Dvaravati
7th to 11th-century Mon civilization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dvaravati[a] refers to a cultural and political network of early historic polities that flourished in the present-day central Thailand from approximately the 6th to the 11th century;[5][6]: 234 however, archaeological evidence suggests that the cultural developments associated with Dvaravati began several centuries earlier, often described as a Proto-Dvaravati phase. It is tentatively regarded as a successor to the polity known in Chinese sources as Lang-chia or Lang-ya-hsiu.[7]: 268–270, 281 Chinese Buddhist accounts from the mid-7th century describe a Buddhist kingdom called To-lo-po-ti, located west of Isanapura (Cambodia), east of Sri Ksetra (Burma),[8]: 76 [9]: 37 and north of Pan Pan.[7]: 267, 269 Its northern frontier bordered Jiā Luó Shě Fú (迦逻舍佛), identified with Canasapura, which covered the upper Mun-Chi basin in present-day northeastern Thailand[10] and Si Thep in the Pa Sak basin in central Thailand.[11]: 38–9 Dvaravati is recorded to have sent embassies to the Chinese court in 583,[12] around 605–616,[7]: 264 in 638, 640, 643, 647, and 649.[13]: 132
.png)
Dvaravati | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6th–11th century | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dvaravati civilization and contemporary Asian polities, 800 CE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spread of Dvaravati culture and Mon Dvaravati sites Mon wheel of the law (Dharmacakra), art of Dvaravati period, c. 8th century CE Buddha, art of Dvaravati period, c. 8th–9th century CE Bronze double denarius of the Gallic Roman emperor Victorinus (269–271 AD) found at U Thong, Thailand Khao Khlang Nai was a Buddhist sanctuary. The central stupa, rectangular in shape and oriented toward the east, is characteristic of dvaravati architectural style, dated back around 6th–7th century CE. Khao Khlang Nok, was an ancient Dvaravati-style stupa in Si Thep, dated back around 8th–9th century CE, at present, it is large laterite base. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Capital | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Common languages | Old Mon | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Historical era | Post-classical era | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
• Established | 6th century | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
• Disestablished | 11th century | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
The term Dvaravati also denotes a broader cultural and artistic sphere associated with a loose conglomeration of Mon principalities rather than a centralized state.[3] Archaeological and historical evidence suggests that Mon communities, possibly involved in maritime trade, contributed to the emergence of Dvaravati culture in the Chao Phraya valley by the early centuries CE.[14]: 32 This development appears to have followed a transitional “Proto-Dvaravati” phase during the 2nd–5th centuries, associated with early principalities such as Chin Lin in the western plains and Tou Yuan to the east.[3]
The location of Dvaravati’s early political center remains debated. Proposed centers include Ayojjhapura (Si Thep),[2] Sambuka (Nakhon Pathom),[15]: 10–1 and Avadhyapura (Si Mahosot).[16] By the mid-7th century, political prominence appears to have shifted toward Lavo's Lavapura, following the incorporation of Tou Yuan in 647. Some scholars place this transition later, in the 10th–11th centuries, after the decline of Si Thep,[2] while others regard Lavapura as a distinct polity—later known as the Lavo Kingdom—that nevertheless lay within the Dvaravati cultural and political sphere.[15]: 10–1, 43
The decline of Dvaravati was likely the result of overlapping regional pressures rather than a single event.[7]: 283 [17]: 41 These included the expansion of Angkor from the lower Mekong basin between the 11th and 13th centuries,[18] northward campaigns by Tambralinga under King Sujita in the mid-10th century, which reportedly included the seizure of Lavo,[7]: 283 [17]: 16 political instability and warfare within Angkor in the early 11th century that affected the Menam valley,[19] and Pagan incursions into central Thailand during the 11th–12th centuries.[17]: 41 [20]: 4 According to Jean Boisselier, although Dvaravati lost influence over eastern centers such as Lavo by the 10th–11th centuries, Mon principalities in the western plains likely persisted into the early 12th century, before coming under brief Angkorian influence during the reign of Jayavarman VII (r. 1181–1218).[15]: 262–3 Thereafter, the region entered the Xiān period, marked by the emergence of Suphannabhum, Phrip Phri, and Ayodhya, the latter reasserting control over Lavo by the 14th century.
History
Dvaravati culture was characterized by the presence of moated urban settlements, among which U Thong, located in present-day Suphan Buri Province, is generally regarded as the earliest. Other major sites include Nakhon Pathom, Pong Tuek, Si Thep, Khu Bua, and Si Mahosot, among others.[3] The term "Dvaravati" derives from coins bearing the Sanskrit inscription śrī dvāravatī. In Sanskrit, dvāravatī literally means "that which has gates".[21]: 301 Further evidence for the political and geographical significance of Dvaravati is provided by the Wat Phra Ngam Inscription N.Th. 21, discovered in 2019 at Wat Phra Ngam in Nakhon Pathom province and dated to the 6th century CE. This inscription refers to three regional cities—Śrīyānaṁdimiriṅga or Śrīyānaṁdimiriṅgapratipura, Hastināpurī, and Dvāravatī—suggesting that Nakhon Pathom, where the inscription was found, likely functioned as the central place of Dvāravatī.[22]: 281 [23]
The traditional chronology of Dvaravati is mainly based on the Chinese textual account and stylistic comparison by art historians. However, the results from excavations in Chan Sen and Tha Muang mound at U-Thong raise questions about the traditional dating. Newly dated typical Dvaravati cultural items from the site of U-Thong indicate that the starting point of the tradition of Dvaravati culture possibly dates as far back as 200 CE.[24][3] Archaeological, art historical, and epigraphic (inscriptions) evidence all indicate, however, that the main period of Dvaravati spanned the seventh to ninth centuries.[3] Dvaravati culture and influence also spread into Isan and parts of lowland Laos from the sixth century onward. Key sites include Mueang Fa Daet in Kalasin Province, Sema in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, and many others.[25][26]
The earliest known epigraphic reference to "Dvaravati" occurs in the Wat Chanthuek Inscription (K.1009), discovered in Pak Chong, Nakhon Ratchasima Province. The text is composed in Sanskrit and inscribed in the Pallava script, and is conventionally dated to the 5th century CE. It records a queen of Dvaravati who instructed her daughter to sponsor the dedication of a Buddha image.[27]
Proto-Dvaravati: 1st – 5th centuries
This period predates the 6th century CE,[28]: 4 and is generally placed between the 1st and 5th centuries CE,[28]: 1, 9 although some scholars argue for a narrower chronological range, extending only from the 4th to the 5th centuries.[3] Archaeological sites associated with this phase are primarily concentrated in the western Menam valleys. These include the unmoated settlement of Pong Tuek (พงตึก),[29]: 23 [30]: 46 which has been suggested as one of the five capitals of Tun Sun;[31]: 52 the moated city of Mueang Uthong, which has sometimes been identified as the center of Chin Lin;[28]: 2 and the site of Ban Don Ta Phet.
Archaeological evidence indicates human occupation in the region from at least c. 1000 BCE, during the Neolithic period. From approximately 900 BCE to 200 BCE, material remains suggest increasing participation in maritime exchange networks, possibly linking the area with communities in present-day Taiwan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Settlements continuity and expansion are observable during the Bronze and Iron Ages,[28]: 2–4 and by the 1st to 2nd centuries CE, contacts appear to have extended further, including interactions with South Asia, China, and countries to the west.[28]: 3, 4 [29]: 23 Artifacts recovered from several sites have been interpreted as indicating participation in exchange networks associated with Funan,[28]: 3, 4 although the nature and extent of their political relationship remain debated.[28]: 3
In the eastern plain, the Sup Champa site (เมืองโบราณซับจำปา) in present-day Lopburi Province has yielded evidence suggesting the emergence of a complex society by around 500 BCE,[30]: 49–50 although the site remains insufficiently excavated, and its broader regional role has yet to be clearly established. By the 5th to 6th centuries CE, Mueang Uthong appears to have retained its central role, while Nakhon Pathom shows evidence of concurrent growth and increasing regional significance.[15]: 39–40 From approximately the 6th to the 10th centuries CE, Nakhon Pathom is widely regarded as a supra-regional center of the Dvaravati cultural sphere,[32]: 4, 9 [33]: 55 alongside other major centers such as Si Thep in the eastern plain.[34]: 151–2
Migration of Singhanavati dynasty
Prior to the Dvaravati period, the lower Menam Basin is described in the Tai Yuan's Legend of Singhanavati as Lava-rāṣṭra (ลวรัฐ; lit. 'country or land of Lawa people').[35]: 33 [36]: 60 The territorial interface between this polity and Yonok of Tai Yuan is situated in the region around the mouth of the Ping River.[35]: 37 This depiction aligns with Gordon Luce’s hypothesis that the Lawa once occupied much of central Thailand, extending as far south as Lopburi. Luce’s argument is based on a perceived toponymic connection between Lavapuri of the seventh-century Lavo Kingdom, and the ethnonym Lawa.[37]
The Legend of Singhanavati further records sustained interactions between Tai Yuan and Lawa or Lua groups beginning with the formation of the Yonok Kingdom,[35]: 32, 41–2 as the first ruler of Yonok, Singhanavati, consolidated his authority through the subjugation of several pre-existing settlements, some of which are implicitly associated with Lawa populations.[35]: 32 Dynastic intermarriage is likewise attested: the third monarch of Yonok, Achutraraj (พญาอชุตราช), is said to have taken a princess of the Lawa of Doi Tung as his principal queen consort,[35]: 36–7 and their son subsequently succeeded to the Yonok throne.[35]: 49 The Lawa polity at Wiang Phang Kham also served as the political and military base for Singhanavati monarchs during a campaign to regain control of Yonok after it was seized by Umongkasela in the late 4th century.[35]: 73–4
In the late Yonok period, Chaiyasiri is said to have faced an invasion by the Mon kingdom of Thaton. As recorded in the Singhanavati tradition, this conflict precipitated a large-scale southward migration in 444 CE, during which Chaiyasiri is said to have led approximately 100,000 households into the upper Chao Phraya River Basin, where he is credited with founding a settlement at present-day Kamphaeng Phet.[35]: 90–3 Despite the prominence of this migration narrative, no demonstrable relationship has been established between these accounts and the earliest epigraphic attestation of the ethnonym syam, which appears in a Funan inscription K.557, dated to 611 CE.[38]: 21 Drawing on a distinct documentary tradition from the same period, Chinese sources dating from the late 6th to early 7th century, the Tang Huiyao and the Cefu Yuangui, describe the existence of an independent polity known as Duō Miè, later Xiu Luo Fen, which, although not territorially extensive, was noted for its relatively large population, and seemingly contiguous with the western border of Tou Yuan, centered at either Lopburi or Si Mahosot, of Dvaravati.[39][40]: 20 This migration narrative also influenced later reconstructions of Tai-speaking migrations, which commonly posit two principal routes: one from the northwest, associated with the polity later known as Möng Mao,[41]: 5 and another from the northeast, linked to the region of Muang Then.[41]: 3
Early Western accounts from the Ayutthaya period provide retrospective evidence that King Phrom of the Singhanavati dynasty, father of Chaiyasiri, was regarded as Ayutthaya’s primordial monarch. Authors such as Jeremias van Vliet, Guy Tachard, and Simon de La Loubère report that this belief was widely held and reinforced by court traditions under the reigns of Maha Chakkraphat, Prasat Thong, and Narai, which traced Ayutthayan royal lineage to Phrom.[42] This belief has also shaped modern interpretation on the Burmese chronicle Hmannan Yazawin. The chronicle records that in 1056 the Gywans of Ayoja (or Arawsa), described as residing to the southeast of Thaton,[43] mounted a military expedition against the Mon center located there.[44][45]: 25 George Cœdès identified Ayoja with Ayodhya or Siam,[46] whereas Francis H. Giles proposed that the Gywans were descendants of the Tai Yuan.[47]
Another foundation tradition of the Siamese people is recorded by Jeremias van Vliet, who relates that an early group of Siamese, led by a prince of the Chinese emperor, fled by sea more than 2,000 years earlier following a failed attempt to seize the imperial throne, came ashore at Kuoy—identified with the modern Kui Buri district—where they established a new settlement, after which their successors expanded northward, founded additional settlements including what is now Kamphaeng Phet, and whose descendants later became kings of Ayutthaya.[48]: 20
Early Dvaravati: 6th – 9th centuries
The pre-Dvaravati communities appear to have become increasingly dense,[28]: 3, 9 and larger,[49]: 8 undergoing continuous development until the construction of major religious monuments in the early to middle Dvaravati period, dated approximately from the first half of the 7th century to the first half of the 9th century.[28]: 9 This phase is often characterized as one of regional political competition, particularly between two supra-regional centers: Nakhon Pathom in the western valley and Si Thep in the eastern plain.[50] However, following reported Chenla incursions during the 7th century, several Dvaravati polities are thought to have become involved in wider regional conflicts.[11]: 54–5
During this period, it has been proposed that an interdynastic marriage occurred during the 7th century between a Tai Yuan princess and the Mon prince of Lavo, an alliance that is said to have produced King Sai Thong Som.[51]: 5 Moreover, the Laotian Legend of Khun Borom claims that Khun Borom, whose historicity David K. Wyatt tentatively placed around the 7th century,[52] ordered his nine sons to establish their own domains in different regions. One of these sons, Khoun Kôm (ขุนกม or ลกกม), is said to have founded Indaprasthanagara,[53]: 5 a polity which the Ayutthaya Testimonies place to the east of Sankhaburi, in the Phraek Si Racha historical region.[54]: 5–6 Another son, Ngua In (งัวอิน), is claims in the same tradition to have founded Ayutthaya.[53]: 5
The aforementioned attributions, however, are difficult to reconcile with the account preserved in the Tai Yuan Legend of Singhanavati, which states that Indaprasthanagara was already in existence during the reign of Phrom of Yonok (r. 379–438). The chronicle records that Phrom repelled the forces of a vassal ruler of Umongasela and forced them southward toward the region of present-day Kamphaeng Phet; these defeated groups are said to have subsequently fled to Indaprasthanagara in the Chao Phraya Basin.[35]: 82 The same text further identifies this area as part of Lava-rāṣṭra, a designation introduced earlier in the narrative.[35]: 33 [36]: 60 Significantly, the area corresponding to modern Ayutthaya prior to the 9th–10th centuries is described as a low-lying swamp, subject to seasonal monsoonal flooding, with water levels rising by approximately four meters during the rainy season relative to the dry-season baseline,[55]: 44–6 rendering the area unsuitable for settlement.
Rivalry among Dvaravati polities
Rivalries between regional centers such as Nakhon Pathom and Si Thep have been suggested by some scholars, and may be sporadically reflected in later local traditions, which have commonly been interpreted as forms of regional competition, although scholarly interpretations vary. The earliest narratives of conflict are preserved in several versions of the Legend of Nakhon Chai Si and the Legend of Phra Praton Chedi. These traditions recount that Siddhijaya, originating from Manohana[56]: 11–2 [51]: 3–4 —a toponym identified with Ayojjhapura in the Pali chronicles Ratanabimbavaṃsa and Jinakalamali;[51]: 4 this city has in turn been equated with Si Thep[2]—relocated to the Nakhon Pathom region and established his authority around 590 CE.[56]: 11–2 According to these accounts, Siddhijaya came into conflict with a pre-existing ruler, Kakabhadra, a struggle said to have ended in Siddhijaya’s military victory.[51]: 2 Siddhijaya’s authority is speculated to have extended into the early 7th century, based on a record of a Dvaravati tributary mission to the Chinese court in 616 CE, listed under the name Tou-he (投和國; Dvaravati), whose ruler is recorded as Pu-xie-qi-yao (脯邪乞遙), a name that has been phonetically compared with Siddhijaya.[15]: 130 In contrast, Kakabhadra is described in traditional account as having retained authority in parts of the region until 641 CE, when he was succeeded by his elder son, Kalavarnadisharaja.[56]: 12 It has therefore been suggested that Kakabhadra and Siddhijaya may represent the same historical figure under different names.[51]: 4
Later tradition holds that around 629 CE,[b] a group of Brahmins from Nakhon Pathom received an order to establish a new urban settlement in what is now Lopburi, south of Si Thep.[56]: 11–4 The city is said to have been completed in 648 CE, with Kalavarnadisharaja, son of Kakabhadra, enthroned as its inaugural ruler—an event regarded in these sources as marking the establishment of the Lavo Kingdom.[57][58] Kalavarnadisharaja’s reign is characterized in the Northern Chronicle as a period of territorial expansion,[57]: 25 extending inland as far as Chiang Saen in northern Thailand, where he is said to have exercised political influence and established dynastic relations with Tai Yuan monarchs.[51]: 4 Notably, however, these traditions contain no explicit account of his relations with Si Thep,[57]: 25 which, during the 6th to 7th centuries, was ruled by a line of monarchs attested in the Ban Wang Pai inscription (K.978)[59]: 17–9 and is later linked in the Jinakalamali to Rajadhiraj,[2] who is described there as a king of Ayojjhapura.[60]: 97, 125–6 This founder narrative, however, is irreconcilable with the account preserved in the Cāmadevivaṃsa, which states that in 647 CE[61]: 19 —one year prior to Kalavarnadisharaja’s supposed accession—Lavo was already ruled by Navaratna (นพรัตน์),[61]: 23 a king without a biological heir who adopted Camadevi as his daughter, and who subsequently married her to Ramaraj,[61]: 17 a prince of Ramburi identified by some Thai scholars with Kalavarnadisharaja. The existence of an established polity at Lavo is further corroborated by Xuanzang’s account, which refers to Lavo as Luó-wō-guó (罗涡国) as early as 629.[62]: 83 Some sources further propose an earlier foundation date, as early as 538 CE.[63]: 34
On the basis of Chinese sources, Tatsuo Hoshino interprets that political power had already shifted significantly around 665 CE, when Pú jiā yuè mó,[13]: 133 associated with Si Thep, is said to have consolidated authority over both the Si Thep and Nakhon Pathom regions.[11]: 54 The Jinakalamali later recounts a narrative concerning Anuruddha, a 7th-century ruler of Arimaddanapura (often associated with Nakhon Pathom), who is said to have launched a military campaign against Ayojjhapura/Si Thep and successfully captured its ruler, Manohanaraj, bringing him to Nakhon Pathom.[51]: 4 Toward the late 7th century, the Legend of the Arhat (ตำนานนิทานพระอรหันต์) records that Balidhiraja, eldest son of Kalavarnadisharaja of Lavo and ruler of Sukhothai, marched south into the western valley, overthrew the incumbent ruler, and installed his youngest son, Sai Thong Som—said to be of mixed Mon–Tai ancestry—as the new monarch, while his elder son, Balipatijaya, succeeded Kalavarnadisharaja at Lavo around 700 CE.[51]: 3–5 Following this account, no further rulers of Lavo are mentioned in the extant narrative sources until 861 CE, when a group of Tai Yuan nobles led by Vasudeva is said to have established authority in Lavapura.[64]: 39 The Jinakalamali and Cāmadevivaṃsa later introduce Uchitthaka, a cakravartin who is described as having lost the capital of Lavapura to Sujita of Tambralinga in 927 CE during a campaign associated with conflicts involving Haripuñjaya. Uchitthaka is further said, in these accounts, to have marched on Haripuñjaya, seized its throne, and ruled there until 930 CE.[65]
By 757 CE,[c] a ruler named Padumasuriyavamsa is said to have emerged at Indaprasthanagara in the central Menam valley.[d] His authority is described in later tradition as encompassing Lavo and Sukhothai, and extending eastward into the Korat Plateau as far as Mueang Talung (เมืองตลุง or ตะลุมดอ) in present-day Prakhon Chai district;[68]: 8 several later Siamese monarchs subsequently claimed descent from him.[67][54]: 11, 38, 43–4 [69]: 127, 133 However, the Ratanabimbavaṃsa also records that in the early 9th century Indaprasthanagara was besieged by Adītaraj of Ayojjhapura (Si Thep) after the demise of its great ruler.[2][70]: 51 The Si Thep line is further attested by Bhagadatta, whose reign is dated from 859 CE by the Śrī Canāśa Inscription (K.949)[71]: 122 and his dynasty is said to have ended in 949 CE following incursions from Angkor.[72]: 3546 Meanwhile, in the central and western regions, local ruling lineages appear to have persisted until the late 10th–11th centuries,[15]: 262–3 when they increasingly faced external pressures and invasions from the Pagan,[17]: 41 [20]: 4 Tambralinga,[73]: 70 Angkor,[74] and Chola.[8]: 143
Dvaravati–Chenla relations
Dvaravati polities in the Chao Phraya Basin have been proposed to have maintained dynastic connections with the polities of the Tonlé Sap Basin and the Mekong Delta since the Funan period.[75]: 43 George Cœdès suggested that Chakravartin, the father of Prathivindravarman of Si Thep mentioned in the Wang Pai Inscription (K.978), may have been identical with Rudravarman, the last ruler of the Candravaṃśa dynasty of Funan.[76]: 156–8 Following the siege of Funan's capital by the brothers Bhavavarman I and Mahendravarman I of the Suryavaṃśa dynasty of Chenla, Rudravarman is said to fled to Champa, while members of his lineage dispersed to other polities such as Pan Pan.
Claude Jacques has proposed an alternative interpretation, identifying Chakravartin with Mahārājādhirāja Śrī Devanika, who is described in the Devanika Inscription (K.365), dated to the early 5th century, as having come from a distant land. Jacques suggested that Devanika ruled from a center corresponding to Si Thep and dispatched princes to govern several cities along the trans-Mekong trade route. These cities may have included Dong Mueang Aem in modern Khon Kaen province, Dong Muang Toey in present-day Yasothon province, and Vat Phou in southern Laos. The lineage associated with Vat Phou was later identified as the founding line of Chenla.[77]: 68–9 However, this identification has been disputed by Zakharova.[78]: 143
George Cœdès and Claude Jacques initially dated the Wang Pai Inscription to the mid-6th century and identified the Bhavavarman mentioned in the inscription with Bhavavarman I of Chenla. However, Claude Jacques later reinterpreted the inscription and proposed that the Bhavavarman mentioned in the text was a local ruler of Si Thep rather than the Chenla monarch.[75]: 37–9 This interpretation corresponds with the argument of Kangwon Katchima, who suggested that the epigraphic style indicates a date after 637 CE. Under this interpretation, the Bhavavarman mentioned in the inscription may have been Bhavavarman II or another local ruler associated with Si Thep rather than Bhavavarman I,[59]: 17–9 whose political authority has been suggested to be limited to regions south of the Dângrêk Mountains.[75]: 41 The interpretation of Kangwon Katchima was later supported by Anurak Depimai, who also argued that the Bhavavarman mentioned in the inscription could not have been Bhavavarman II, since the Wat Kud Tae Inscription identifies Bhavavarman II as the son of Isanavarman I.[75]: 40–2
During the reign of Isanavarman I of Chenla (r. 616–637), attempts were made to extend influence into the Menam Basin, particularly toward the Tou Yuan Kingdom,[79][80] whose principal center has been proposed to correspond to modern Lopburi[11]: 36, 54 or Si Mahosot.[81] The conflict is described as having concluded with a dynastic marriage between a princess of Chenla and a prince of Dvaravati.[29]: 51–3 This marriage is also recorded in local fable of the Chao Phraya Valley.[82] The offspring of this lineage, Harshavarman, whose name appears in the Copper Plate Inscription of Mueang Uthong, later became the ruler of that polity.[29]: 51–3 During the same period, Chenla under Isanavarman I also established royal marriages with Champa[75]: 44–6 and with other polities influenced by Dvaravati, including Zhu Jiang and Can Ban.[83] As a result of these dynastic connections, artistic traditions in the Menam Basin, particularly in the western region, show influences from both Chenla and Champa.[29]: 49–53 [75]: 44–6 Dvaravati is also recorded to have established a dynastic connection with a polity in the upper Mun Basin through the marriage of a Dvaravati princess to the ruler of that polity, as recorded in the 5th-century Wat Chanthuek Inscription (K.1009).[75]: 48
Following the death of Isanavarman I, his successor Bhavavarman II (r. 639–657) is recorded in the Wat Kud Tae Inscription as engaging in military conflict with Dvaravati Sambuka, commonly identified with modern Nakhon Pathom.[84]: 24–25, 30 [85][86]: 10 Tatsuo Hoshino has argued that these conflicts involved several polities, including the kingdoms referred to in Chinese sources as Qiān Zhī Fú (later known as Gē Luó Shě Fēn), Xiū Luó Fēn, and Gān Bì, which together are described as mobilizing approximately 50,000 elite troops.[11]: 54–5 During these conflicts, Tou Yuan—previously the target of Chenla expansion—was recorded in 647 as a vassal of Dvaravati.[7]: 269 In the following year, the Lavo Kingdom was established or reestablished by Kalavarnadisharaja (r. 641–700) of Dvaravati Nakhon Pathom.[11]: 54 During the reign of Bhavavarman II of Chenla, Dvaravati polities from the western Menam Basin are described as extending their influence eastward as far as Muang Phai (เมืองไผ่) in modern Aranyaprathet district, identified with Jyesthapura,[86]: 10 the former seat of Bhavavarman II between 637 and 639.[75]: 47
During this transitional period, the region northwest of the Tonlé Sap Basin, particularly south of the Dângrêk Mountains and around present-day Battambang Province, is described as fragmenting into four polities that sent embassies to China after separating from Chenla.[75]: 48 By the 720s, this region is described as coming under the influence of another polity known as Wen Dan, which is associated with the Dvaravati cultural sphere. Archaeological evidence includes Buddhist boundary stones (Bai sema) discovered on Mount Kulen and dated to the 8th century,[87]: 88 as well as other pre-Angkorian structures displaying features associated with Wen Dan.[87]: 93 Based on this evidence, Hiram W. Woodward suggested that the northern Tonlé Sap region during this period was not under the authority of Lower Chenla but instead formed part of the sphere of Wen Dan,[87]: 87–8, 91 which maintained close relations with,[87]: 91–2 or exercised authority over, Si Thep.[87]: 94 Population movements from this region toward Si Thep in the early 8th century are also described as occurring under the auspices of Wen Dan.[87]: 91
Following the aforementioned fragmentation, the Tonlé Sap polities were reunified and, in the early 9th century, established their principal center further north in the Angkor region.[88] Jayavarman II (r. 780–850), ruler of Lower Chenla and later regarded as the founder of the Angkorian monarchy, is recorded as having re-established relations with polities in the Mun–Chi basins, where the former ally Zhu Jiang was located, and as having encountered Dvaravati Si Thep in the Menam–Pa Sak valleys. Woodward has further proposed that Jayavarman II defeated Wen Dan during this period, after which the remaining Dvaravati-associated Wen Dan region in the Chi valley entered the Javā era.[87]: 93 Archaeological and textual data suggest that by the early 8th century, the political predominance of Dvaravati had entered a phase of decline.[56]: 60 Subsequently, Angkor, under the reign of Rajendravarman II (r. 944–968) successfully conquered Si Thep in 946.[e][89] Thereafter, Si Thep declined and was abandoned by approximately the 13th century, contemporaneously with the rise of the Sukhothai and Ayutthaya kingdoms.[90] Another Dvaravati center, Lavapura of Lavo, came under Angkor influence from the 10th century,[49]: 23 and fell under Angkorian authority in 1005 during the reign of Suryavarman I (r. 1002-1050).[19] During his reign, Angkor also reasserted control over several polities that had been lost to Dvaravati since the 8th century, including Jyesthapura in present-day Sa Kaeo Province and Candhrapura in present-day Chanthaburi Province, while also taking over the former Dvaravati vassal Avadhapura in what is now Prachin Buri Province.[86]: 10–4
Late Dvaravati: 9th – 11th centuries
Some scholars date this period to the 9th to 10th centuries CE,[28]: 3 while other studies indicate that the Dvaravati cultural horizon extended into the 11th century.[28]: 6 During this time, changes in the economic conditions of communities in the western Menam valley are recorded,[28]: 9 and external trade connections with the Tang dynasty, conducted through routes associated with the Maritime Silk Road, are attested.[28]: 9 In the same period, the Menam valley polities are recorded as experiencing several external political incursions, events that are associated in the sources with the end of the Dvaravati period in the 11th century. Archaeological surveys in the area surrounding the former center at Mueang Uthong indicate low settlement density during this phase,[28]: 4 and the site is recorded as having been abandoned in the 12th century.[28]: 3 Evidence of trade between Uthong and Tang China during the 9th to 10th centuries CE is also documented.[28]: 5 Against this backdrop of contraction in earlier Dvaravati centers, the early 10th-century conquest of the lower Menam basin by Tambralinga marked a shift in regional dynamics: Nakhon Pathom—identified as Mevilimbangam—entered a period of maritime trade prosperity linked to the emergence of Srivijaya, albeit with limited political influence,[56]: 60 while Lavo simultaneously rose as a regional center under Angkorian control beginning in the 11th century.[15]: 262–3 [92]: 46
Following the conquest of Lavo by Tambralinga in 927[65] and the annexation of Si Thep by Angkor in 949,[72]: 3546 political authority over the Sukhothai region, mentioned in the Northern Chronicle, appears to have passed to Haripuñjaya monarchs in the 950s.[93]: 6–10 [94]: 8–10 During this period, several Dvaravati polities experienced external incursions or displacement. According to the Yonok Chronicle, Suphannaphum, situated in the western Menam valley, is recorded as having suffered an assault that compelled its two princes to flee northward into Haripuñjaya territory in the 930s,[95]: 191 while a series of ultimately unsuccessful Tambralinga campaigns launched from Lavo attempted to advance toward Haripuñjaya.[96] These disruptions coincided with a northward relocation of the political center of the early Siamese polity led by Sudhammaraja from the central Menam valley to Phitsanulok in 937, as mentioned in the Ayutthaya Testimonies.[54]: 37 By the mid-10th century, Lavo itself is said to have come under the authority of Indaprasthanagara. This transition is associated with the tradition of Sricandradhipati, described as a commoner from Lavo who rose to become ruler of Sukhothai in 959.[94]: 27–9 Later in the same century, Ipoia Sanne Thora Thesma Teperat is said to have transferred his seat of power from Indaprasthanagara to Lavo's Lavapura.
By circa 1001–1005, Lavo had fallen under Angkorian authority during the reign of Suryavarman I,[97][19] prompting the Siamese monarch, Visnuraja, at Phitsanulok to relocate southwestward to Phetchaburi.[54]: 38 In 1052, however, the Angkorian ruler at Lavo was defeated by a king of Haripuñjaya, who installed his younger brother, Chandrachota, as the new ruler;[98][99] shortly thereafter, Srisimha the Siamese ruler at Phetchaburi returned to the central Menam valley.[54]: 40 After this consolidations events, the Burmese chronicle Hmannan Yazawin records that in 1056 the Gywan warriors—described as descendants of the Thai Yuan[47]—marched against the Thaton kingdom, then in the process of annexation by Pagan, an episode corroborated by Burmese inscriptions from the Arakan Pagoda in Mandalay.[44] The chronicles of Thaton likewise mention an attack by the Krom, with both ethnonyms likely referring to the Khom people.[45]: 25 The Hmannan Yazawin further locates the Gywans in a southeastern land called Ayoja.[43] George Cœdès proposed that Ayoja (or Arawsa) corresponds to Ayudhya or Siam.[46]
As a consequence of the aforementioned developments, it has been suggested that Anawrahta of Pagan Kingdom extended his authority into the lower Menam basin, during which Dvaravati Nakhon Pathom may have been destroyed around 1058,[17]: 95, 105 an expansion that ultimately resulted in the submission of Lavo.[100]: 18–9 [94]: 37–9 These successive disruptions appear to have led to the destruction of several urban centers,[20]: 4 [17]: 41 and Nakhon Pathom seems to have undergone severe depopulation between the 11th and 12th centuries.[17]: 63, 167–8 Earlier, in the late 1020s to the early 1030s, Nakhon Pathom, already militarily weakened by recurrent conflicts between Haripuñjaya and Lavo in the early 10th century,[17]: 105 was reportedly raided during the Southeast Asian campaign of the Chola ruler Rajendra I.[f]
The Northern Chronicle further records that the Pagan noble Kar Tayy exercised political authority over the Suphannaphum–Mueang Uthong region[94]: 60 from approximately 1081 to 1121,[103]: 43–4 after which Mueang Uthong was abandoned[28]: 3 and Suphannaphum to have lacked a ruler.[94]: 61 Another passage of the chronicle recounts a Pagan invasion of the newly founded Ayodhya in 1087; although Ayodhya is said to have prevailed, its ruler, Narai I, is recorded as having died in the same year.[94]: 40–2 [99] Around the same period, the Legend of Nakhon Si Thammarat refers to a foreign ruler, Sri Dharmasokaraja I, said to have originated from Pagan's Hanthawaddy, who governed Indaprasthanagara–Lavo in the east–central Menam valley until around 1117 before moving southward to establish his rule at Nakhon Si Thammarat;[64]: 36–43 this interval also witnessed the relocation of the Siamese royal seat under Surindraraja northward to Chai Nat.[54]: 41 Taken together, these accounts suggest a prolonged phase—spanning roughly a century—of Pagan political penetration into the Menam valley, a reconstruction that is consistent with the early 13th-century Chinese text Zhu Fan Zhi, which notes that Chenla bordered Pagan to the west.[62]: 99 Following Sri Dharmasokaraja I’s departure, Angkor reasserted control over Lavo[64]: 39 and initiated a renewed phase of political and cultural expansion into the Menam basin,[56]: 170–88 a development consistent with the testimony of the Banteay Chhmar Inscription, which recounts that Jayavarman VII and his son marched against an invasion from the west, and the Prasat Tor Inscription, which further records that Jayavarman VII prevailed over the monarch of the west in 1189/90 or 1195/96.[45]: 24
Post-Dvaravati: 12th – 13th centuries
Regional transformation
The 12th and 13th centuries mark a transitional phase following the decline of Dvaravati, characterized by political fragmentation and competition among several newly emergent centers in the Menam and Mae Klong River basins. Many of these polities later developed into historically attested Siamese states, including Phrip Phri, Suphannaphum, Suvarnapura, Sukhothai, and Ayutthaya. During this period, former Dvaravati supra-regional centers lost much of their earlier prominence. Of the two principal centers, Si Thep remained under Angkorian authority[21]: 303, 308–309 but experienced a gradual decline in political and economic significance[104] and is generally considered to have been abandoned by around the 13th century.[105] Nakhon Pathom, formerly a major center in the western plain, and its associated site of Khu Bua, appear to have experienced substantial depopulation,[56]: 190–3 [92]: 55–6 while local authority increasingly focused on the Mae Klong River basin, particularly at the sites of modern Ratchaburi and Mueang Sa Kosi Narai (เมืองสระโกสินารายณ์).[56]: 186–9 These two sites have respectively been identified with Jaya Rajapuri and Sambukapattana as mentioned in the Preah Khan Inscription (K.904),[92]: 53 both exhibit clear Angkorian cultural influence,[56]: 190–3 [92]: 47 as does the nearby site of Pong Tuek.[106]
.jpg)
Within this shifting regional configuration, the principal power in the western Menam valleys appears to have been centred at Mueang Sing, located in the present-day Mueang Sing Historical Park, while authority in the eastern plain was based at Lopburi. The latter alternated between Angkorian control and periods of local autonomy.[107] Both centres are identified in the Preah Khan Inscription as Sri Jayasimhapuri and Lavodayapura, respectively.[92]: 53 Nevertheless, the extent of Angkorian political authority over the polities of the Menam valleys from the period associated with Jayavarman VII onward remains debated. One argument derives from the distribution of hospitals (arogyasala) and fire houses (vahnigrha) built along roads extending from Angkor toward major regional centers, none of which lie further west than Prachin Buri. In this context, the reference in the Preah Khan Inscription to the dispatch of the image Jayabuddhamahanatha to at least six polities in the Menam valley may be more appropriately interpreted as an act of cultural diplomacy rather than as evidence of direct political control.[49]: 24
Emergence of Siamese polities
Later historical traditions and epigraphic interpretations describe the emergence of several regional ruling lineages in the Menam valley during the 12th century. Following the relocation of Sri Dharmasokaraja I to establish authority at Nakhon Si Thammarat in 1117, his successor Sri Dharmasokaraja II is recorded in interpretations of the Dong Mè Nang Mưo’ng Inscription (K.766),[108] dated to 1168 CE,[64]: 38 as having regained control over Lavo in 1157[64]: 47 and reasserted authority northward toward the region of present-day Nakhon Sawan.[64]: 40 Around the same time, later traditions describe a northward relocation of several Siamese political centres. Suryaraja is said in the Ayutthaya Testimonies to have moved to Kamphaeng Phet in 1156,[54]: 11 while Pra Poa Noome Thele Seri, according to Du Royaume de Siam and the Instructions Given to the Siamese Envoys Sent to Portugal (1684), relocated to the Nakhon Thai–Sukhothai region in 1155,[67][69]: 127 and his younger brother Uthong I is mentioned in the Northern Chronicle as having established himself at Mueang Chaliang.[94]: 60–1
All the aforementioned texts note that these lineages later extended their influence southward again into the lower western Menam valleys, including the Suphannaphum–Phrip Phri–Jayasimhapuri region[67][54]: 46 during the 1160s.[109]: 61 Within this lineage, Jatiraja (ชาติราชา) is described as a later ruler who exercised authority at Jayasimhapuri,[54]: 45 where Pra Poa Noome Thele Seri later succeeded him in the 1170s.[54]: 46 In contrast, the line associated with Suryaraja is described as expanding northward and establishing alliances with Tai chiefdoms, eventually forming the political basis of the polity conventionally identified as the Sukhothai Kingdom.[54]: 11–29
Formation of Ayodhya
Around the 1180s[g]–1190s, following the loss of control over Lavo in 1157, Angkorian authority is said to have been reasserted in the region,[64]: 39 as indicated by the Prasat Tor Inscription which records that Jayavarman VII defeated a "monarch of the west" in either 1189/90 or 1195/96,[45]: 24 and by reports that Sri Dharmasokaraja II returned to Nakhon Si Thammarat.[64]: 41 In the same period,[h] the central Menam valley is described in Chinese sources as having come under the control of its former ruling line led by Pra Poa Noome Thele Seri and being referred to as Chen Li Fu,[110]: 1 a polity corresponding broadly to Indaprasthanagara.[i] In the Ayutthaya Testimonies, Indaprasthanagara dynasty is described as belonging to the same lineage as the early Sukhothai monarchs,[54]: 16–7 while scholarly interpretations suggest that the ruling house of Chen Li Fu may have had connections with the Mahidharapura dynasty of the Phimai region and Angkor.[112]: 7–11 In contrast, the 1225 Chinese work Zhu Fan Zhi by Zhao Rukuo lists Lavo, Chu fan chi, and Pagan as tributary states of Angkor. Earlier scholarship interpreted the Pagan mentioned in this text as referring to the lower Irrawaddy basin in present-day Myanmar;[45]: 25 however, it has also been proposed that it instead denoted the lower Menam basin under Sri Dharmasokaraja II, an interpretation that draws support from the Phatthalung version of the Legend of Nakhon Si Thammarat, which states that his father originated from Bago in Myanmar,[113]: 28 while Chu fan chi is generally identified with Chen Li Fu.[45]: 25
In the lower western valley, the southern Siamese lineage claimed the throne of Ayodhya in 1205 under the rule of a Siamese–Mon–Chinese–Cham heritage Uthong II,[99] set it as new seat replacing Indaprasthanagara of Chen Li Fu.[109]: 21 [110]: 13 This dynasty established marital alliances with the Mon ruling house of Haripuñjaya at Mueang Chaliang,[94]: 69–71 [99] from which emerged the mixed Mon–Chinese princes Dhammaraja and Baramaraja later ruled Ayodhya during the early to mid-14th century.[99] On this basis, some scholar has argued that the Siamese seizure of power at Ayodhya was facilitated, at least in part, by Chinese support.[62]: 84 Reflecting its maritime orientation and external political connections, this polity was identified as Xiān in a number of Chinese and Đại Việt sources.[114] A prince of this lineage, Varashreṣṭhakumāra, who ruled at Phrip Phri, later ascended the Ayodhya throne under the regnal name Ramathibodi I (Uthong V) in 1341[99] and reinforced his position through marriage alliances with Lavo to the east and the Tai–Siamese Suphannaphum to the west.[109]: 61 The unification of these four centers in the lower river valleys culminated in the traditional foundation of the Ayutthaya Kingdom in 1351.[115]
Despite the emergence of Ayutthaya as a new political entity, the legacy of Dvaravati continued to be preserved in nomenclature and historical memory. The full ceremonial name of the capital—Krung Thep Dvāravatī Śrī Ayutthayā (กรุงเทพทวารวดีศรีอยุธยา)—explicitly invoked Dvaravati as a former seat of royal authority.[116][117][118][119] Regional traditions likewise maintained this association. The Laotian Phra That Phanom Chronicle refers to Ayodhya prior to 1351 as Dvāravatī and Śrī Ayodhiyā Dvāravatī Nakhon (ศรีอโยธิยาทวารวดีนคร).[120] Corroborating evidence appears in Burmese epigraphic sources. A 1768 inscription of Hsinbyushin of Ava (Serial No. 1128),[121] discovered on a bronze cannon at at Shwezigon Pagoda—acquired by Burmese forces following the second fall of Ayutthaya in 1767 CE—records the “conquest of Dvāravatī” in reference to Ayutthaya.[122] This nomenclatural continuity is further reflected within Ayutthaya’s mandala. A subordinate polity, Suphannaphum, bore the extended designation Dvāravatī Śrī Suphannaphum (ทวารวดีศรีสุพรรณภูมิ), indicating the persistence of Dvaravati-derived prestige titles at the regional level.[123] By the late 14th and 15th centuries, all former Dvaravati principalities, including Lavo, Suphannaphum, and the northern cities of the former Sukhothai Kingdom, had been incorporated into Ayutthaya. This process was completed between 1388 and 1438.[124]: 274
Government
Little is known about the administrative structure of Dvaravati. It appears to have functioned not as a centralized state but as a loose aggregation of chiefdoms, extending from the coastal areas of the upper Malay Peninsula into the riverine plains of the Chao Phraya basin. Both Hinduism and Buddhism played significant roles in its religious landscape. Archaeological surveys have identified 107 Dvaravati-associated urban sites in present-day Thailand, the majority concentrated in the central plain.[125]: 66 The largest settlements were located at Nakhon Pathom, Suphanburi, and Phraek Si Racha, with secondary centers at U Thong, Chansen, Khu Bua, Pong Tuek, Mueang Phra Rot, Lopburi, Si Mahosot, Kamphaeng Saen, Dong Lakhon, U-Taphao, Ban Khu Mueang, and Si Thep.[21]: 303–312
Chinese sources from the Tang dynasty describe Dvaravati as being divided into three administrative tiers, commonly rendered as prefectures, counties, and districts. Each city is described as having a citadel and enclosing city walls.[126]: 55 In the early 7th century, the Tongdian further notes that the polity had six markets or trading centres, which modern scholars commonly identify with Nakhon Pathom, Chansen, U Thong, Khu Bua, Si Mahosot, and Dong Lakhon,[15]: 221–2 while alternative identifications proposed by other scholars include Lopburi and Pong Tuek.[15]: 221 These records also indicate the presence of numerous officials, including military and civil administrators, overseeing state affairs.[126]: 55 Dvaravati is further described as having two vassal polities: Tou Yuan (陀垣), considered a predecessor of Lavo, and the island polity of Tanling (曇陵),[127]: 15–16 [128]: 27 whose precise location remains uncertain but has been tentatively situated on an island or small peninsula within the marshlands of the early historic Bay of Bangkok.[127]: 15–16
Settlement-pattern studies of the upper Chi–Mun basins prior to the 14th century suggest that Dvaravati consisted of multiple interconnected kingdoms linked through trade networks and organized around supra-regional centers such as Dong Mueang Aem, Phimai, Mueang Fa Daet Song Yang, Mueang Sema, Non Mueang, and Si Thep;[34]: 151–152 a pattern comparable to that observed in the Menam Valley.[32] A 2015 analysis of pre-600 CE circular moated settlements in the Mun Valley identified five distinct settlement clusters: the westernmost and smallest centered on Mueang Sema; the larger Phimai cluster to the east; the Phayakkhaphum Phisai–Nadun–Kaset Wisai group on the northern Mun watershed, including Champasri, identified with the Zhū Jiāng Kingdom or later Zhān Bó; the Buriram–Surin group to the south; and the easternmost cluster along the Mun–Chi watershed, with dense concentrations in Suwannaphum, Phon Sai, and Nong Hi in present-day Roi Et province.[129]: 8–9
The following shows the polities under Dvaravati culture in the Menam and the Chi-Mun Valleys during the first millennium.
 |
Seat/Cluster | Level | Settlem | Identified as | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Menam Basin | |||||||||||
| Nakhon Pathom | Supra-regional center | 8 | Kamalanka (Sambuka; 6th-c. Dvaravati) | ||||||||
| Si Thep | Supra-regional center | Qiān Zhī Fú[16] | |||||||||
| Suphanburi | Regional center | 9 | She Ba Ruo (舍跋若)[16]: 30 aka. Santanaha? | ||||||||
| Uthong | District center | Chin Lin (Proto-Dvaravati) | |||||||||
| Phraek Si Racha | Regional center | 12[j]/30[k] | Duō Miè[l] (Proto-Dvaravati)/Xiū Luó Fēn? | ||||||||
| Lopburi | District center | 14 | Tou Yuan (Proto-Dvaravati)[16]: 54 /Lavo | ||||||||
| Si Mahosot | District center | 7 | Avadhyapura (6th-c. Dvaravati[16]) | ||||||||
| Khao Laem, Uthai Thani | Sub-district center | 6 | Bō Cì? (Proto-Dvaravati) | ||||||||
| Tha Tako, Nakhon Sawan | Sub-district center | 8 | Part of Qiān Zhī Fú?[16]: 34 | ||||||||
| Utapao, Saraburi | Sub-district center | 4 | Part of Lavo | ||||||||
| Chaliang | Sub-district center | 4 | Mueang Chaliang | ||||||||
| Yommarad | Sub-district center | 3 | Part of Qiān Zhī Fú?[16]: 34 | ||||||||
| Tri Trueng/Khlong Mueang | Sub-district center | 3 | Kosambi[m]/Gān Bì? | ||||||||
| Lom Sak–Lom Kao | Cān Bàn | ||||||||||
| Mun–Chi Basins | |||||||||||
| Dong Mueang Aem | Supra-regional center | Unknown | |||||||||
| Phimai | Supra-regional center | 103 | Mahidharapura (Vimayapura) | ||||||||
| Phon | Pó Àn (婆岸)[16]: 30 | ||||||||||
| Dvaravati kingdoms in the Menam Valley. | Mueang Sema | Regional center | 4 | Canasapura (8th-c. Dvaravati) | |||||||
 | Champasri | Regional center | 69 | Zhū Jiāng?,[130]: 45 or Zhān Bó/[16]: 45 Yamanadvipa, Vassal of Wen Dan[131] or Bhavapura[130]: 56 | |||||||
| Phayakkhaphum Phisai– Nadun–Kaset Wisai | |||||||||||
| Fa Daet Song Yang | District center | Wen Dan[131] or Bhavapura[130]: 59 | |||||||||
| Kantharawichai | District center | ||||||||||
| Non Mueang | Sub-district center | 10 | Part of Bhavapura?[130]: 123 or Wen Dan? | ||||||||
| Buriram–Surin | 57 | Part of Vimayapura?/Mahidharapura? | |||||||||
| Suwannaphum–Nong Hi | 39 | Part of Bhavapura?[130]: 56 | |||||||||
| Dvaravati polities in the upper Chi River Basin | Songkhram–Mekhong Basins | ||||||||||
 |
Nakhon Phanom/Thakhek | Changzhou of the Tang,[16]: 45 Na Lao[16]: 45 /Later Gotapura | |||||||||
| Sakon Nakhon | Changzhou of the Tang,[16]: 45 Later Mahidharapura? | ||||||||||
| Phu Phrabat/Vientiane | Dàomíng, Dōu Hē Lú (都訶盧)?[16]: 45 | ||||||||||
| Savannakhet–Mukdahan | Gān Bì? (甘毕)[16]: 46 | ||||||||||
| Dvaravati-influenced kingdoms with uncertain identification | |||||||||||
| Clusters of 7th-c. moated sites in Mun Valley |
| ||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Art
Dvaravati itself was heavily influenced by Indian culture, and played an important role in introducing Buddhism and particularly Buddhist art to the region. Stucco motifs on the religious monuments include garudas, makaras, and Nāgas. Additionally, groups of musicians have been portrayed with their instruments, prisoners, females with their attendants, soldiers indicative of social life. Votive tablets have also been found, also moulds for tin amulets, pottery, terracotta trays, and a bronze chandelier, earrings, bells and cymbals.[21]: 306–308
White stone Buddha image, attributed to the Dvaravati period, now in Bangkok National Museum
Dvaravati stone jar, Phra Pathom Chedi National Museum
Dvaravati bas-relief at the rear base of Phra Sri Sakyamuni, the main Buddha image in the Wihan Luang of Wat Suthat, Bangkok.
Thailand (now), Ku Bua, (Dvaravati Mon culture), 650–700 C.E.. Three musicians in right are playing (from center) a 5-stringed lute, cymbals, a tube zither or bar zither with a gourd resonator.
Dvaravati Gold plaque with Standing Buddha, dated 8th–9th century.
.jpg)
Rulers
Excavations at several sites have yielded silver coins dated to the 7th century bearing Sanskrit inscriptions in Pallava script that name both a king and a queen of the polity: śrīdvaravatīsvarapuṇya (“King Śrī Dvāravatīśvara, endowed with great merit”) and śrīdvaravatīsvaradevīpuṇya (“the goddess-consort of the meritorious king of Dvāravatī”).[132] In addition, a copper plate dated to the 6th–mid 7th centuries, discovered at Mueang Uthong, records a ruler named Harṣavarman, grandson of Isanavarman. Jean Boisselier regarded this figure as a king of Dvaravati, whereas George Cœdès suggested that the plate may have originated in the Khmer realm and that the name could refer to a Khmer ruler.[133] This latter interpretation, however, presents chronological and genealogical difficulties, as Harshavarman I of the Khmer Empire reigned much later, from 910 to 923 CE,[134][135] and his grandfather was Indravarman I,[136][137][138] rather than Īśānavarman, who is named in the inscription.[133] Michael Vickery proposed that this Harshavarman may have belonged to another lineage descending from Isanavarman I (r. 616–637), who also established royal intermarriage with the Cham to the east, from which his another grandson, Prakāśadharma, is recorded as having ascended the Cham throne at Mỹ Sơn in 658.[29]: 51–2 Vickery’s hypothesis has been taken to lend support to a local fable recounting that a king of Isanapura concluded a peace agreement with the ruler of Nakhon Pathom, Shridravya, and gave his daughter in marriage to the Nakhon Pathom king.[82]
Moreover, the Ban Wang Pai inscription from Phetchabun Province (K. 978), dated to 550 CE, records the enthronement of a Dvaravati ruler identified as a son of Prathivindravarman, the father of Bhavavarman I of Chenla, thereby indicating a dynastic connection between Dvaravati and Chenla. The personal name of this ruler, however, is not preserved in the inscription.[139] Some scholars have further argued that the Bhavavarman mentioned in the Ban Wang Pai inscription of Si Thep may not refer to Bhavavarman I of Chenla, on the basis of palaeographic and stylistic differences in the inscription.[59]: 17–19 Similarly, the Nern Phra Ngam inscription from Nakhon Pathom Province, dated to the mid-5th to mid-6th centuries CE, refers to another ruler whose name is likewise absent.[72]
The following enumeration presents the succession of Dvaravati monarchs from the early Dvaravati civilization to the Xiān period, encompassing the temporal span from the 5th to the 14th century. Their seats of power were constantly shifted over the period.
- Color legend for the seat of the polity
|
SM Si Mahosot |
| Reign[n] | Ruler | Seat | Seat | Ruler | Reign | Seat | Ruler | Reign | Seat | Ruler | Reign | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early 7th-c. | Isanavarman? | UT | KP | Chaiyasiri | 444–457 | |||||||||
| Early 7th-c. | Unknown | UT | ||||||||||||
| Late 7th-c. | Harshavarman? | UT | SH | As Shě Bá Ruò | 6th-c. | |||||||||
| SH | Under Lavo | 7th–8th-c. | NP | Tona Brahmin | ?–569 or '90 | SI | Unknown | 550–? | ||||||
| fl. 643–651 | Chá-shīlì | SM | SH | Under Nakhon Pathom | 8th–9th-c. | NP | Kakabhadra?[o] | 569–641 | SI | Siddhijaya?[p] | 569–590? | |||
| NP | Siddhijaya | fl. 590–616/41 | SI | Chakravantin | Late 6th–7th c. | |||||||||
| 629?–647 | Navaratna | LB | PR | Unknown queen[140] | NP | Kalavarnadisharaja | 641–648 | SI | Prathivindravarman | Early 7th c. | ||||
| 648–700 | Kalavarnadisharaja | LB | PR | Māgha Shili[q] | 6th–7th c. | NP | Cakranarayana | 648–649 | ||||||
| PR | Mórú Shīlì[q] | c. 661 | NP | Shridravya | 649–656 | SI | Bhavavarman | Mid-7th c. | ||||||
| PR | Shīdámó Típó | c. 665 | NP | Pú jiā yuè mó | fl. 656–665 | SI | Pú jiā yuè mó | fl. 656–665 | ||||||
| PR | Under Lavo? | ?–700 | NP | Anuruddha | 665?–688 | SI | Rajadhiraj | 665–? | ||||||
| SI | Manohanaraj | Late 7th-c. | ||||||||||||
| SI | Under Nakhon Pathom | ?–688 | ||||||||||||
| NP | Sai Thong Som | 688–? | SI | Unknown (Under Lavo?) | 688–720s | |||||||||
| 700–757? | Balipatijaya | LB | PR | Gomerāja? | 700?–? | NP | Unknown | ?–757 | ||||||
| PR | Ketumāla | ?–757 | SI | Under Wen Dan[87]: 94 | 720s–? | |||||||||
| 757?–800? | Under Phraek | LB | PR | Padumasuriyavamsa | 757–800 | NP | Under Phraek? | 757–800 | SI | Under Phraek? | ?–800 | |||
| 800?–861 | Unknown | LB | PR | Padum Kumara | 800–? | NP | Sikaraj | ?–807 | SI | Adītaraj | 800–859? | |||
| 861–? | Vasudeva | LB | PR | Under Si Thep | NP | Kamsa | 807–867 | |||||||
| PR | Bharattakabba | ?–892 | NP | Balaraj | 867–913 | SI | Bhagadatta | 859–? | ||||||
| ?–927 | Uchitthaka | LB | PR | Sai Nam Peung | 892–922 | SI | Sundaraprakrama | Early 10th-c. | ||||||
| 927–940s | Under Tambralinga | LB | PR | Sudhammaraja | 922–937 | NP | Under Ratchaburi | 913–927? | SI | Sundararavarman | ?–937 | |||
| PS | 937–957 | NP | Under Tambralinga | 927–940s | SI | Narapatisimhavarman | 937–949 | |||||||
| PR | Sindhob Amarin | 937–996 | NP | Unknown | 940s–1058 | SI | Under Angkor | 949–? | ||||||
| 957–987 | Visnuraja | PS | PR | Sundaradeśanā | 996–? | SH | Pansa | 916–930s | LB | Under Phraek Si Racha | 940s–1000s | |||
| 987–? | Vijayaraja | PS | PR | Under Lavo | ?–1005 | UT | 930s–1006 | LB | Sundaradeśanā | ?–1005 | ||||
| ?–1027 | PE | PR | Under Angkor | 1005–1052 | UT | Ramapandita | 1006–1046 | LB | Under Angkor | 1005–1052 | ||||
| 1027–1050s | Srisimha | PE | ||||||||||||
| 1050s–1062 | PR | UT | Anga Indra | 1046–1081 | LB | Chandrachota | 1052–1069 | |||||||
| 1062–1080s | Surindraraja | PR | JS | Early 10th-c. –1169 | LB | Regent | 1069–1082 | |||||||
| 1080s–1100 | CN | UT | Kar Tayy (Under Pagan?) | 1081–1100s | LB | Narai I | 1082–? | |||||||
| LB | Unknown | ?–1106 | ||||||||||||
| PR | Sri Dharmasokaraja I (Under Pagan?) | 1080s–1117 | SH | 1100s–1121 | LB | Kesariraja | 1106–1110s | |||||||
| 1100–1132 | Suryavamsa | CN | LB | Under Phraek Si Racha | 1110s–1117 | |||||||||
| 1132–1167 | Anuraja | CN | AY | Narai I | 1080s–1087 | SH | Vacant | 1121–1163 | LB | Under Angkor | 1117–1150 | |||
| SB | AY | Phra Chao Luang | 1087–1111 | LB | Phanom Thale Sri | 1150–1156 | ||||||||
| 1167–1180 | Under Lavo | PR | AY | Sai Nam Peung or under Lavo[r] | 1111–1165 | LB | Sri Dharmasokaraja II | 1157–1180 | ||||||
| 1156–1157 | Phanom Thale Sri | ST | ||||||||||||
| 1169–1188 | JS | AY | Dhammikaraja or under Lavo[r] | 1165–1205 | SH | Uthong I | 1163–1205 | LB | Under Angkor | 1180–1218 | ||||
| 1188–1205 | PE | LB | Unknown | 1218–? | ||||||||||
| 1205–1289 | Thonglanrach | PE | SH | Vacant | 1205–1220s | JS | 1188–1205 | PR | Fang-hui-chih | 1180–1204 | ||||
| SH | Saenpom | 1220s–? | AY | Uthong II | 1205–1253 | PR | Mahidharavarman | 1204–1205 | ||||||
| AY | Jayasena | 1253–1289 | PR | Ai (Under Ayodhya) | 1205–1249 | |||||||||
| 1289–? | Jayasena | PE | SH | Uthong III | ?–1335 | AY | Suvarnaraja | 1289–1301 | PR | Vacant (Under Ayodhya) | 1249–1279 | |||
| AY | Dhammaraja | 1301–1310 | PR | Vacant (Under Sukhothai) | 1279–1299 | |||||||||
| ?–1342 | Sam | PE | SH | Uthong IV | 1335–1341 | AY | Baramaraja | 1310–1344 | PR | Śiricandrarāja[53]: 8–9 | 1299–14th-c. | |||
| 1342–1351 | Uthong V | PE | SH | Uthong V | 1341–1351 | AY | Uthong V | 1344–1369 | LB | Under Phraek Si Racha | ?–1319 | |||
| Phetchaburi was merged into Ayutthaya since 1351. | Suphannaphum was under Ayutthaya since 1351. | Formation of Ayutthaya Kingdom in 1351. | LB | Maternal grandfather of Ramesuan | 1319–1351? | |||||||||
| LB | Ramesuan | 1351–1388 | ||||||||||||
| LB | Merged into Ayutthaya since 1388 | |||||||||||||
Notes
- The Northern Chronicle states that the city of Lavo's Lavapura took 19 years to complete in 648, thus, the construction might have begun in 629.
- As Padumasuriyavamsa has been identified with Pra Poat honne Sourittep pennaratui sonanne bopitra,[66]: 38 a figure mentioned in the Du Royaume de Siam as having reigned from 1300 BE (757 CE).[67]
- As says in the Ayutthaya Testimonies that Indaprasthanagara is located east of Sankhaburi.[54]: 4–5
- Referred to as Rāmaññadesa (lit. 'country of the Mon') in the Rajendravarman II Inscription
- According to the Legend of Phatthalung, Sri Dharmasokaraja II is said to have reigned in another city in 1180 CE, potentially in Lavo,[64]: 48 while in the same year the Legend of Nakhon Si Thammarat places him at Nakhon Si Thammarat, where he is described as engaging in warfare against Phichaithep Chiang Saen.
- According to a Chinese court record dated to 1200, an embassy from this polity reported that its king had already reigned for twenty years.
- The proposed center of Chen Li Fu has been identified with the Phraek Si Racha region in the central Menam Valley,[111]: 20–3 while Indaprasthanagara itself is thought to have remained in existence until the 13th century.[54]: 15–6 The Ayutthaya Testimonies describe Indaprasthanagara as being located east of Sankhaburi, within the historical Phraek Si Racha region.[54]: 4–5
- According to Karen M. Mudar (1999)
- According to Cefu Yuangui
- If Tou Yuan was the predecessor of the Lavo Kingdom, as proposed by Tatsuo Hoshino,[16]: 54 Duō Miè — which bordered west of Tou Yuan — should be in the area of Phraek Si Racha.
- Established as a polity under Kalavarnadisharaja of Lavo
- The reigns of the monarchs from Visnuraja to Anuraja were retroactively calculated based on the interpretation on the Dong Mè Nang Mưo’ng Inscription (K. 766), dated to 1167 CE,[108] suggests that Sri Dharmasokaraja II may have extended his authority northward as far as present-day Nakhon Sawan Province, which would imply that the Phraek Si Racha region likewise fell under his control;[64]: 36–39 if this interpretation is accepted, the reigns of the Xiū Luó Fēn rulers in question must have ended no later than 1167 CE.
- If Kakabhadra is not identified with Siddhijaya, he would instead represent a pre-existing ruler in the Nakhon Pathom region prior to the arrival of Siddhijaya.
- If Siddhijaya in the Legend of Nakhon Chai Si is identified with Kakabhadra in the Northern Chronicle, as proposed by Manit Vallipodom,[51]: 4 and if the legend records his establishment of authority in Nakhon Pathom in 590 CE,[56]: 11–2 then the calculated beginning of his reign in 569 CE, based on the Northern Chronicle,[94]: 3 would place his earlier seat of power at Manohana, identified with Ayojjhapura/Si Thep.
- The claim that Sai Nam Peung and his son Dhammikaraja ruled Ayodhya during this period[99] is incompatible with the political geography reconstructed from the Dong Mè Nang Mưo’ng Inscription (K. 766).[108] This inscription indicates that Sri Dharmasokaraja II of Tambralinga, in 1157, extended his authority into the lower Menam basin, incorporating Lavo, Phraek Si Racha, and territories as far north as present-day Nakhon Sawan.[64]: 36–9 Tambralinga’s control endured until around 1180, when it was displaced by Angkorian authority over Lavo,[64]: 39 a sequence independently corroborated by contemporary Chinese sources which, in the same year, identify the central Menam valley as Chen Li Fu and describe it as possessing direct access to the sea.[110]: 6–7 Within this framework, there is no chronological or political space for an independent Ayodhyan rulership under Sai Nam Peung and Dhammikaraja. The Ayutthaya Testimonies also do not support the Ayodhya attribution, as it situate Sai Nam Peung and Dhammikaraja in the Phraek Si Racha region,[54]: 35–7 with reigns conventionally dated to the late 9th to mid-10th centuries (c. 890s–950s).
