THE THAILAND HISTORIC COLLECTIONS 1400-1686 ...

the structure of Sukhothai architecture which is the same as Siamese temple and royal palace even Siamese traditional house.
Sukhothai begin 1238-1583
Sukhothai temple
[

Siamese Thai house

Siamese can pass their culture and wisdom to their offspring although that stone structure left only pole

The Varman dynasty was abolished by a slave revolt
The Varman and their people, the ancient Khmer, were referred to by the local people (mostly slaves) at Angkor back then as Siamese.
When the local people were successful in killing/expelling the Siamese off Angkor they re-named the city as Siamreap, meaning Extinction of Siamese.
The Varman relatives fled Angkor to establish Sri Ayodhaya, which later became the capital of the kingdom of Siam.

I will try to support the proposed theories with evidences, reasons, historical contexts as well as common senses.

1) The Varman dynasty had been ruling the magnificent Angkor Empire for around 500 years (since around 900 AD.) but it had disappeared abruptly in 1336 AD.

2) The new king after that was “Trosok Pream” which in Cambodian means “sweet melon.” The traditional suffix “Varman” has never appeared in Cambodian kings’ names again ever since.

3) A most accepted theory for the disappearance of Angkor has been that of its sacking by the invading Siamese Army. Little is known that the spiritual destruction of Angkor had preceded its physical destruction long before that — and it began in 1336 AD. , the year of the killing field in a sweet melon plantation. This article will propose a new theory and will propose further that Cambodians are not the same group of people as the ancient Khmer who built Angkor.

4) According to the first Chronicle of Cambodia, authored by one of the greatest kings of Cambodia “Nak-Ang-Eng” or Narairacha III (around 1800 AD) –purely Cambodian in his conduct –without as yet any influence of France–Cambodia’s ancestors are this King Sweet-Melon and his son named Nippean-bot.

5) King Sweet-Melon, according to the Chronicle, was formerly a farmer in the royal palace. He grew such a sweet melon that the king gave him a sacred spear in order to fend off thieves who might come to steal the precious melon. One night, the king had been so craving for the melon that he walked onto the melon field to pick one for himself. Mr. Sweet-melon mistook the king for a thief and speared him to death. After that, he took the princess as his wife and ascended the throne.

6) Later Chronicles that were influenced by the ruling French Colony had extended the Cambodian origin up to that of the Varman itself, the Varman whom the Cambodian legendary forefather had erased from the face of Angkor’s history. The extensions were of interest to the French colonialism which was expanding to take more and more territory from Siam, by claiming that these lands were historically linked to the Khmer-Varman empire.

7) Meanwhile sometime later than 1336 AD. at SriAyodhya, along the rim of the Chaophraya river in nowadays Thailand, King U-thong had been busying building his capital from scratches. This city would later become one of the greatest cities on earth, superseding Angkor and even Paris and London, at least in terms of numbers of population.

8) There had been numerous theories proposing the origin of this legendary King of nowadays Thailand. Among others are: He was a son of a Chinese Emperor, He was a rich Chinese merchant from Petchaburi province (Van Vlit’s Chronicles), He was a son of a king from ChiangSaen, A Sultan from Malaya, etc. In this article I am proposing yet another theory that: He was the leader of the Siamese people who were fleeing the “killing field” at Angkor. The killing field ensued from a revolt by the slaves who formed a huge majority at Angkor. And the leader of the slaves was Trosok Pream.

9) The city of Angkor has long been referred to by the Cambodians as “Seamreab”, meaning “annihilation of the Siamese people”. (Seam = siam, reab = flat, no more in existence) This insult ironically and indirectly becomes a strong evidence that the Siamese must have once heavily populated Angkor. ..they were killed and/or expelled away by the dominant slaves in 1336 AD., led by King Sweet Melon, in accordance with the 1st Cambodian Chronicle.

10) According to the record of the now-famous Zhou Da Guan, a China’s commercial envoy member, in 1296 AD., only 40 year before the killing field incident, the city of Angkor was dominated by “slaves”. ……“Most families have more than 100 slaves, some have 20, only the poorest families have none” , he wrote. It is not hard to estimate then that, out of about 1 million population of Angkor, 7 out of 10 were slaves. The rest of them were the King and his royal families, nobles, officials and their families, soldiers and their families, priests, Chinese merchants.

11) SriAyodhya was completed in 1350 AD., 14 years after the killing field incident. This was a very reasonable time span to build a city to accommodate around 2-300 thousand population. (This number was estimated by numerous scholars from various historical evidences and in my opinion is credible on historical contexts, for example in 1352 AD., only 2 years afterward, U-thong invaded Angkor; he must have had a large population base to form his army to fight the huge Cambodian army back then.)

12) The most relevant question to be asked is that: where did these 2-300 thousands come from? The most popular theory which held that they migrated from the nearby city of U-thong has now proved to be flawed since the city had been voided 2-300 hundred years before that. Even if so, U-thong city would have been too small to accommodate 300,000 population. In fact there was no other cities in the vicinity of 300 kilometers of SriAyodhya to have such number of population, except Angkor.

13) Zhou Da Guan writes further that the local people speak a “different language” from those of officials and scholars; …their skins are very dark but you can find people whose skins are as white as jade among the nobles; …they don’t know how to produce silk; ..nor do they know how to stitch and darn with a needle and thread.

14) Let’s pause and think — How could the majority of people who did not know how to weave elaborated clothing with a loom, did not know how to stitch and darn with a needle and thread, would know how to dig, move and carve immense stones to erect the magnificent Angkor? The only logical answer is that the stone temple of Angkor was designed and managed by another tribe of people who held more advanced technology. And within the vicinity around Angkor there were only the Chamese and the Siamese.

15) Given that the Chamese were traditional enemy and that Angkor Wat, Bapuan, Bayon were built in the same style as Phimai castle in Phimai which was completed some 50 years before Angkor. I am now proposing a new theory that: the people who conceived, designed and managed all the building of the stone temples of Angkor was the Siamese from Phimai (who had been blamed by most western scholars as, ironically, the one who demolished the greatness of Angkor.)

16) But these Siamese then were not totally the same people as the present day Thai. In fact they were referred to by the northern Thais as Khom. But apparently the Cambodian people of Ankor back then called them by the name of Siam (pronounced as seam in single syllable).

17) Zhou Da Guan, continued on his record: “The Siamese women did know how to weave silk with loom as well as stitch and darn with a needle. They brought silk worms and mulberry trees from the land of Siam.”

18) The Siamese had not been well known to be keen on mercantilism . But why did they appear at Angkor in such a number, so many so that Zhou had noticed their weaving ability? The answer is perhaps that they went there to accompany their families who were the ruling elites of Angkor, officials, scholars, soldiers and perhaps even some merchants. Some of them were also ‘as white as jade’ since the Siamese, then as is now, were of mixed races.

19) The connections of the ruling elites at Angkor and the Siamese are numerous, indicating that Lopburi, Pimai and Angkor were related not only by interests but also by blood. To mention just a few:

19.1 Suryavarman I is believed to be a Buddhist . Where did he get Buddhism idea from, other than Phimai? His origin was unknown either. But he had fought hard in battle for some years for the throne. It is very possible that Phimai, a predominantly Buddhist culture, sent an armed forces to establish him as a buddhist king? That was why he built Phimai castle at Pimai, not at Angkor.

19.2 Chayavarman VI is now widely accepted as coming from the Korat plateau’s city of Pimai. He built a 220 kilometer super-highway which linked Pimai and Angkor. He also finished the building of Pimai stone temple which was initiated by S-I.

19.3 Most important thing in connection with C-6 is that he claimed to have descended from his mythical father named “Kambhu Svayambhuva” and a mother named “Mera.” These two words, one was his first name and the second was his second name, had perhaps been transformed into two of the most confusing words, namely, those of Kambhuja and Syam (Siam)

19.4 Svayambhuva, was in fact another name for Bhraman. Morever this name had appeared in Pallava, Sanskrit, Pali -stone inscriptions all over the “Land Zhenla” area from wat Pu to Ubonrajatani to Srithep since about the 6th AD. I am thus inclined to believe that C-6 had ascended the throne with the help of Pimai’s army. Phimai troops must have remained in Angkor for a long time to assure stability, so much so that families members from Pimai came to accompany them, bringing silk weaving technology along with them (Pimai has been famous for her supreme silk weaving technology even nowadays.) To accommodate the extreme hardship of family migrations then C-6 ordered the building of the super-highway. The Pimai soldiers and their families were then honorably referred to by the local people as the “Swayam” (descendants of Swayambhuva) which later shortened to “Syam” and later as “Seam” to suit the tongues of the local Cambodians.

19.5 Some analyst even conclude that C-6 spent most of his time at Pimai, not at Angkor.

19.6 Suryavarman II is believed to have come from Lopburi. His name and suffix “II” indicates some relations to S-I, hence Phimai. The fact that he is the only Varman king to worship Vishnu rather than Shiva is still a puzzle to historians. IMO this, too, could be linked to the influence of Lopburi’s and Phimai’s Buddhism. S-I had testified before him that Buddhism would not work out well in the predominantly hindu society, so S-II learned from S-I’s mistakes and employed a new subtle tactic. One should realize that the Buddha was also believed by the Hindu to be the 9th reincarnation of Vishnu. So by adopting Vishnu S-II could win over the minds of both beliefs and that was what making him one of Angkor’s greatest kings, second perhaps only to Chayavarman VII.

20) Here comes accounts of the greatest king of them all—Chayavarman VII. Inscriptions about his origin were vague. Some speculated that he spent his early life in Champa; but I beg to be different for I think that he was from Pimai. The evidences for this are numerous, mostly contextual:

20.1He came from nowhere to expel away the Cham invaders who had occupied Angkor for 4 years. Had he come from Champa, where would he recruit his huge army to recapture Angkor in 4 years?; from the Cham itself?

20.2Only logical answer is : he came from Pimai. As in the case of C-6, Pimai , again, helped him to expel Champa , most likely with support from Lopburi, as is evident by the bas relief on Angkor walls, depicting Lopburi and “Syam Kuk” soldiers side by side.

20.3Do not forget also that C6, S2 and C7 are linked by blood through the Mahendhrapura dynasty and that the founder is C6 who was from Phimai.

20.4 C-7 became a most devout Buddhist. Whose influence was that?, Champa? No way. Because Champa’s culture back then was dominantly hinduistic with some initial Islamic influences. It was impossible for C-7 to have been nurtured in such environments and later became a devout Buddhist.

20.5 After his ascent to greatness, he rewarded Phimai with a renovation of the super-highway, several hundreds of mini-hospitals and rest areas (arokaya-sala) were erected along the highway. His stone monuments were found deep under grounds, not surprisingly in both Angkor and Pimai. These renovations were to facilitate more migration of the Svayamese from Pimai to reunite with their relatives (soldiers, officers, nobles) in Angkor.

20.6 All of the mentioned evidences point to the fact that C-7 was from Pimai. He was also a grand son of the great forefather “Svayam”.

21) One of the most amazing thing that have been hitherto looked over is that the Cambodian people today still count their numbers the same way as recorded by Zhou Da Guan: They count only to 5. For 6 they pronounce it as 5-1, 7 as 5-2 and so on. Counting system and its pronunciation, in my opinion, is the strongest evidence of a cultural linkage. The fact that the ancient Varman and the U-thong people of Ayodhaya used the same counting system and the alphabets from 1-10 were exactly the same, based on a base 10 numerals, at least confirms that they were of different tribes from the Cambodian.

22) The Dhevaraja (God-King) concept is the most prominent feature of the Varman dynasty. King Sweet-Melon , being ascended from a slave class by killing off the Varman, certainly wouldn’t dare claim to be one of such a highly prestigious origin. Turning a crisis into an opportunity, he established himself as a new truly Cambodian king who is “in touch” with the people. That was why he was highly regarded as the legendary forefather of the Cambodia race, as later chronicled by King Nag-Ong-Eng.

23) The dhevaraja traditions, however, had been long rooted in Khmer culture and should not be as easily abolished by a mere spearing of a Varman king. Its seed had been brought to and sprouted again at SriAyodhya. The royal name for King U-Thong is “Rama-I” who was “King of Ayodhya”. According to the Ramayana Epic of India, Rama was none other than the 8th reincarnation of Vishnu, a mythical king of a mythical heavenly city named Ayodhya.

24) Raja-supth (The royal language) is required for any Thai to address their King. This tradition has not been changed much since the time of early SriAyodhya. The language is very refined: mostly a mixture of Sanskrit and Khom (ancient Khmer ). This is another strong evidence that king U-Thong was from Angkor. He was a Khom (ancient khmer), what other languages would we expect him to speak to his people? So he spoke Khom to them. Later, the language was used by the court as the sacred language of the dhevaraja; this was a good strategy in governing the kingdom.

25) Early SriAyudhya literatures had been recorded with a mixture of Thai, Khom, Pali, Sanskrit. These are evident in the books of “Ong-karn-Chaeng-Nam” and the “Li-lit-yuan-paii”, for examples. These are additional evidences that the early Ayodhayians were originally from Angkor but later mixed with the affluence of the Thai- (and mon-, and laos-) speaking people and transform into the present-day Thai people.

26) The first Westerner to discover the ruin of Angkor were not the French, but the Portuguese, in around 1600 AD. They recorded that the local people testified that Angkor had been built by foreigners and the Portuguese concluded that these foreigners were the ones who built SriAyodhya.

27) The naming of the various Prasats at Angkor are very interesting for they are very Siamese; signifying that the kings who named them must have had strong links with the Siamese or perhaps the Siamese themselves.

1 First of all Angkor Wat: Angkor is a variation of Nakara in Sanskrit but Wat is simply “temple” in Siamese. Angkor Wat is then “temple city.”
2 Angkor Thom: most scholars translate Thom as ‘big’; but I think Thom here is rather a variation of Tham, a siamese rendition of Dhamma in Pali. So Angkor Thom is really “the city of Dhamma.” It is unthinkable that a Dhammic king like C-7 who built such a magnificent city would have named his city by a ‘little’ name such as ‘big city.” Moreover, the spelling of Thom is also exactly the same spelling of Tham in Pali. (note that only the Siamese used Pali.)
3 NeakPean (NakPan in Siamese) : It means “coiled by Naka (a mythical snake)” The shortening of Sanskrit words such as Naka into “Nak” was a typical Siamese style founded all over in their language. (Raja= Raj, Rama=Ram, Kasatriya=Kasat, Parama= Borom, etc.)
4 PhimeanAkas: (PimanAkas in Siamese ) the word Piman was a pali rendition of Vimana in Sanskrit. Akas was also a shortening of a formerly longer word (perhaps Akasa : thin air, heaven ). The change of V in Sanskrit to P was also unique in Siamese—a Pali influence.
5 Prea….. (Phra… in Siamese): Here again the word Phra is uniquely very Siamese: a prefix for something sacred. This was a Siamese rendition of Vra in Sanskrit. There are so many prasarts beginning with Phra such as PreaKand, PreaPalilay, PreaRup – some are understood readily in Siamese.
6 Ta…(Ancestor, or Eye) : such as TaProm, TaKeaw
7 PakSiJamKrong: (Bird in cage) : Paksi is bird in Sanskrit but JamKrong is Siamese.
8 TepPanom (Respecting Angel): very Siamese, especially Tep is a siamese rendition of Teva in Sanskrit. Here we have both the shortening style and the P in place of V style.
9 ChauSayTevada (Linage of angel): all Siamese
10 Even Bayon might be related since Ba is Learned One in Isan-siamese and Yon is Looking. So Bayon could mean LearnedOne Looking. LearnedOne here is the Buddha whose 216 giant stone faces are Looking all over.
11 Most names of the prasarts at Angkor wat and Angkor thom are very related to Siamese language. Only a few are not readily discernable; like panom-bakeng, Thomanon.

There are still several more evidences in recorded history, contexts, archaeological artifacts, arts, cultures, languages as well as plain common senses to help us to conclude that the ancient Khmer people who built the great Angkor stone temples are not of the same tribe as the present day Cambodians (2011 AD). Quite to the opposite, these mysterious group of people were evidently exterminated by the revolting slaves who formed the majority in Angkor population by a margin of 7:3. I am certain that there would be many more evidences to support my proposed theory coming forth in the future as our minds are no longer blocked by a curtain of pre-conception.

I am also well aware that it is difficult to accept this new theory about Angkor’s past because the French scholastic machine, sponsored by her colonial wealth, had planted quite a strong scholastic root that already grew so deep.

As to the Cambodian people I do not mean to insult their pride; but historical facts sometimes are hard to swallow. We should learn from it constructively in order to not repeating its past cruelty in our present time.

bangkok nakhom pnthom

, there are ancient destinations too proximate and too grand to ignore, such as Nakhom Pathom, which is merely 56 kilometers west of Bangkok or an hour away by bus. this oldest city in Thailand is an opportunity to get amazed by the 127-meter Phra Pathom Chedi, the world’s tallest Buddhist monument.

The comparative of  Khmer architecture and culture
 Khmer Angkor with Siamese

Siamese architecture

Your Apsara

Simese Thai

Your god’s face

Sukhothai Buddha face


See the different?

Khmer is Siam’s territory for many hundred year it ‘s Siam to teach your siamese culture after Angkor fall.

Ayutthaya

is another worthy catch.Only 80 kilometers north or two hours away by bus, a day stroll along the ruins of this golden city can give you glimpse of how illustrious this city once was. For over 400 years, it was once the country’s capital, starting in 1351 when King Ramathibodi I founded the kingdom of Ayutthaya in an island in the middle of Chao Phraya, and ending in 1767 when it was sacked by the Burmese.

At the zenith of its glory days, Ayutthaya was the most fabulous city in the orient. A series of magnificent palaces, gilded Buddhist temples and pagodas, and towering Buddha statues were placed all over the kingdom. Hundreds of thousands of people lived and worshipped within its protected sphere. After more than 200 years since it was abandoned, and after its structures were exposed to unforgiving elements of nature and endless pillaging of dastardly humans, the ruins of these great artistic and engineering feats are now the only mute witnesses to remind humanity that there once was, in the early dawn of civilization, a kingdom so strong and powerful, and a community of rulers and people so devoted to a faith.

In Ayutthaya, you must visit Wat Maha That (Temple of the Great Relic) built between 1374 and 1395. It has a sitting Buddha with his hands in the bhumisparsha, or “calling the earth to witness” position. Wat Thammikkarat (Temple of the Pious Monarch) and its stone lions; Wat Rarburana (Temple of the Royal Restoration); the huge reclining buddha of the Wat Yai Chai Mongkhon (Temple of the Great Victory); the three stupas of Wat Phra Si Sanphet, where remains of King Ramathibodhi II and some of his family members are interred; and the large Buddha statue of Wat Monkhon Bophit (Tempple of Auspicious Kings)

The Kingdom of Siam in Ayutthaya, which gave troubled Chiang Mai
for centuries, was eventually destroyed by the Burmese

The history of Chiang Mai can be traced back to 1296, when King Mangrai established his new capital there. It was in fact the third time he built a capital, having founded Chiang Rai and Wiang Kum Kam in 1262 and 1288 respectively.

The choice of site for Chiang Mai was not done by chance. The king delved into geomancy and mysticism to find the most auspicious site. Before selecting where to place his capital, he spent many nights camped out in the fields “seeking a dream”. The place was inhabited by the Lawa tribe. One day, he saw two hog-deer confronting a pack of hunting dogs (or in some documents, wolves). The shamans from the Lawa tribe told him to take that as an auspicious sign. With that in consideration, King Mangrai decided upon the location of his new capital. The site in question is said to be somewhere around present-day Wat Chiang Man.

To plan out his capital, King Mangrai roped in his pals, King Ramkamhaeng of Sukhothai and King Ngam Muang of Phayao, with whom he had formed alliances. They advised him on the dimension he should built, but Mangrai wanted it on a grander scale. Eventually he settled upon a rectangular fortress city measuring 1000 wa by 400 wa, which corresponds to 2000 meters by 800 meters. This measurement, as chronicled in historical records, bears no resemblence to the medieval walls of Chiang Mai, which measures 1800 meters by 2000 meters. So far, there is no explanation available for the glaring difference.

The site chosen for Chiang Mai is deemed to be auspicious for many reasons, some of which related to water supply. The Ping river was to the east, allowing for ease of transportation, drainage and irrigation. The hills to the west are regarded as sacred and believed to be the dwelling of the Amithaba Buddha. Today there are a few forest wats here.

The city itself was planned to align almost exactly to the cardinal directions, albeit slightly off. In this regard, it follows the layout similar to that of Angkor Thom, which was built by King Jayavarman VII in 1811. The positioning of the royal palace in the northern part of the city also followed that of Angkor Thom while the placement of lak muang, or city pillar, at the centre of Chiang Mai, to represent Mount Meru, the centre of the universe, also had a precedent in Angkor Thom, where the temple of Bayon, also representing Mount Meru, is sited at the very heart of Angkor Thom.

With Chiang Mai as his capital, King Mangrai ruled over a kingdom known as Lanna, which translates variously as “a thousand rice fields”, “ten thousand rice fields”, and “a million rice fields”. By 1298, the year King Ramkamhaeng of Sukhothai died, the Lanna Kingdom had included Lampang, Lamphun, Tak, Pai Valley in the west, Muang Nai, Keng Tung and Jing Hong. With the death of King Ramkamhaeng, Sukhothai went into decline, and before long, the town of Phayao, previously controlled by Sukhothai, passed to Lanna.

King Mangrai died suddenly in 1317, causing a succession dispute for his throne. His second son, Prince Chai Songkhram, ascended the throne briefly. Then he went into retirement in Chiang Rai, and passed the throne to his son, Prince Saen Phu, in 1318. King Mangrai’s youngest son wanted the throne for himself. When his father died, he was a ruler of Muang Nai. Now he returned and seized the throne from his nephew, forcing King Saen Phu to join his father in retirement in Chiang Rai. The usurper ruled for three years before being ousted by King Saen Phu’s brother, Prince Nam Thuam. King Saen Phu then returned to rule for another decade, until he died in 1334.

Succeeding King Saen Phu was his son Prince Kham Fu, who ruled for only three years before he too died, and passed the throne to his son, Pha Yu. King Pha Yu moved the capital to Chiang Rai, where it stayed for just about three years, before being moved back to Chiang Mai, this time for good.

The founding of the Kingdom of Siam in 1347 spelled trouble for Chiang Mai. This new and aggressive kingdom, with its capital in Ayutthaya wasted no time in acquire new land. Within a few short years, most of the Malay peninsula was under its rule. In 1349, Sukhothai became a vassal state to Ayutthaya, and was formally annexed in 1438. From 1380s onwards, Chiang Mai was suffering from repeated attacks from the Siamese. And as if one was not enough, along came confrontation from Burma as well. Despite the political headache, Chiang Mai continued to prosper during that time.

The Lanna Kingdom reached its cultural golden age when King Tilokaraj ascended the throne in 1441. He managed to push back Siamese forces, capturing Nan in 1449, Si Satchanalai in 1459 and Sukhothai in 1461. With this mighty show of force, King Tilokaraj managed to hold back Ayutthaya aggression for the following three decades.

Within a few years of King Tilokaraj’s death in 1487, Chiang Mai was back on the battlefield with Siam. This time, Ayutthaya pushed north as far as Lampang. However, the aggressiveness of Siam soon proved disastrous, not only for Chiang Mai, but for Ayutthaya itself. At that time, the southern Burmese Kingdom of Pegu (present-day Bago) was growing powerful. When Ayutthaya challenge it, Pegu responded forcefully. And Chiang Mai found itself caught in the middle.

Another round of succession dispute again weakened Chiang Mai. It began in 1538 when King Chettarat was deposed by his son. He got back the throne in 1543, only to be assassinated two years later. To fill the power vacuum, Prince Setthathirat of Luang Prabang was invited over to be king. He reigned for just two year when the death of his father compelled him to return to Luang Prabang, plunging Chiang Mai into a civil war. When the Burmese decided to attack, Chiang Mai was in no position to fend for itself. By 1558, Chiang Mai as well as the whole of Lanna was under Burmese suzerainty. Being under Burmese occupation was no bed of roses, for the Burmese used Chiang Mai as the base to attack Ayutthaya.

In 1578, the Mangrai dynasty came to an end with the death of Princess Wishutthithewi. The Burmese king installed his son on the Chiang Mai throne. In 1598, it was captured by Ayutthaya, but when Chiang Rai launched a rebellion against the Burmese, Burma sent an offensive that captured not only Chiang Rai, but Chiang Mai as well. This time Burmese aggression moved south towards Ayutthaya. In 1767, under the powerful King Alaungpaya, the Burmese ransacked Ayutthaya, burning it to the ground.

The Siamese fled Ayutthaya and regrouped downriver, in Thonburi, and then, having stabilized their position, started building their new capital in Bangkok. Under King Rama I, the Siamese launched a counterattack on Burma, defeating them in 1774 in Lampang. Siamese offensive continued northwards, capturing Chiang Mai in 1776 and Chiang Rai in 1786. Chiang Saen was the last Lanna city to fall under the Siamese, in 1804. No independence came to Lanna; just as the Burmese were thrown out, they were replaced by the Siamese. After all those years of warfare, Chiang Mai had become nothing more than a broken down city. The Siamese installed Prince Chao Kawila of Lampang as the ruler of Chiang Mai. To expedite the city’s recovery, Chao Kawila raided nearby villages and forced their population to resettle in Chiang Mai. So through forced resettlement, the towns of Lanna Kingdom were given a new lease of life, Chiang Mai in 1796,

 

Side view of cabinet with scenes of the Himavanta forest and the Ramayana, and a pair of celestials (detail), approx. 1750-1825.

 The Art of Central Thailand,

1350 – 1800

The Kingdom of Siam: The Art of Central Thailand, 1350–1800 is the world’s first major exhibition of art from Thailand’s lost kingdom of Ayutthaya, which outlived China’s Ming dynasty and shone with similar brilliance.

The exhibition, featuring rare artworks borrowed from collections in Thailand, Europe, and the United States, showcases the superb but little known arts of the Kingdom of Ayutthaya—one of the largest and most important kingdoms in Southeast Asia. The art works—many on view for the first time in the West—include stone and bronze Buddha images, sculptures of Hindu deities, figural and decorative wood carvings, temple furnishings, illuminated manuscripts, jewelry and textiles. Among the highlights are gold ceremonial objects from a temple crypt sealed in 1424; a full-sized temple pediment; and sections of royally-commissioned temple doors with inlaid mother of pearl. .

While nearly all aspects of the art of culture of China, Japan, and India have been extensively studied, notably less research currently exists on the cultural contributions of Southeast Asia.

The kingdom of Ayutthaya, founded in 1351,

flourished for more than 400 years—longer than China’s Ming dynasty. It was a major trading center with diplomatic ties with China, Japan, Persia, the Ryukyu kingdom (Okinawa), and, from the 17th century on, with Great Britain, France, Holland, and Portugal. In contrast to neighboring kingdoms, including perpetual rival Burma, Ayutthaya was cosmopolitan and outward–looking. The 1600s and early 1700s were a period of great prosperity and cultural accomplishment for the kingdom.

1767 

Despite its strengths, increasing pressures from Burma eventually weakened the kingdom, and it was devastated by a Burmese invasion in 1767. As a result, many of Ayutthaya artifacts, especially those made of fragile materials, were destroyed.

The Kingdom of Siam will provide  audiences with the unique opportunity to see some of the finest surviving works.