "I must adm it that King Ram Khamhaeng did have something to boas t about."

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART

17

·""'

-

- ~--:.

.;

; ·....;.'-! £ ··- '

Fig. 11. A gateway at WatChetuphon,Sukhothai. Photog raphed in 1907.

Fig. 10. Stucco relief showing the Buddha descending from Tavatimsa Heaven at Wat Traphong Thong Lang, Sukhothai. Photographed in the 1950s.

This wat appears to be truly ancient because the workmanship has not degenerated. If it had been made in later times, it probably would have nothing worth seeing, for our contemporaries no longer seem to know what is beautiful (p. 90). Like other scholars of his time the Prince equated age w ith workmanship.ltnever occurred to him, nor to his contemporaries, that workmanship is a subjective criterion that cannot be used for dating a work of art. Next the Prince misinterpreted the direction given in the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription which says that "In the direction of a man's feet when he is sleeping ... there are basars. There is the acana image. There are the prasats ... " He took "In the direction of a man's feet when he is sleeping" to m ean south when it should have meant north, for it is a custom for a Thai w hen

sleeping to lie on his right side facing east, so that his head faces south. Thus, to the south he identified Wat Chetuphon with its stucco Buddhas in four postures as the" acana" image mentioned in Inscription I. He also corrected the word "acana" to "acala" to mean "immovable." Since he thought that the wihan. with four porches housing these images would have had a prasat roof, so this wihan would have corresponded to the "prasat" of the inscription. He surmised that Wat Chetuphon must have been built before King Ram Khamhaeng' s time, because had King Ram Khamhaeng built it, he would have boasted and spoken about it at length. The Prince was greatly impressed by the use of massive slabs of slate at this monument (fig. 11), for it reminded him of "seeing the sites of the monuments of Egypt." He recommended that "If anyone goes to Sukhothai and has no time to see other monuments, he should at least try to visit this wat" (p. 99). Prince Damrong later remarked (National Archives 1927) that the governor of Sukhothai had put up a sign giving the name of this monastery as Wat Thep Chumphon (Divine General) but Prince Vajiravudh changed it to Chetuphon (from the Pali Jetavana). The Prince reasoned that the name should be corrected to Chetuphon because the monastery had been built in the forest outside of the city just as its original Pali namesake Jetavana had been constructed outside the city of Sravathi. To the east ofWat Chetuphon is a monastery that the locals called Wat Chedi Si Hong (Four Bays), on account of the four recesses that used to d ecora te the base of the stupa's bellshaped dome, one on each side. Although the Fine Arts Department has reconstructed the dome, it has left out the original four recesses at its base. Since the Prince could not find an ubosot at Wat Chetuphon, he surmised that the ubosot at Wat Chedi Si Hong also served as the convocation hall for Wat Chetuphon, so he concluded that Wat Chedi Si Hong probably represented the residential area for monks, whereas Wat Chetuphon was the sacred area.

18

PIRIYA KRAIRIKSH

Since the Prince mistook " the direction of a man's feet when he is sleeping" for south, so that "the direction of a man's head w hen he is sleeping" became north, he could not find correlations for Wat Si Chum and Wat Phra Phai Luang, the two most important monuments north of the city. Nevertheless he did find an entry for Wat Si Chum in the Royal Chronicle of Ayudhya which mentions that King Naresuan set up camp in the District ofWa t Si Chum (Hermi ts Assembled) while on his way to quell a rebellion at Sawankhalok in 1567. King Naresuan then comma nd e d cou r t Brahmins to draw up wa ter from the Sayambhuvanath and the Poe Si ponds to be drunk by his military commanders during the cerem ony of Drinking the Water of Allegiance. At the rnondop of Wat Si Chum the Prince climbed up the sta irs to the top of the walls and discovered four holes, one a t each comer, which led him to speculate that these were for the wooden posts that held up the timber superstructure and roof tiles. As for the shape of the roof, he thou ght that it would have resembled thatofWa tSa PathumatSawankhalok, which today is called Wat Phaya Dam (see fig . 21). The Prince described the roof form there as a bowl turned upside down. As for Wat Phra Phai Luang (Great Wind), which originally had three prangs similar to Wat Si Sawai of which only one sw·vived (fig. 12), the Prince found a sandstone base for a linga (snii11adr01.1i.), so he speculated that originally the building must have been a Brahmanical temple but had been transformed into a Buddhistmonastery in recent times. Hew assure that the change must have taken place not long ago on account of the poor workm anship of the wooden statues of the Buddha discovered inside one of the prangs. However, the sole remaining prang had beau tiful stucco decoration, so he had a photograph of it printed in his book "to testify to the beauty of the designs" (fig. 13).

Fig. 12.

(Far left) The north prang at Wat Phra Phai Lu ang, Sukhothai, Photographed in 1907.

Fig. 13.

(Left) Detail of the stucco decoration of the north prang at Wat Phra Phai Luang. Photographed in 1907.

The Prince's reliance on inscriptions to identify historical monuments caused him some difficulties when he came to Wa t Sangkhawat (Monks' Residence). According to the translation of Inscription IV by Prince Pavares, King Lithai had a grea t reliqu ary monument constructed in the form of a prang and had a monas tery built complete w ith an ubosot, wihan, and kan parien (preaching hall). Then he h ad a bronze image of the Buddha cast to preside over the ubosot and gave the name "Sangha was a ram wihan" to the monastery, which " today the Northern people call WatSangkawat." Unfortunately, the WatSangkhawatwhich the Prince visited did not meet the requirements of a great monastery mentioned in the translation, for it consisted of one wihan (fig. 14) and a fallen-down chedi. The Governor of Kamphaeng Phet, Phra Wichien Prakan, suggested that this passage refers to the Wat Mahathat inside the city, for the inscription also says that after the rainy season retreat for monks was over, King Lithai celebrated the casting of the bronze image and set it up at the centre of the city of Sukhothai to the east of the Great Reliquary Monument. The Prince speculated that the Wat Sangkhawat he h ad visited was not the same as the one mentioned in the inscription, but the "Sanghawas aram w ihan" of the inscription was the same as the Wat Mahathat. Nevertheless he deferred to the archaeologists to decide on it. The Prince did not realize that the passages referring to the Great Reliquary Monument having the form of a prang and the monastery given the name "Sanghawas aram wihan" were interpolations by Prince Pavares into Inscription IV. Thus Prince Vajiravudh's confusion was caused by his reliance on an erroneous translation. From Sukh othai Prince Vajiravudh went to Sawankhalok by the Phra Ruang Road, which at some places measured six wa

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART

Fig. 14.

(R ig h t) The wihan at Wat Sa nkh awa t, Sukh o th ai. Photograp hed in 1907.

Fig. 15.

(Fa r ri ght) The chedi at Wa t Chang Lom, O ld Sawankh alok. Photographed in 1907.

(twelve metres) w ide. A t on e p oint a canal about eight sok (four metres) w ide and four sok (two metres) d eep ran p arallel to the roa d . H aving search ed throu gh all available written sources, he fo und that the road is mention ed in Prince Pavares's tra nsla tion of Inscription IV, w hi ch says that King Lithai had a can al dug and a road constructed linking Sukh othai w ith Si Sa tch analai. However, reasoning from the belief that Sukho thai was a p rosperous kingd om during King Ram Khamhaeng' s reign and th at King Ram Kh amh aen g h ad built a chedi at Si Satchan alai, he preferred to think that the road h ad been constru cted in King Ram Kh aml1aeng's time and that King Lithai was resp onsible ra ther for repa irin g his grandfather's old roa d . The Prince commented that it was difficult to find d ep endable hi storical record s for Sawankh alok, since no stone inscri ptions were fo und there. He regretted that Ki ng Ram Khamh aen g d id not have much to say about Sawankhalok or Si Sa tchan alai beca use he resided at Sukhothai. On the other h an d, the Phongsawadan Nua (Chronicle of the North), w hich the Prince cautioned aga inst using, gave a len g thy and detailed acco unt of Sawankh alok, but only m entioned Sukhoth ai on ce. It says that the Hermit Sa tch an alai founded the ci ty of Sawankl1alok, hence th e P rince thought that Si Sa tch an alai must h ave been an earlier name of Sawar1kl1alok. Prin ce Vajirav udh compared the ruins that the local people of Sawankl1alok called Wat Chan g Lorn (Surrounded by Elephants; fig. 15) to Wat Ch ang Rop (En circled by Elephan ts) at Kamphaen g Phet (fi g. 22). The Pr ince thou gh t that it was mos t unlikely that they resembled each other by coinciden ce; therefore, one must have in spired the other, so he reasoned that the one at Kamphaen g Phet must h ave been later than the one at Sawankhalok, because King Lithai h ad resided at Si Sa tch analai

19

when he was a p rin ce. After he became king at Sukhothai, he fo unded the Grea t Reliqu ary Monument at Kamp haen g Phet, so he mu st ha ve built the chedi at Wat Chang Rop inimitationof the one at Si Sa tchan alai. Since Prince Vajiravudh thought that Si Sa tchan alai was an earlier name for Sawankh alok, he placed Wat Chang Lom at Sawankh alok and Wa t Ch ang Rob at Ka mphaeng Ph et in the historical time period of Sukhothai. So pervasive was his preconception of Sukl1othai' s p as t th at it m ade him oblivious of the fac t th at both Sawank halok and Kamphaen g Phet flourished right th rou gh to the Ban gkok period and that bo th of these monuments could have been built at a later time. Prince Vajiravudh identified the r uins that local people called Wa t Chedi Chet Thaeo (Seven Rows of Stu pas) with the Grea t Reli qu ary Monument that Kin g Rarp Kh amhaeng had cons tr ucted at Si Sa tch analai beca use h e had consulted Prince Pavares' s translation of the Ram Khaml1aen g Inscription, w hi ch says In 1209 saka, year of the boar (1287), he (King Ra m Khamhaen g) h ad the sacred relics du g up for all to see. He ven era ted and a ttended to the sacred relics for a month and six d ays; then h e buried them in th e mid dle of the city ofS i Satch analai an d built a chedi over them . It was completed in six years. He erected ston e walls around the Great Reliquary Monument. It was com pleted in three years (Quoted in Somdej Phra Borom 1908, 177-178). Since the Prince thou ght th at the p rincipal stu pa at Wat Chedi Chet Thaeo (fi g. 16) was a copy of the Grea t Reliqu ary

PIRIYA KRAIRIKSH

20

Fig. 16. The prar1g atWatChedi ChetThaeo, Old Sawankhalok. Photographed in the 1890s.

Fig. 18. "Lak Muang," Old Sawankhalok. Photographed in 1907.

Fig. 17. A cinerary chedi at WatChecli ChetThaeo, Old Sawankhalok. Photographed in 1907.

Monument at Wat Mahathat, Sukhothai (fig. 5), and the overall arrangement was similar, even to the extent that the "stone walls around the Great Reliquary Monument" were there to be seen in good condition, he speculated that the mainstupa at Wa t Chedi Chet Thaeo was the one that King Ram Khamhaeng built over the sacred relics in the middle of the city of Si Sa tchanalai. Furthermore, he also identified the satellite chedis around it as cinerary stupas (fig. 17). Prince Vajiravudh also made a suggestion that the prang with rabbeted corners to the southwest of what he thought must have been the palace site at Sawankhalok was where the city's astrological chart was buried and the prang had been built over it, so he named it "Lak Muang" or the City Pillar (fig. 18). The Prince highly recommended visiting Wat Mahathat outside the walled city, for it was one of the most beautiful sites in the North. The principal attraction there was the Grea t Reliquary Monument in the form of a prang (fig. 19) whose shape reminded the Prince of the Mahathat at Phitsanulok, and an even closer comparison could be made with the prang of Wat Phichaiyat in Thonburi. He consulted the Chronicle of the North for a clue to its dating and found out that King Thammaracha, or Ba Thammarat, the first ruler of Sawankhalok, had relics of the Buddha d eposited in the city and commanded five Brahmins, whose names were Ba Phitsanu, Ba Chi Phit, Ba In (Indra),

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART

21

Fig. 19. T h e prang of th e Great Re li c Monument a t Wa t Mahathat, Old Sawa nkh a lok . Photographed in 1907.

Ba Phrom, and Ba Rit Rocana, to consult with one another and to cons truct a building more beautiful than and different from the works of other craftsmen in the land. Prince Vajiravudh speculated that it was possible for these Brahmins to have built the prang becau se its form resembled a Brahmanical temple. Yet the Khoms (Kim1ers) also liked to build prangs, so p erhaps the Khoms might h ave constructed it. He concluded that, at any rate, there were reasons to believe that the prang of Wat Mahathat was the earliest building in the region, perhaps over one thousand years old. His reasons were that " the workmanship was excellent and it was in a better condition than other monuments in the area" (p. 189). The Chronicle of the North has furth er information on Wat Mahathat. It says that Phraya Abhayagamani made Arun Ratch a Kuman ruler of the city of Satchanalai and received the name Phraya Ruang. Phraya Ruang h ad a wihan built in the fi ve directions, and n ext to the Great Reliqu ary Monument with its double covered galleries he had replicas made of images of the Buddha. Then h e had laterite made into palisades and lan tern posts around the wihan (Quoted in Somdet Phra Borom 1908, 195). "All these constructions were actually carried out," confirmed the Prince. "Th ere are the five wihans . The covered ga lleries can still be seen. There is the ubosot. The laterite p alisades and lantern posts really exist" (p. 196). However, he did not believe that King Ruang was responsible for all of these structures but that successive rulers of Si Satchanalai must have had this monastery restored from time to time.

In the same direction as Wat Mahathat was the ruin local people called Wat Chao Chan (Prince Chan) (fig. 20), which the Prince recognized at once as a Brahmanical temple because the form of the prang was stylistically comparable to those ofWat Sri Sawai and Wat Phra Phai Luang at Sukhothai Moreover, among the debris he discovered a stone head from an linage of Siva. The existence of this Brahmanical temple correlated with a passage in the Chronicle of the North which says that Ba Thammarat had a Brahmanical Temple constructed in the city to house linages of Plu·a Naret and Phra Narai. The Prince mused that the compiler of the chronicle must have known that a Brahmanical temple had existed at Sawankhalok, but there was no way of confirmil1g w hether this was the same one as Wat Chao Chan. Evidently the Brahrnanical temple had later been turned il1to a Buddhist monastery because an ubosot was situated to the east of the prang. Moreover, the workmanship of the ubosot was mud1 poorer than that of the prang. Hence the ubosot had to be later than the prang. Also in the same direction but nearer to the city wall his guide p oil1 ted out to him Wa t Khok Singkharam, w hich, according to the Chronicle of the North, was the place where King Ruang convened a meeting to change the era. Prince Vajiravudh was sceptical about its identifica tion. Why should King Ruang have ch osen a small monastery at which to hold a meeting for m any hundred s of p eople? He decided that either the meeting to change the era did not take place here, or this monastery was not Wat Khok Singkharam. H owever, he was told that the ubosot was s till in use to hold ordil1ations, so he reasoned that su1ee the monastery was well known and seemed to h ave been important to the local people, they probably had m ade up a story to acco unt for it. Southeast of the city was Wat Sa Prathum (fig . 21), whose roof in the form of an upturned bowl led the Prince to speculate

22

PIRIYA KRAIRIKSH

Fig. 20. Wat 01ao 01an, Old Sawankhalok. Photographed in 1907.

Fig. 21. Wat Sa Prathum, today called Wat Phaya Dam, Old Sawankhalok. Photographed in 1907.

that the wihan of Wat Si Chum at Sukhothai originally had a similar type of roof. As for the city of Kamphaeng Phet, Prince Vajiravudh fow1d even fewer historical documents than for Sawankhalok to guide him. Neither folk tales nor the Chronicle of the North mentioned Kamphaeng Phet. The Royal Chronicle of Ayudhya only gives the information that it was a vassal sta te to the north and the Tamnan Phra Kaeo Morakot (Chronicle of the Emerald Buddha) says that the Emerald Buddha image h ad resided there, but neither tells us who founded the city. Even the stone inscription of Kamphaeng Phet (Inscription Ill) only mentions the founding of a reliquary monument by King Lithai. The Prince visited a monastery which PhTa Wichien Prakan called Wat Mahathat where there was a big prang (only the base remains today), and which the Prince on an earlier v isit had thought was the same monastery as the Wat Phra Kaeo where the Emerald Buddha had resided. Now he decided to change his mind, for he thought that the Emerald Buddha should have resided in Nakhon Pu instead. (This was a misreading of Inscription III where the name should have been Nakhon Chum.)

Whereas Prince Vajiravudh himself had changed his mind concerning the identification of Wa t Phra Kaeo as early as 1908, the Fine Arts Department still retains his discarded hypothesis. Outside of the city there was a large group of monasteries that Prince Vajiravudh thought was the si te of ancient Nakhon Pu (Nakhon Chum). Today this group of ruins is called the Kamphaeng Phet Historical Park. The Prince advised future tourists that "There are so many monasteries in this area that it is impossible to see them all. In truth it is not necessary to see all of them. It is sufficient to choose the larger ones" (p. 26). The largest in this area was the ruins the local people called Wat A was Yai (Great Residence) with its large reliquary monument raised upon a circumambulatory platform accessible through four sets of stairways. A wall surrounded the circumambulatory platform. He noticed that on this wall as well as on the ga tew ays were relief carvings of laterite of excellent workmanship, well worth seeing, depicting demons and gods. On account of the excellent workmanship and the presence of the big laterite pond outside the enclosure wall, which evinced a large monastic establishment, as well as the form of the reliquary monument

A H ISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART

23

Fig. 22. The Chedi Chang Rob, Ka mph aeng Phet. Photog rap hed in 1907.

itself, Prince Vajiravudh correlated this reli quary m onument w ith the one m entioned in Inscription III. According to that inscription, King Lithai had a reliquary momm1ent constructed at Nakhon Chu m in 1357 (presen t reading) to enshrine the" genuine relics" of the Buddha, brough t from far-away Sri Lanka . Sadly, neither the wall nor the ga teways w ith laterite carvings i11 relief nor the reli c m onument itself, w hi ch wo uld have been in the form of a prnng, su rvive tod ay. Only the Prince's accoun t attests to their having existed a t all. An other large m onas tery, w hi ch the local people called Wa t Chang Rap (Encircled by Eleph ants), had a chedi whose circum ambula tory pla tform was decora ted w ith standing elephants (fig. 22). The Prince surmised tha t apar t from Wat A was Ya i, the only other approp riate loca tion for the d epositing of the "genuine relics" of the Buddha was at Wat Chang Rap . The Prince also visited Wa t Si Iriya bot (Four Postu res). The principa l at traction was a wihan w ith fo ur cham bers housin g an image o f a standing, a sea ted, a walk ing and a reclining Bud dha, one in each chamber. The walls had vertical slits for ventilation. He remarked that its form was almost the same as that of Wat Chetuphon at Sukhothai but it was sm aller and ex hibited infer ior workm anship .

Incredible as it m ay seem tod ay, Prince Vajiravud h's attemp t to da te th e m onum ents a t Su k h o th ai, Sawankh alok a nd Kamphaeng Phet by correlatin g the m onu men ts he visited with the litera ture he had read rem ains to this day the basic assu mp-

tion for the da ting of Sukhoth ai- period ar t and architecture. Not one scholar, neither a Thai nor a foreigner, has ever questioned the va lidity of the Prince's method ology . For over eigh ty years scholars have continued to b uild their ow n hypotheses over his basic framework. Hence our presen t knowled ge of Sukhotha i- period art and architectu re is based on a fra mework buil t on su pposititious correla tion and educa ted gu esses. Prince Vajirav udh was not the only scholar to have used su pposititious correlation as his research m ethod ology . Everybody who has ever attempted to d ate monuments by correla tin g archaeological sites w ith literary evidence has also fo llowed the same pa th. In their enthu siasm to give a historical perspective to the m onuments, scholars invariably failed to take into acco unt natural and m an- m ad e fac tors th at contributed to the destruction of the buildings. Above all, they rarely questioned the legitimacy of their literary sources. Bu ildings in a tropical cl imate, if left untended, deteriora te fas ter than those in the tem pera te zone. If they are completely abandoned, nature soon takes over and conceals them w ith vegetation . During the dry season they would be subjected to forest fires which wo uld burn the timber supports of the roo f and thereby bring d own th e supers tru cture, knocking d own whatever was benea th it. In Thailand natural destr uction was relati vely benign compared to that caused by m an. Prince Vajirav udh considered greed and del usion as having been the two principal culprits i11 destroyiDg nati on and relig ion. It was custom ary to d eposit va lua bles w ithin the reliquary chamber of a chedi or beneath the base of a presiding image in a wihan or an ubosot, whid1 the robbers

24

PIRIYA KRAIRIKSH

would set out to recover as soon as the structures were abandoned. Indeed, as early as the mid-fourteenth century Sukhothai Inscription II reports that the stone carvings of the five hundred Jiitakas decorating a large and lofty chedi had been "pried loose by foolish men to get gold, and ruined" (Griswold and I,la Nagar a 1972, 125). Apart from gold, robbers also looked for Buddhist amulets and votive tablets, the possession of which the owners deluded themselves into believing would protect them from danger and bring them good luck. Phra Wichien Prakan told Prince Vajiravudh that these robbers knew precisely where the reliquary chamber was located in a particular type of chedi, so they did not have to waste time looking for it. He also tells of an ingenious method of bringing down a chedi by tying its finial to the top of a tree with rattan vines; the tree is then cut down, toppling the chedi as well. Considering the above variables, which Prince Vajiravudh was fully aware of, it seems contradictory that he used the state of preservation of a monument to date it, so that a wellpreserved structure would be earlier than one in poor condition, when it is obvious that it should have been the other way round. Given the climatic and cultural conditions of this country, it is incomprehensible how scholars could have overlooked these natural and man-made factors and assumed that the monuments existing today could have remained unaltered for over six hundred years. Yet they were oblivious of these incongruities because they were obsessed by the desire to place the monuments within the context of Sukhothai-period history. Moreover, scholars who correlate archaeological sites with historical documents take for granted the credibility of their written sources. Prince Vajiravudh, who graduated from Oxford University with a degree in modem history, thought that the Chronicle of the North was a collection of folktales put together at random. However, he cautioned against disregarding it altogether, since there might be a kernel of truth in it somewhere. He put his trust in the Sukhothai inscription of King Ram Kharnhaeng and those of King Lithai, but was unaware that the translator had let him down by not being faithful to the text. Most of all, he never doubted the authenticity of the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription itself. Thus, reassured by the trustworthiness of the Ram Kharnhaeng Inscription and inspired by his own version of Sukhothai history, Prince Vajiravudh painted for posterity a picture of Sukhothai in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The Prince was proud of his own creation, for he exhorted and admonished his subjects to visit ancient cities, saying Some people even say what is the point of going to see ancient cities now. They are all in ruins. Because our people think this way, the history of our nation is fast disappearing. Our people do not feel ashamed of other nations. Instead of wanting to show that our nation is old, we prefer to forget its antiquity. We only want to begin anew from the time we set out to develop along European lines. We thought this way because we wanted the Europeans to appreciate that we had never been a barbaric coun-

try. Once conceived, we grew up to be their equals. This view is truly mistaken. The Europeans neither respect new things, nor new nations. They prefer antiquities and ancient countries to new ones. European countries always compete with one another in researches to show which country has a longer history (Somdej Phra Borom 1908, 20-21). Indeed, it was also his avowed intention in publishing his book ... to make Thai people realize that ours is not a new country nor a barbaric nation, "uncivilized" in English. Our Thai nation has had a long development (p. 3). Thus the Prince was responsible for creating a historical awareness in his people. And although as a corollary to this effort he was also responsible for dating the monuments of Sukhothai, Sawankhalok and Kamphaeng Phet earlier than they actually are, his hypotheses could have been challenged and discarded by later scholars, as was the case with Lucien Foumereau's hypothesis that Si Satchanalai was located at the present-day Kamphaeng Phet Historical Park. Lucien Foumereau, an architect in charge of archaeology at the Musee Guimet in Paris, was the first Westerner to make the monuments of Sukhothai and Kamphaeng Phet known throughout the scholarly world by publishing an account of his visit to Siam in 1891 entitled "Le Siam Ancien" in the Annales du Musie Guimet in 1895. He disputed the French missionary Pere Schmitt's hypothesis that the ancient capital of Satchanalai was located to the north of Sukhothai in the vicinity of Sawankhalok. He argued that since Thai capitals were all located on major rivers, Satchanalai should not be an exception. He mentioned that the Khmer language inscription of King Lithai (Inscription IV) tells of the digging of a canal linking Satchanalai with Sukhothai, the traces of which could still be seen towards Kamphaeng Phet. For further evidence that Si Satchanalai was located at Kamphaeng Phet he correlated the bronze statues of Siva (fig. 23) and Vi!;JI,lU discovered at Kamphaeng Phetwith the images of Mahesvara and Vi!;JI,lU that King Lithai had cast in 1349 (present reading) and set up in the Thewalai Mahakaset at Sukhothai. According to Foumereau, these two statues were the earliest monuments of Thai art as well as the most beautiful and complete. Later a king named Si Thammasokarat discovered them and had his own inscription, dated to the equivalent of 1510, put upon thepedestaloftheSivaimage (fig.23). Although Foumereau published Pere Schmitt's translation of the Ram Kharnhaeng Inscription, which he believed had been found by King Mongkut in 1834 in the ruins of Wat Yai (Wat Mahathat) together with the Khmer language inscription of King Lithai (Inscription IV), he did not attempt to identify the monuments mentioned in the inscription with the archaeological sites at Sukhothai (Foumereau 1895, 157-158, 183-184). Foumereau' s identification of Si Satchanalai with presentday Kamphaeng Phet Historical Park was refuted by E. Lunet de Lajonquiere, who visited Sukhothai in 1908 and published his

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART findings in "Essai d'un inventaire a.rcheologique du Siam" in 1912. According to Lw1et de Lajonquiere, on his entering the gate of the old city ofSawankhalok, which the local people called "Ban Muang Kao (Old City)," his guide exclaimed, "Here are the walls of Si Sa tchanalai." So h e thought that since the Local people did not refer to the old city as "Old Sawankhalok", but as "Ban Muang Kao", the Ban Muang Kao must have been Si Satchanalai. Thus Si Satchanalai was a different city from the present town of Sawankhalok, having been located twelve kilometres upstream from the latter. It did not occur to him that local people referred to the Old City as "Ban Muang Kao" to distinguish it from the new town of Sawankhalok, just as they call the Old City of Sukhothai "Ban Muang Kao" to differentiate it from the new town of Ban Thani. Unlike Fournereau's hypothesis, Prince Vajiravudh's Fig. 23. Phra Siva. correlation of the monuments Bronze, dated to the of Sukhothai with the d eequ iva lent of 1510. scriptions given in the Ram National Museum, Kharnhaeng Inscription was Kamphaeng Phet fully supported by Lunet de Lajonquiere. He agreed with the Prince that the platform east of Wat Mahathat where he had found glazed tiles was the palace platform, on which wooden pavilions were constructed. He thought that WatSi Chum was the most remarkable monument at Sukhothai and was probably the Arailfuka mentioned in the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription. Interestingly, he noted the absence of bricks or tiles that would have been used to cover the opening of the wihan, so he contradicted Prince Vajiravudh's hypothesis that the building was left unfinished and never had a roof over it. Lunet de Lajonquiere repeated Fournereau's statement that King Mongkut had found the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription at Wat Yai together with the Khmer language inscription of King Lithai in 1834. Prince Vajiravudh's view found a champion in George Coedes, who from 1917 to 1930 was Chief Librarian of the Vajirafian Library in Bangkok, the precw·sor of the National Library. By that time the Crown Prince had become King Vajiravudh (Rama VI, 1910-1925). ln 1956, long after Coedes had retUl'ned to France, he SWllJned up his thoughts on Sukhothai

25

in an article entitled "Les premieres capitales du Siam aux XI1Ie-XIVe siecles," published in Arts Asiatiques (Coedes 1956). This article is tantamount to an endorsement of Prince Vajiravudh's supposititious correlation of the monuments of Sukhothai with the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription. Coedes simply made a synopsis of Prince Vajiravudh's Rueng thieo Muang Phra Ruang and added Prince Danu-ong's notes for its second printing in 1928, injecting Ius own interpretations on some nunor points (Ph.rabat Somdet Phra Mongkutklao 1977). By presenting it as his own work, he lent credibility to the Prince's original assumption. So great was Coedes' s prestige as a scholar of Southeast Asian history that everyone readily accepted Ius hypotheses. Coedes began by praising King Ram Khamhaeng for having been an excellent guide who took us around the city of Sukl1othai as it was at the end of the tlurteenth century. Coedes was more confident than Prince Vajiravudh ever was, stating Most of the monumen ts are identified with certainty. As for those wluch are not or are not mentioned in the stele, no doubt [tlus is] because they are later than the reign of Ram Khamhaeng ... (Coedes 1956, 246). Coedes was certain that Wat Mahathat, with the statues of the Buddha eighteen cubits high, had already existed at the end of the thirteenth century, for they corresponded with the inscription. However, he cautioned against assuming that the Great Reliquary Monument as a whole dated from the reign of King Ram Khamhaeng, for it was possible that the type of slender prang wluch Coedes called a "bulbous minaret-like reliquary tower" was created in the following century (fig. 5). He confidently stated that the presiding image of the Wihan Luang east of the Great Reliquary Monument had been taken to Wat Suthat in Bangkok by the first king of the present dynasty. Coedes confirmed that the brick platform east of Wat Mahathat, called Noen Prasat, corresponded to the royal palace. Whereas both Fournereau (1895) and Lajonquiere (1912) earlier gave Wat Yai (Wat Mal1athat) as the location where King Mongkut discovered the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription, Coedes identified the Noen Prasat as the location where King Mongkut, while he was a monk, had found the stele of King Ram Khamhaeng and the stone thmne in 1833. Coedes believed that Inscription I was set up in 1292 to commemorate the setting up of the stone tlu-one. His view was based on a sermon entitled "His tory of Four Reigns" given in 1883 by the Prince Patriarch Vajirafia11avarorasa, who was a son of King Mongkut. Prince Vajirailai)avarorasa wrote He (King Mongkut) fow1d a stone tlu·one set in place beside the ruins of an old palace mound .... On his return he had the stone tlu-one brought down [to Bangkok] and set it up as a preaching seat at Wat Rachathiwat. When he became king [in 1851] he removed it to the Temple of the Emerald Buddha. Inadditionhe obtained a stone inscription in Khmer

26

PIRIYA KRAIRIKSH

prachak in 1868. Prince Pavares says tha t Prince Mongkut only found the stone tlu·one and the Khmer language inscription of King Lithai (Inscription IV) (Somdet Plu·a Maha Samana p. 3552). Nowhere does h e say that Prince Mongkut fow1d the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription as well. Among the monuments within the city wall, not mentioned by King Ram Khamhaeng, that Coedes thought probably were later than his reign, were two having a Brahmanical origin and Klm1er in style. One was the San Phra Sua Muang (today called San Ta Pha Daeng), which is a laterite temple accessible tlu·ough two doors, one to the east and the other to the west (fig. 4). Coedes accepted Prince Danu·ong' s specula tion that "There should have been found here, at the beginning of the last century, one statue of Siva in bronze facing east (fig. 24) and one statue of Vi!;>DU facing west (fig. 25); these are kept in the Bangkok National Museum" (Prince Damrong'snoteinPhrabatSomdetPhra Mongkutklao, p . 43). The other monument of Bralunanical origin is Wat Sri Sawai, where he accepted Prince Vajiravudh's view that during the Sukhothai period it was used as a Bralunanical temple by court Brahmins to hold royal ceremonies and had the Fig. 24. Phra Mahesvara. Bronze, Fig. 25. Phra Vi~nu. Bronze, Bangkok same function as the Bot Plu·am near the Bangkok National Museum. National Muse um. Giant Swing in Bangkok. Coedes, following Prince Vajiravudh, iden tified the only monument mentioned by King Ram [King Lithai's] and an Inscription in Old Thai Khamhaeng outside the walls to the west with Wat Sap han Hin (fig. 9). Thus he thought that this monastery must have been [King Ram Khamhaeng' s] which he also placed in begun in King Ram Khamhaeng' s time. Outside of Ram the Temple of the Emerald Buddha (Quoted in Khamhaeng' s Arai'i.ftika are ruins of monuments which are later Coedes 1924, 13 [Thai section]). than his reign. Coedes mentioned the Mango Grove which was planted by King Ram Kl1arnhaeng where his grandson, King Although Prince Vajirafiat~avarorasa did not specify the Lithai, constructed a monastery. He also stated that Lithai's location where King Mongkut obtained the two inscriptions, three inscriptions, one in Kluner (Inscription IV), one in Thai Coedes guessed that it must have been the palace mow1d (Inscription V), and one in P~Ui (Inscription VI), all of which where King Mongkut found the stone throne. He then correlated Prince VajirafiaDavarorasa's "old palace mound" with described the reception of the Sat~gharaja coming from Burma and the ordination of King Lithai in 1361 (corrected reading), the bare brick platform that Prince Vajiravudh called "Lan have been found at this site. Coedes' s memory must have failed Prasat." This explains how the Lan Prasat became the Noen him, for both Fournereau and Lunet de Lajonquiere reported Prasat and was identified as the site of King Mongkut' s discovery that King Mongkutfound the Kluner language Inscrip tion (No. of the stone tlu·one and the Ram Kl1aml1aeng Inscription. IV) at Wat Yai. As for the Thai language Inscription (No. V), he As chief librarian of the Vajirafian Library, Coedes might have been familiar with an earlier accow1t of Prince Mongkut' s himself had said that it was found near Ayudhya. Only the Pali Inscription (No. VI) was found a t Wat Pa Mamuang in 1908 discovery of the stone throne written by the Prince Patriarch (Coedes 1924, 103, 111). Pavares Viriyalongkorn and published in Rueng aphinihan kan

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART Following the direction given in the Ram Kham.haeng Inscription, Coe des accepted Prince Damrong' s correction that "In the direction of a man's feet when he is sleeping" m ean t " north", when in 1907Prince Vajiravudhrnistook it for "south" (Prince Damrong's note in Phraba t Somdet Phra Mongku tklao, p. 60). Thus the "acana" or "acala" image mention ed in this direction refers to the colossal seated Buddha image at Wat Si Chum (fig. 26). According to Coe d es, " It is ' immovable' by its height, its material, and also by the narrowness of the doors of the mondop, barely two metres wide, through which it would be impossible to pass" (Coedes 1956, 253) . He also agreed with Prince Vajiravudh that the roof might have been similar to that ofWatSa Pathum (Wa t Phaya Dam) at Sawankhalok (fig. 21) . Coedes attributed to Burma the prototype of this type of square brick structure. As for the Jtitaka slabs decorating the ceiling of the stairway within the wall of the mondop (fig. 27), he pointed out that there are p arallel series at the Ananda and Hpetleik at Pagan. Unlike those in Burma, the ones at Wat Si Chum were not meant to be seen, so he speculated that originally they had been parts of a more complete series decorating an earlier state of the Great Reliquary Monument a t Wat Maha that, but were later removed for safekeeping and placed on the ceiling of the stairway of the mondop of Wat Si Chum. The "prasat" mentioned in the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription corresponded to the pure Khmer monuments at Wat Plu·a Phai Luan g. Coedes agreed with Prince Da1mong that the Klm1er administrative centre was located in this area.

27

28

PIRIYA KRAIRIKSH

"-1,.. •

::._~

0

.,

.

l ~n."\J 1il1"d'"""1

~;, , t"';··i; \ { \,.,,.

,.·

'

.i

-( L'tl~,,aj :o"' .• '\.....~';·!

cutra~ b:w~ddd~~1~ bm c;::.oo o .... •·••

\\.1 .~

-·.

Fig. 28. Map of Old Sawankhalok. Published in 1908.

Since the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription did not refer to any particulaT monument to the east and south of the walled city of Sukhothai, Coedes had little to say regarding monuments which might be later than 1292, his date for the King Ram Khamhaeng Inscription. To the east he singled out the chedi at Wat Chang Lomas being a twin of that at Wat Chang Lom at Sawankhalok. The latter had a good chance of having been constructed in the reign of King Ram Khamhaeng. To the south, he contradicted Prince Vajiravudh's argument concerning Wat Chetuphon (fig. 11), that despite its importance, it was not mentioned by King Ram Khamhaeng, hence it must be later than the inscription of 1292. Coedes took the opposite view to that of Prince Va jiravudh, that if a monument is not mentioned in Inscription I, it must be later than King Ram Khaml1aeng's time. Having visited King RamKhamhaeng' sSukhothai, Coedes followed Prince Vajiravudh to Sawankhalok. Here Coedes accep ted Prince Darmong' s division of Old Sawankhalok into two separa te cities (fig. 28). According to Prince Damrong, Chalieng

was a Khmer city older than Sukhothai. It was located where Wat Mal1athat is today. Then either King Si Intharathit, or one of his sons, fow1ded a new city about twenty sen (800 metres) to the north of it, built laterite walls around it, and named it Si Satchanalai (Prince Darmong's note in Pruabat Somdet Phra Mongkutklao, p. 80). Accordingly, Coedes differentiated two groups of monuments at Sawankhalok. One corresponded to the Killner establishm ent at Chalieng which consisted essentially of Wat Mahathat (fig. 19). He also repeated Prince Vajiravudh's view that it was the earliest prang built by the Thais, but he also mentioned that it had been restored in the eighteenth century, which could have modified its original appearance . Wat Mahathat is enclosed by laterite walls with gateways constructed of monolithic blocks. Above the centre of the coping over the east and west gates there me small prangs decorated with four human faces (fig. 29), which Coedes thought were inspired by the gateways at Angkor Thom. He was almost certain that

OFSUKHOTHAIART

29

Chang Lom (fig. 15), proposed in 1926, whose enclosure walls recall those of the Mahathat at Chalieng, where they were probably erected by King Ram Khaml1aeng (Rajanubhab 1973, 19). Coedes also attributed to Ram Khamhaeng' s reign stu pas surrounded by elephants, identical examples of which were constructed at Sukhothai and at Kamphaeng Phet (fig. 22). He thought that this type of stupa was directly inspired by the Ruvanweli Stupa at Anuradhapura, which corresponded to the Mahathupa, or the Grand Stupa of the Buddhist tradition of Sri Lanka.

Fig. 29. A gate at Wat Mahathat, Old Sawankhalok. Photographed in 1907.

the coping was erected in the reign of King Ram Khamhaeng because it may well have been mentioned in Inscription I in connection with Ram Khamhaeng' s works a t Si Sa tchanala i, for we read, "He [Ram Khamhaeng] erected a stone wall around the Great Reliquary Monument, which was completed in three years." The other group of monuments is located above the Kaeng Luang (Great Rapids). According to Coedes, "Here is the ancient city of Si Satchanalai, the twin city of Sukhothai" (1956, 260). All that King Ram Kharnhaeng had to say of this city was that he had sacred relics dug up, venerated them, and then buried them in the middle of the city and built a chedi over them. The question was which of the monuments constructed at the centre of the city corresponded to this passage. Coedes decid ed against Wat Chedi Chet Thaeo, as proposed by Prince Vajiravudh, because he thought that the bulbous minaret-like reliquary tower would be later than King Ram Khamhaeng's reign (fig. 16). Thus he opted for Prince Damrong's identification with Wat

Thus were es ta blished the rudiments of the dating of Sukhothai-period art and architecture on which succeeding scholars based their resecu:ch. Foremost among them were Jean Boisselier and Alexander B. Griswold. Boisselier, a Professor of Indian and Southeast Asian archaeology at L'Ecole du Louvre, Paris, made a tour of archaeological sites in Thailand in 1964 and published his preliminary report in Arts Asiatiques in 1965 (Boisselier 1965, 137). Boisselier dated the SanTa Pha Daeng (fig. 4) to the reign of Khmer King Suryavannan II (1113-:-1150) and the prasat at Wat Phra Phai Luang (fig. 12) to that of King Jayavarman VII (1181-c.1 220). He also ath·ibuted the stucco decora tion of the prasat (fig. 13) to the Bayon style (1177- 1230). Furthermore, he id entified Wat Chao Chan at Chalieng (fig. 20) asoneofJayavarman VII'sresthousesforh·avelers (dharmasalas). He also discerned Sinhalese influences in the costumes and ornaments of the stucco figures decorating Wat Chedi Si Hong (Four Bays) and ChediHa Yot(FiveSpires) at WatMal1athat. By correlating the Khmer-style monuments at Sukhothai with the stylistic chronology of Khmer art at Angkor, Boisselier brought the Khmer-style monuments at Sukhothai into the main line of Khmer art. Thus his findings buttressed Coedes' s theory of Khmer influence on the early phase of Sukhothai art (Boisselier 1965, 137). Alexander B. Griswold was an Americcu1 investment baJ1ker from Baltimore, Maryland, who together with his former classmate at Princeton, James H. W. Thompson, the fow1der of the Thai Silk Co. Ltd., came to Thailcu1d as an officer of the Office of Strategic Services during the Second World War. After the war both settled in Bcu1gkok and started their collections of Thai art. At in his death in 1992 Griswold's collection was believed to be the most comprehensive collection of Thai art outside of the Kingdom (DaNagara 1991, 157). Griswold, who graduated with a Bachelor' s Degree in Art and Archaeology, published in 1953 an article entitled "The Buddhas of Sukhodaya" in which he first attempted to use art historical me thodology to date Sukhothai-style Buddha linages cu1d to classify them in Western terminology (Griswold 1953, 33). In a paper read at a seminar on the archaeology of the Sukhothai period held at Sukhothai in 1960, he presented his methodology: We picked out a number of examples in which great vitality and nervous energy are combined with the finest technique. This group, which we called the

30

PIRIYA KRAIRIKSH high classic, we thought might be dated chiefly in the reigns of King Lti Tai [Loethai r. 1299-c. 1346] and King Lti Tai [Lithai,r.1347-1374?]. We guessed that Brah Jinaraja and its companion images should be placed at the very end of the high classic, that is, at the begimung of the post-classic; in these statues the technique is m ag1uficent, but vitality and energy are replaced by sweeh1ess and tranquillity .... The res t of the post-classic, we believed would show a progressive Joss of plastic values, with forms drying out and stiffening, and details beconung more mechanical. All this was guesswork, w hich provided a begimung for study, though it might have to be revised later on (Griswold 1964, 73- 74).

As for the identification of the pre-classic, Griswold gave the following advice to aspiring ar t historians: Another m eans of h·ying to identify the pre-classic might be to choose examples tha t are an integral part of monuments mentioned in Ram Kamhang' s inscription (p. 74). Griswold eventually succeeded in classifying Sukhothaistyle Buddha in1ages into three groups: "A pre-classic style dating in the 13th century, a high classic in the 14th, and a post-classic in the 15th and later" (Griswold 1960, 91). In 1967 the Department of Fine Arts invited Mr. Griswold to write a monograph on Sukhothai art and the result was Towards a History of Sukhodaya Art, in which, since " there are still plenty of gaps in our knowledge," he included the preposi tion" toward, so as to warn the reader that it is still too soon to hope for anything like a complete history of Sukhodayan ar t." His aim was to "place a number of monumen ts and sculptures in the context of political and religious lustory" (Griswold 1967, 1). Griswold used the same methodology as that of Coedes and Prince Vajira vudh before him. But whereas Ius predecessors confined themselves to correlating monuments w ith the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription, Griswold used his own stylistic classification of Buddha images in conjunction with all known Sukhothai-period inscriptions as well as chronicles and Buddlust literature as lus evidence. Thus he succeeded in placing the ar t and architecture of the Sukhothai Kingdom within the reign period of each Sukhothai king. Griswold was even more confident of his own judgment than Coedes ever was. Although we do not know who founded the Mahathat at Sukhothai, Griswold pronounced without providing any reason that "it seems reasonable to think it was Sri Indraditya (r. c. 1220?)" (Griswold 1967, 3). According to Griswold, the original Great Reliquary Monument consisted of a quincunx of five laterite towers. To the reign of Ban Muang (1275-1279?), Si Intharathit's son, he assigned the pyranudal chedi at Wat Phra Phai Luang (fig. 30). "Judgin g from the form of the arches, they date from the third quarter of the 13th century, therefore probably from

Fig. 30. The pyramida l chedi at Wat Phra P hai Luang, Sukhothai. Photographed in 1963

the reign of Ban Muang" (Griswold 1967, 4). These are arches decora ting the 1uches in which images of the Buddha are placed. "These images represent the firs t Sukhodayan preclassic style (fig. 31)," wrote Griswold, and he was inclined to think" - but with a large question mark - that they are idealized portraits of Ban Muang" (1967, 5). However, he had no doubt that Wat Chang Lom at Si Satchanalai (fig. 15) is " the only surviving cetiya that we can attribute with virtual certainty to Ram Khamhaeng" (1967, 10) . Hence the stucco linages of the Buddha a t Chedi Wat Chang Lorn represen t the second Sukhodayan pre-classic style (fig. 32). He.also assigned to Ram Khamhaeng's reign (1279- 1299) the laterite and stucco walkil1g Buddha executed in !ugh relief at the back of the wihan a t Wat Mahatha t, Chalieng (fig. 33), which he said may be an idealized portrait of Ram Khamhaeng's towards the end of lus reign. At least its simplicity and digruty accord well with what we know of lum from his own il1scription (Griswold 1967, 12).

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART

Fig. 31. Stucco head and torso from an image of the Buddha found a t Wat Plu·a Phai Luang, Sukhothai. Ram Khamhaeng National Museum, Sukhotha i.

31

Fig. 32. Stucco image of the sea ted Buddha at Wat Ch ang Lom, Old Sawankhalok. Photographed in the 1950s

Griswold also endorsed M. C. Subhadradis Diskul's suggestion that a bronze image of Narayar)a in the Bangkok National Museum (fig. 34) should be dated to Ram Khamhaeng' s or even Si Intharathit's reign on account of its costume and jewelry. To the reign of Ram Khamh aeng's son, Loethai (1299-c. 1346), Griswold assigned the present form of the Mahathat at Sukhothai (fig. 5) with its stucco decoration executed by Sinhalese craftsmen, as well as the stone engravings of the Jtitnkas decorating the ceiling of the stairway inside the wall of the mondop at Wat Si Chum (fig. 27). Griswold assigned all of the slender prangs which he called "lotus-bud shaped reliquary towers" in the Sukhothai kingdoms to King Li tha i's (Maha thammaracha I' s) reign (1347-1374?). He agreed with Prince Vajiravudh and Coedes that the Mango Grove, where King Lithai had invited the Sangha raja from Burma to spend the 1361 rainy season retrea t, was in the area presently occupied by WatPa Mamuang, WatTukand the Thewalai Mahakaset. All of these monuments he attributed to Lithai's reign. Also the mondop at Wat Traphang Thong Lang (fig. 10) is "almost certainly" Lithai' s work. Also "all the monumentsattheCetiyaJetTheo (fig.16) areprobablyLu Tai's work, some built when he was Uparaja (heir apparent) at Sajjanalaya in his father's reign, and the rest in his own reign" (Griswold 1967, 43). To Lithai's reign Griswold attributed the high classic style of sculpture which is exemplified by the

bronze walking Buddha at Wat Benchamabopit in Bangkok (fig. 35). He also was unequivocal in stating that the bronze images of Mahesvara (fig. 24) and Vi~r:tu (fig. 25) in the Bangkok National Museum, dated by M. C. Subhadradis Diskul to Lithai' s reign, were "almost certainly" those that King Lithai had cast in 1349 and placed in the Thewalai Mahakaset in the Mango Grove" (Griswold 1967, 32-33). Apparently Griswold did not accept Prince Damrong's and Coedes's suggestions that the above-mentioned images were found at the SanTa Pha Daeng, but instead were taken from the Thewalai Mahakaset. These images, however, were moved from the Bot Phram in Bangkok to the Bangkok National Museum. Their original provenance is unknown. Griswold admitted tha t he did not know of a single monument or statue which could be ascribed w ith confidence to the reign of Mahathammaracha II (1374?-1398). However, he thought that the mondop of Wat Si Chum might qualify for it. To the reign of King Sai Luthai (Mahathammaracha III, 1398- 1419) he assigned Wat Asokaram, Wat Si Phichit Kirti Kanyaram, and Wat Sorasak (fig. 36) on account of the dated inscriptions discovered at these sites. To the last king of Sukhothai, Mahathammaracha IV (1419-1438), Griswold attributes the "Grea t Masterpiece of the post-classic," the Phra Phu ttha Chinarat image at Phitsanulok .

32

PIRIY A KRAIRIKSH

Fig. 33. Stucco image of the Walking Buddha at Wat Mahathat, Old Sawankhalok, Photographed in the 1950s.

Fig. 34. Phra Narayana. Bronze, Bangkok National Museum (SK. 21).

The chronology of Sukhothai-pe.riod art and architecture as proposed by Griswold is accepted as the official view by the Thai Fine Arts Department and became standard for subsequent works on the subject, such as M. C. Subhadradis Diskul' s Sukhothai Art, published by UNESCO, and Carol Stratton and Miriam McNair Scott's The Art of Sukhothai: Thailand's Golden Age, published in 1981. Stratton and McNair Scott's book so closely adheres to Griswold's Towards A History of Sukhodaya Art, that its only disagreement, the dating of the pyramidal chedi at Wat Phra Phai Luang to the late fourteenth or fifteenth century, came as the result of a" personal cormnwucation" from Griswold (Stratton and Scott 1981, 95, n. 12). In Sukhothai: Its History, Culture, and Art, published in 1991, Betty Gosling follows Griswold's chronology, but adds a number of observations based on the author's own original interpretations of the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription.

Fig. 35. A bronze image of the Walking Buddha. Wat Benchamaboph.it. Bangkok.

To King Si Intharathit's reign (mid-thirteenth century) Gosling assigns Wat Arafii'i.i.ka, which she states is "the earliest Buddhist temple that the Tai built at Sukhothai" (1991, 22). The author also makes the novel suggestion that the Chedi Kon Laeng (fig. 37) was a shTine dedicated to the tutelary spirit of the kingdom, the "phi muang, protector of all Sukhothai's territories ." According to Gosling's interpretation of the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription, "Sukhothai's phi muang dwelt on a mountain called PhTa Khaphung, the ' Honoured Lofty Place', located south of the city." Instead of identifying it with the natural mountain, the Khao Luang (Great Mountain) south of the city, like everybody else before her, Gosling identifies it with the laterite base of a chedi at Wat Kon Laeng. The author habitually sees the base of a lotus-bud type of chedi whose prang- type superstructure has fallen down, as a tt·uncated pyranlid. Thus the chedi at Wat Kon Laeng is a pyramid of four levels with two

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART

33

Fig. 36. The ruin s at Wa t Sorasak, Sukhothai, before restoration.

fli ghts of stairs converging at the top, on which ritual sacrifices of animals were performed to appease the "phi rnuang." As for King Ram Khamhaeng's reign (la te thi r teenth century), Gosling m ostly agrees w ith Coed es's and Griswold's id enti fications, but she differs from them in the a ttributi on of the Maha tha t at Chalieng to the chedi th at Ram Kh amhaeng had built in the middle of Si Sa tchanala i, instead of Wa t Chang Lom . She also makes a m ost original interpretation of the Ram Khamh aeng Inscription by identifying the s ton e slab ca lled "Manangsilabat," which Ram Khamhaeng had caused to be h ewn in the middle of the Sugar Palm Grove, w ith the base of the Great Reliqu ary Tow er a t Wat Maha th a t. Thu s "Manangsilaba t" becom es Ram Khamhaeng's pyramid, from the top of w hich "both Ram Khamhaeng and the Sangha [order of monks] roared their doctrines to the people of Sukhothai" (1991, 37). According to Gosling's hypothesis, around 1330, in King Loethai's reign (1299-c. 1346), a reliquary tower with a lotusbud shaped dome was built on top of the platform of Ram Kh amh aeng's pyramid to enshrine a Buddhist relic. Eight subsidiary towers in Khmer style were built around it, four in the middle and four at the corners, and the base was decorated w ith stone engravings of Jataka scenes. In the 1340s a Sukhothai monk by the nam e ofPhra Mahathera SrisraddharajacUiamuni, who had been to Sri Lanka on pilgrimage, restored the Maha that. He had the fo ur axial towers d ecorated w ith Gampola-s tyle stu cco designs by Sinhalese workm en (fig. 6) and had the four corner towers rebuilt in the Sri Vijayan style by workmen from Tenasserim. He also had the stone engravings of the fatnkns replaced by a stu cco frieze of 168 monks. These engrav ings of

the Jatakas were then put up in the ceiling of the stai rway of the mondop at Wat Si Chum in the latter part of the fourteenth

century. Other Sinhalese influence appearing in this reign is fou nd in the stupa w ith elephant niches d ecorating its base, such as at Wat Chang Rob at Sukhothai, w hich Gosling attributed to Gampola prototypes, such as those at the Lankatilaka (1342) and the Gadaladeniya monasteries (1344). These were built when Gampola was the capital of Sri Lanka from 1341 to 1445. Gosling a ttributes to King Lithai's reign (1347-1374?) the in trod uction of the mondop type of stru cture, called "Image house," and adds the mondop at Wat Si Thon to Griswold's list of buildings constructed during this reign. She suggests that in Li th ai's reign bronze sculpture was introduced into Sukh othai from Lan Na, w here there was a longer history of bronze casting, on account of its closer religious and artistic ties with Burma and nor thern India. Gosling also makes an interesting suggestion that the Phra Phuttha Sihing image in the Bangkok National Museum might have been the palladium image of King Lithai. Contrary to Griswold's assignment of both the Phra Phuttha Chinarat image at Phitsanulok and the Sri Sakyamuni image at Wat Suthat in Bangkok to the fifteenth century, she dates them to Lithai 's reign. For the reign of King Sai Luthai or Mahathammaracha III, which Gosling dates from 1380 to 1419, she adds to Griswold's list the Chedi Ha Yot (Five Spires) which is located south of the Grea t Reliquary Monument in Wat Mahathat. She identifies this stupa wi th the one m entioned in Inscription XL as enshrining the ashes of King Lithai. However, she assigns the chedi at WatTraphang Ngoen and at Wat Chedi Sung, w hi ch Griswold

PIRIYA KRAIRIKSH

34

Fig. 37. The chedi at Wa t Ko n Lae ng, Su khothai.

at tr ibu ted to Lithai's reign, (1347-1374?) to the 1390s and early fiftee n th cen tury respecti vely. To the late fo u r teenth or early fiftee n th cen tury she d ates Wat Mangkon w ith its ceramic balustrades and Wa t Traku an w ith its hoard of Uin Na-style Buddha im ages as well as the A n ha rasa images at Wa t Chetu phon, Wa t Ph ra Yun and Wa t Ph ra Phai Luang. To the post 1438 period, w hen Su kh o tha i becam e par t o f the Ay ud hya Kingd om, Gosling assigns the eas ternmost wihan of the Mahatha t and the chedis w ith ra bbeted corners in the same compo und as well as the wihan at Wat Ma i. She also assigns the Wa t Chang Lom at Si Sa tchanalai to the m id or la te fifteen th cen tury. Griswold 's revised d a ting of the p yramidal chedi at Wat Phra Phai Luang, Sukhothai, to the late fo ur teenth or fifteenth century, as quo ted in Stra tton and McNa ir Sco tt's The Art of Sukhothni, was challenged by Professor Santi Leksukhum of Silpakorn University, w ho in a monogra ph on the stu cco sculp tu re excava ted at the p yramid al chedi, published in 1987, attri buted it to King Lithai's reign (1347-1374?) (Leksukh u m 1987). However, in another m onogra ph, entitled TheChedi Styles at Wat Chedi Chet Thaeo, publi shed in 1991, Santi fully supported Gr iswold's d a tin g of the Ched i Chet Th aeo, Si Satchana lai, to the sam e re ign (Leksu khum 1991).

From th is brief review o f the historiography of the ar t and architec ture of Sukhothai it is evident that scholars have attempted to account for most o f the major m onuments in the Sukhothai and Si Satchanalai H istori cal Parks and to place the majority of them w ithin the time frame o f the so- called "Sukhothai- period (c. 1220-1438)." It w as traditionally understood that Sukhothai and Si Sa tchanalai were aband oned after 1438 when the Su kh othai Kingd om became an Ayudhyan province. So pervasive was this p reconception that even Griswold himself, who ha d pointed out that seventeenth-century Eu ropean tr a ve ler s m ention ed the cities of Sukhothai and Sawankhalok, could not visualize that the m onuments there could belong to a later period. Hence disagreem ents am ong art historian s were confined to the di fferences in their attributions of a given monument to a par ticular reign of Su khothai kings. Thu s the public owes its knowledge of the history of Sukhothai ar t to their scholarship. Unfor tunately, m ost of their scholas tic endeavou rs prove to be erroneous, since they are based on a fra mework built on p reconceptions and the supposititious correla tion between anonym ous m onuments and a spurious inscripti on .

To be continued in a subsequen t issue of the Journal of the Siam Society .

A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SUKHOTHAI ART

35

REFERENCES BOISSELIER, JEAN 1965 Recents recherches archeologiques en Thailande. (Rapportpreliminaire demission(25Juillet-28Novembre 1964), Arts Asiatiques 12: 125-158. COEDES, GEORGE 1924 RecueildesinscriptionsduSiam.Premiere partie: inscriptions de Suklwdaya. Bangkok: Bangkok Times Press. 1956

LespremierescapitalesduSiamaux :xne-XJVi! siecles. Art Asiatiques, 3 (1-4), 243-267.

DISKUL, M.C. SUBHABRADIS n.d. Sukhothai art. Bangkok: Le Comite Culture! de Ia CommissionNationale Thailandaise pour I'UNESCO. FOURNEREAU, LUCIEN 1895 Le Siam ancien. Annales du Musee Guimet. 25V. Paris: Ernest Lerous. GOSLING, BETIY 1991 Suklwthai: its history, culture and art. Singapore: Oxford University Press; Bangkok: Asia Books. GRISWOLD, A. B. 1953 The BuddhasofSukhodaya.Archives ofthe Chinese Art Society ofAmerica 7, 5-41. 1960 The architecture and sculpture of Siam. The arts of Thailand. Edited by Theodore Bowie. Bloomington: Indiana University. 1964 [B.E. 2507] What are the dates of Sukhodaya art? Kham banyai samana

borankhodi samai Suklwthai B. E. 2503. Bangkok: Krom Silpakom, 7~0. 1967 Towards a history of Sukhodaya art. Bangkok: The Fine Arts Department. GRISWOLD, A. B. AND PRASERT ~a NAGARA 1972 King Lodaiya of Sukhodaya and his contemporaries. Epigraphical and historical studies, no.10. Journal ofthe Siam Society60 (1): 21-152. KROM SILPAKORN 1988 Tamniap boransathan utthayan prawatsat Sukhothai. Bangkok: Rongphim Hatthasin. B.E. 2531. LEKSUKHUM, SANTI 1987 [B.E. 2530] Raingan plwnwichai rueng

watthu poonpan khutkhon dai chak Wat Phra Phai Luang Changwat Sukhothai rawang B.E. 2528-2529. Bangkok: Silpakom University, Faculty of Archaeology. 1991 [B.E. 2534] Chedi samai Suklwthai Wat Chedi Chet Thaeo. Bangkok: Samnakphim Muang Boran.

NATIONAL ARCHIVES 1927[B.E.2470] Prince DamrongRajanuphab private papers. a 11 2/19 Ekasan mai lek 10: EkasansuanPhra OngSomdet Krom Phraya Damrong Rajanuphab dan borankhadi ekasan mai lek 10 rueng sadet truat khong boran nai changwat lae monthon tang tang (24 Thanwakhom-13 Makarakhom). PHRABAT SOMDET PHRA MONGKUTKLAO CHAO YU HUA 1977 [B.E. 2520] Thieo muang Phra Ruang. Bangkok: Rongphim Thai Kawam. RAJANUBHAB, PRINCE DAMRONG 1973 Monuments of the Buddha in Siam. Trans. by Sulak Sivaraksa and A. B. Griswold. Bangkok: The Siam Society. SOMDETPHRA BOROM OROTSATHIRAT CHAOFA MAHA VAJIRAVUDH MAKUTRATCHAKUMAN 1908 [R.E. (Rattanakosin Era) 127] Rueng thieo muang Phra Ruang. Bangkok: Rongphim Bamrungnukunkit.

Ia commission archeologique de L'Indochine (1909-1912), 19-177.

SOMDETPHRAMAHA SAMANA CHAO KROMPHRAYAPAVARES VIRIYALONGKORN 1899 [R.E. (Rattanakosin Era) 116] Rueng aphinihan kan prachok. Vajirafiiin, ton thi 36 (kanyanon, R. E. 116), 3566-3574.

NA NAGARA, PRASERT 1991 Obituary: Alexander Brown Griswold. Journal of the Siam Society 79 (2): 157.

STRATION, CAROL AND MIRIAM MCNAIR SCOTI 1981 The art ofSukhothai: Thailand's golden age. Singapore: Times Printers.

LUNET DE LAJONQUIERE, E. 1909-1912 Essai d'un inventaire archeologique du Siam. Bullein de

Fig. 1. Inscription of Wa t Chang Kham, Nan , datin g to 25 janu ary 1549. One of the most elegant and legible in the corpus.

THE MANGRAI BUDDHA IMAGE OF CHIANG MAl: A COMPUTER-ASSISTED REREADING J. C. EADE ASIAN HISTORY CENTRE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

The Buddha images of Northern Thailand have received close attention, notably in English from A. B. Griswold (Dated Buddha Images of Northern Siam, Ascona, 1957) and in Thai from Hans Penth ("Inscriptions on the Base of Buddha Images in Chiang Mai", Bangkok, 1976). Dr. Penth informs me that some 25% of the images he studied are accompanied by inscriptions, most of them of some substance, in which calendrical data play a part. In some instances, however, one of which is the subject of the following analysis, the inscription could contain a wealth of detail. Its format was a carry-over from the style used on many of the Northern stone inscriptions. In distinction from their Southern counterparts, the Northern stone inscriptions often contain an abundance of calendrical and planetary detail. The apex of the stone often exhibited a circle, usually of some 8-12 em in diameter, that was divided into twelve segments, into which the numbers from 1 to 7 were inserted according to where the planets from the sun (1) to Saturn (7) were located at the auspicious moment commemorated. 1 These" duang chata" have a similar function to a horoscope diagram in the West and they exhibit a high degree of accuracy. Consequently, when once the computational system underlying the diagrams is understood to the extent that it can be replicated, the date represented by a given duang can be verified to within a maximum of two and a half days. The dating to within two and a half days is possible because each of the twelve segments in the diagram represents one sign of the zodiac ("rasi"). The positions allocated in the diagram to the outer planets (Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars) therefore uniquely define the year; the position of the sun uniquely defines the month in that year; and the position allocated to the moon points to a time in that month. Since the moon must traverse the whole circle of the twelve rasi in thirty days or so, it is obvious that it can occupy a given rasi for only two and a half days.

A legible duang therefore offers to a historian competent to decode it, powerful assistance in reading the date on an inscription, which can otherwise be uncertain or illegible. Or contrariwise, the ability to determine where the planets were at any given time means that a legible date on a stone can be used to replicate a given duang, thereby greatly assisting in reading it. If all the stone inscriptions and all the Buddha pedestals were now as clear to read as the Nan inscription, then the function of computer analysis (valuable even then) would be merely to verify the accuracy of the original data. But the Nan inscription is in an unusually good state of preservation: almost all of the historical evidence on stone inscriptions or Buddha images is contentious at some point. Consequently the computer's role becomes more important, in that it may be used to determine doubtful readings and to fill lacunae, a function that can be used to advantage with well over 80% of the record. A good example of this function is supplied by a Buddha image at Wat Chai Phra Kiat, Chiang Mai (Griswold, no. 82; Penth, no. 22); and although the image has already been published twice, there are still some useful observations to be made about it. In the first place, the two dates on its pedestal can now be established with greater confidence than before; in the second, the unusually copious data can be read with greater comprehension than before; in the third, several lacunae in the reading of it can be filled out. Admittedly no substantial redating of the image results in this instance; but a complete and secure interpretation of a historical record must always be inherently preferable to an incomplete and tentative one. The inscription records that the making of the image was a pious enterprise: a number of images in the city were in a damaged state, 2 and it was decided to collect up these fragments and to use their metal to cast a new image in celebration of Chiang Mai' s famous founder king, Mangrai. Who, though,

38

J. C. EADE

Fig. 2. The duang (planetary diagram) of Wat Chang Kham, showin g the positions of the plan ets on the day recorded in the tex t.

1 4

Fig. 3. The compu ter's version, confirming aJJ the positions assigned to the planets in the duang.

THE MANGRAI BUDDHA IMAGE OF CHIANG MAI

39

the North the month numbers were two higher: in Chiang Ma i "2" represents Karttika and "4" represents Pusya. 3 And what of "rawai yi" and "kap set" ? Just as each year was d esignated in the North by the Chinese system of combining words belonging to a cycle of ten terms and words belonging to a cycle of twelve terms, so were the days. Prima facie the combina tions wo uld admit of 120 possibilities, but terms that were members of the odd component of either sequence were not allowed to be matched w ith terms in the even part, thereby reducing the possibilities to 60. In the resulting series, "rawai yi" (attached to the first date in the inscription) lies 3rd in sequence and "kap set" (attached to the second d ate) lies 11th in sequence. By inclusive counting these two combinations are consequently 9, 69, 129 ... places apart, as one cycle follows after another. What, then, of the weekd ays? If Friday is day 1 in a given sequence, by inclusive counting Wednesday will be 6, 13 ... 69, 76 ... d ays distant from Friday as the weekdays successively ro tate. The inscription's data are therefore consistent in this matter. The consistent weekday count can now be used to test the accuracy of the astrologer's reckoning by lunar phase. On both the Central and the Northern systems, Karttika has 30 days, Margasirsha has 29 days, and Pusya has 30 days. The question to be answered is therefore: if 3 wax ing of Karttika is a Friday, on what lunar day w ill the corresponding Wednesday in Pausha occur? Fig. 4. The Mangra i Budd ha Im age. Photograp h by 1-l. Penth, 1970.

were the prime movers in thi s enterprise? One is sa id to be the nominal ruler of Chiang Mai at the time, "the Princess Regent [Wisutthithewi] ... ancestress of the city;" but the other was " the Command ing General of the Victorious Army, the Protector of the City," ac ting on behalf of "the pious King of Kings who is Lord of the White Elephant and the Golden Palace, Sovereign over all princes" -the Burmese overlord. There is clearly either a political or a diplomatic d imension to the occasion, besid es a religious one. The tex t contains two dates: the first records that the decision was made to collect up the broken images on the 3rd (pace Griswold, not the 8th) day of the wax ing moon of the second lunar month in C.S. 927. The second records th at the casting of the new image was begun on the 13th day of the waxing moon in the fou rth month of th at same year. These details, if no others were present, would indicate that the enterprise was begun on 26 October 1565 and that the image was ready to be cast on 3 Janu ary 1566. It is characteristic of this style of inscription, however, to present more than a bare minimum of information . We are also told that the first date fell on a Friday, a rawai yi day, in the month of Karttika, and that the second date fell on a Wednesday, a kap set da y, in the month of P usya. Some explanations are required here. In the more familiar mode of reckoni11g used in central Thailand, Kar ttika is the 12th lunar month and Pusya is the 2nd lunar month; but in parts of

Karttika 3 = Friday Karttika 10, 17, 24 = Friday, so Karttika 30 = Thu rsday, and Margasirsha 1 =Friday Margasirsh a 8, 15, 22, 29 = Friday, so Pausha 1 =Saturday Pausha 8 =Satu rday, so Pausha 12 =Wednesday. Since Griswold and Penth both read the lunar phase of the second date as the 13th, this discrepancy must be regarded as an error at source. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Burmese part of the text also defines the second date as "the 13th da y of the waxing moon ... the 11th lunar day." To a novice the seeming ambivalence in the Burmese reckoning, as between the 13th and the 11th days, will seem confu sing; but wi th due correction to one of its elements, the reckoning can be seen to be coherent. The time of the lunar month is in fact presented in two ways: firstly by "waxing moon" where the reckoning is according to the civil calendar (read "12th" for 13th); and the second is according to the as tronom ica l calendar ("11th" is correct for the " tithi"). The difference between the two mod es of presentation may be explained as follows: the civil calendar is necessarily predicated on the notion that the moon always travels at an average speed, such that alloca tin g twelve or sometimes thi rteen lunar months to a year w ill match its course over the long term. In the short term, however, th e moon's actual course w ill sometimes be ahead of, sometimes behind, the position determined fo r it by

J.

40

After Crawfurd's 'East Coast of the Gulf of Siam'

to•

Numbers Indicate position of aH cartain modern equivalents of those on map oppos/IB.

Numbers are fn.stead of place names on orlgJnal map. All place namss, by number, with modem equivalents Bl8 noted on lhe ac:c:onrpanying Hst. Original rirsp lacks lali1udelfongitude grid.

Figure 15.

Portion of Modem Thailand Included in Crawlurd's 'East Coast of the Gull of Siam'

100°

102•

"East Coast of the Gulf of Siam," after Figure 14, compared with a modern map.

The Journal of the Siam Society Vol. 81, Pt. 2 (1993)

10°

THE LONDON COMPANY'S ENVOYS PLOT SIAM

59

Figure 16. Place names on "East Coast of the Gulf of Siam," Figure 14, with modern equivalents.

"Crawfurd" Place Name 1. Pak-nam 2. Koh-lam-pu 3. Bang-hia-noe 4. Bang-hia-yai 5. Bang-pa-kung 6. Bang-sai 7. Bang-pa-soi 8. Ang-hin 9. Lem-si-muk 10. Bang-sen 11. Kung-ta-no 12. Bang-piah 13. Si-mah-iaihd 14. Lem-Kabang 15. Bang-po-mung 16. Na-Kai 17. Lem-phan 18. Lem-la-lud 19. Lem-putya 20. Na-chon-tien 21. Nam-mao 22. Am-po 23. Bang sare 24. Lem-klet 25. Klet-keo 26. Kung-plung 27. Kung-kai-tiya 28. Lem-pu-chan

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

Sata-hip Ka-ta-kuam Lem-wa-cho Tan-pi Am-poa Ao-po-du Ra-yong Hin-dam Lem-ya Kleng Lem-tong-yam Lem-ta-pi Pa-si Samet-tapu Pang-ra Ka-cheh Kung-ka-ben Lem-piah-sadet Lem-sa-ba

"Walker'' Place Name

Modern Place Name

Packnam

Samut Prakan (?) (?) (?) BangPakong (?) Chon Buri (?) (?) Ban Bang Saen(?) (?) (?) (?) Laem Chabang BangLamung (?) (?) (?) Laem Patthaya Ban Na Chom Thian (?) Ban Amphoe (?) (?) Laem Kham (?) (?) (?) (?) Cape Liant

(-)

Banghia R. BanghiaR. (-) (-)

Bang-pa-soi (-)

Lem-si-muk (-) (-) (-) (-) (-)

Bang-po-mung (-) (-) (-)

Lem-putya Nachon-tian (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-)

Cape Liant or Sam-nie-san or Liang (-) (-)

Cape Samet (-) (-) (-)

Rayong (-) (-)

Kling (-)

Lem karpi (-) (-) (-)

Ka-cheh Kung-ka-bin Bay (-) (-)

48. Pak-nam-hung-nu (-) Pak-nam 49. Pak-namchan-ta-bun

Sattahip Khao Sattahip LaemKet (?) (?) (?) Rayong (?) (?) Klaeng Laem Thong Lang Laem Tan(?) (?) (?) (?) (?) Nong Sanam Chai (?) Laem Ai Lao (?) Laem Thai Ran Dok Mai (?) (?) mouth of Chanthaburi River

"Crawfurd" Place Name 50. Pak-nam-wen 51. Lem-chik 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

Nam-chao Thung-yai Lem-sok Bang-prah Sa-kadam Yai-liu Lem-son Ho-siah Bang-ka-chang Kung Bang-ha-sop Pong-som

64. 65. 66. 67.

Kam-pot Mt. Lung Kang-kao Koh-kam-uae

68. Koh-si-chang 69. Koh-liang 70. Koh-Nuk 71. Koh-phai 72. Koh-kiuk 73. Kring-Badan 74. Koh-Lan 75. Maan-la-pichai 76. Koh-sak 77. Hin-kao 78. Koh-Ken 79. Yai-kadong 80. Koh-kram-noe 81. Koh-Rang-kian 82. Koh-klet-koe 83. Koh-kram 84. Koh-siah 85. Ko-hip 86. Koh-yu 87. Chi-lao 88. Yung-klu 89. Koh-piah 90. Kohmu 91. Tak-ke 92. Koh-kam 93. Koh chuang 94. Koh-chan 95. Bak-ta-mun 96. Koh sa-me-san 97. Koh-uing kan 98. Koh-reng 99. Koh-Samet

"Walker'' Place Name

Modern Place Name

(-)

Mae Nam Welu (?) Khao Laem Chamuk Meo (?) Khlong Nam Chieo (?) Khlong Yai Laem Saraphat Phit (?) (?)(Kampuchea) (?)(Kampuchea) (?) (Kampuchea) (?) (Kampuchea) (?)(Kampuchea) (?) (Kampuchea) (?)(Kampuchea) (?)(Kampuchea) Prek Kampong Saom (?)(Kampuchea) Kampot (Kampuchea) (?)(Kampuchea) (?)(Kampuchea) KoKhamNoi/ Ko Kham Yai (?) KoSi Chang (?) KoNok KoPhai Ko Khrok (?) Ko Krung Badan Ko Lan (?) Ko Man Wichai KoSak(?) (?) Ko Rin (?) (?) KoKhramNoi Hin Rang Kwian (?) Ko Klet Kaeo KoKhram(?) Ko Ra (?) (?) Ko Yo(?) Ko Lao(?) (?) Ko Phra (?) KoMu Ko Chorakhe (?) KoKham(?) Ko Chuang (?) KoChan (?) KoSamaeSan Ko Chang Klua (?) Ko Raet (?) KoSamet

Lem-chik (-)

Tungyai (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-)

Kong (-)

KohsiChang (-)

KohNuk K. Phai (-) (-)

K.Kram (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-)

K.San (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-)

KohKah (-) (-)

K. Sam-me ... nt (-) (-)

KohSame

The Journal of the Siam Society Vol. 81, Pt. 2 (1993)

LARRY STERNSTEIN

60

Figure 16, Cont. Place names on "East Coast of the Gulf of Siam," Figure 14, with modern equivalents.

"Crawfurd" Place Name

''Walker" Place Name

Modem Place Name

KohKud

KoChan Ko Kudi (?) KoPlaTin KoMan Nai (?) Ko Saba(?) (?) LaemSing KoNomSao (?) Ko Chang Noi (?) KoKut(?) Ko Mai Si Yai/ Ko/Mai Sik Lek (?) KoMak Ko Chang(?)

(-)

(?)

100. Chan-pueng 101. Koh-kut 102. Koh-platin 103. Koh-maan 104. Chong-sa-ba 105. Phai-nang 106. Lem-sing 107. Num-sao 108. Phai-nang-iam 109. Ki-chang 110. Koh-chang 111. Mas-si

(-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-)

112. Koh-mak 113. Koh-kud 114. Koh-yi

(-)

Lem-sing (-) (-) (-)

KoChang (-)

''Walker" Place Name

Modem Place Name

115. Koh-kong

KohKong

116. Koh-rung

(-)

117. Tah-ba

(-)

118. Lek-mat 119. Chong-mo-piai

(-) (-)

120. Tin-tek 121. U-hwi-su 122. Pulowe

(-) (-) (-)

123. Koh-dud or Far Island 124. Pulo Panja

KohDudor Phy-kwok Pulo Panjang

KasKong (Kampuchea) KasRong (Kampuchea) Kas Rong Sam Lem (Kampuchea) (?) (Kampuchea) I. de la Baie (?) (Kampuchea) (?) (Kampuchea) (?) (Kampuchea) KoWay (Kampuchea) Quan Phy Quoc (VietNam) HonPanjang (VietNam)

"Crawfurd" Place Name

Source: Place names on "East Coast of the Gulf of Siam. Copy of a Native Manuscript Communicated to Mr. Crawfurd" with modern equivalents from 1:250,000 Series 1501, editions 1, 2 & 3, Royal Thai Survey Department, 1970s & 1980s. Note:

Numbers shown above are those on Figure 15; place names immediately following under "Crawfurd" Place Name are those on Figure 14. Under "Walker" Place N arne are equivalents of the "Crawfurd" Place N arne from Figure 1; (-)indicates no equivalent. Under Modern Place Name are present equivalents of "Crawfurd" and "Walker" place names; followed by(?) indicates uncertainty; (?)alone indicates no modern equivalent found on 1:250,000 Series 1501. Notation of equivalents does not imply precise correspondence of locations.

The Journal of the Siam Society Vol. 81, Pt. 2 (1993)

THE LONDON COMPANY'S ENVOYS PLOT SIAM

--

61

SlAM •• M£NAM __

}1/I~ER--

\··

-~ ./

Figure 17.

/

---

n

~---t!

A

./-

"Map of the course of the Siam or Menam River. With part of Upper Siam constructed from original information collected by John Crawfo[ u ]rd Esqr." From photocopy of map number 90/25, National Archives of India.

The Journal of the Siam Society Vol. 81, Pt. 2 (1993)

LARRY STERNSTEIN

62 98•

22•