Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Manasara Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Manasara-Shilpashastra; III. Manasara on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Manasara: Translation; V. Architecture of Manasara: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v6.c41.s15: Siam

Mānasāra Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Mānasāra-Śilpaśāstra; III. Mānasāra on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Mānasāra: Translation; V. Architecture of Mānasāra: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v6.c41.s15

Language
English

Siam

v6.c41.s15.1

The ancient Śyāma-deśa was the north-western one of the six states forming the peninsula east of India and south of China. It then included Burma proper and the northern part of modern Siam³ east of the Salwin, of which Haripuṇya-pura, now Lamphum, on the Me-ping, was probably the capital. It was thus bounded on the west by India and the Indian Ocean, on the north by China, on the east by the Champā-deśa, and on the south by the Kambhoja-deśa, the sea (Śyāma-Sāgara) and the Malaya-deśa.

v6.c41.s15.2

³ The modern Siam is of much limited area. It has Burma and the Indian Ocean on the west; the Shan States of Burma, China, and Laos on the north; Annam (Champa) and Cochin China on the east; and Cambodia, Gulf of Siam, and the Malay Peninsula on the south.

v6.c41.s15.3

This ancient Siam is known from the epic tradition of the *Rāmāyaṇa* in connexion with the search for Sītā, stolen by Rāvaṇa; from the Buddhist tradition of Asoka and Kanishka having sent missionaries for propagation of Buddhism; from the inscriptions discovered in Champa and Cambodia; from the Siamese chronicles; from the annals of Ceylon, Malay Peninsula and Java; from the Chinese records and Japanese documents; and, lastly, from the accounts left by the Chinese and European travellers.¹

v6.c41.s15.4

¹ Compare Phanindranath Bose, *The Indian Colony of Siam*, pp. 3–17.

v6.c41.s15.5

The ancient Chinese empire claims to have extended in 585 B.C. up to the regions of the barbarians, including all the provinces south of the great Yang-tse-kiang.² Many and various tribes appear to have been included amongst these barbarians. ‘Most of them were Tai people, the ancestors of the Siamese, Lao, and Shans of today.’³ These Tai people were driven from their original home, Nanchao, and became ‘the first inhabitants of Siam, long before the dawn of history.’ ‘Later on, Siam was inhabited by three races whose descendants may still be seen. In the south were two types, a curly-headed people of Negrito origin, and a wavy-haired Indonesian race,’ represented by the naked and squalid Sewang and Sakai respectively, still wandering in the forests of the Malay Peninsula.⁴ The northern Siam was inhabited by the Was or Lawas, distinguished as wild and tame, the former ‘chiefly known through their habit of collecting human heads and decorating the approaches of their villages with rows of skulls,’ and the latter inhabiting Shan States and Siam and professing Buddhism, known ‘as peaceful cultivators or hunters in their mountain villages.’ ‘Many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years before the Christian era, another race of men settled in Southern Siam, known as the Khmers, represented by the Cambodians, the Mohns or Talaings of Pegu, the K’amuks of French Laos, and the K’as and other smaller tribes in the Shan States.’⁵

v6.c41.s15.6

² Demetrius Boulger, *History of China*.

v6.c41.s15.7

³ W. A. R. Wood, C.M.G., C.I.E., Consul-General, *A History of Siam* (1933), p. 31.

v6.c41.s15.8

⁴ Wood, *loc. cit.*, p. 40.

v6.c41.s15.9

⁵ *Ibid.*, pp. 41, 42.

v6.c41.s15.10

‘The Khmer civilization, the monumental remains of which have so astonished all investigators, was of purely Indian origin. It is not possible to say for certain when the first Indian settlers came to Siam or Cambodia, but there is no reason to suppose that any of their buildings, the remains of which are in existence, date from pre-Buddhist times.’ But General Wood admits the fact that ‘there were Indian settlers in pre-Buddhistic times. They must have professed Brahmanism.’ There is, however, reason to suppose that despite all the ancient stone inscriptions found in the region peopled by the Khmers being purely south Indian (Dravidian) both in lettering and language, ‘the first great influx of Indians into this region dated from the time of king Asoka’s invasion of Kalinga and that the settlers were natives of Kalinga’ and ‘formed colonies at various points along the coasts of the countries now known as Pegu, Siam, Cambodia, and Cochin-China.’¹ This view has been further substantiated by Fergusson when he says of Burma that it ‘adopted the religion of Sākyamuni (Buddha) and borrowed also many of the Indian forms of architecture, but with differences we are now at a loss to account for. It may be that, as we know nothing practically of the architectural forms of the lower Bengal provinces before the beginning of the sixth century, these forms may have been taken to Prome and Pegu before that time’² and may have migrated also to Siam.

v6.c41.s15.11

¹ Wood, *loc. cit.*, pp. 42, 43.

v6.c41.s15.12

² James Fergusson, *History of Indian and Eastern Architecture* (1910), Vol. II. p. 339.

v6.c41.s15.13

Support to this view is received also from the *Mahāvaṁśa’s* list of ten Buddhist missionaries sent forth to various parts of the world by king Asoka, including Suvarṇa-bhūmi (land of gold), variously identified with ‘the region extending from Pegu right down through the Malay Peninsula,’ with ‘southern Siam,’ and also with the island of Sumatra. Further, ‘Prince Damrong and other competent authorities believe that the original *stūpa* over which the existing large pagoda of Nak’on Prat’om was built dates from the time of king Asoka.’³ General Wood quotes Hiuen Tsang to the effect that king Sīlāditya of Kanoj sent missionaries to foreign countries, who must have visited Siam also ‘since images peculiar to that period have been discovered at Nak’on Prat’om, Nak’on Srit’ammarat, and in other parts of Siam.’⁴

v6.c41.s15.14

³ Wood, *loc. cit.*, pp. 43-44.

v6.c41.s15.15

⁴ *Ibid.*, 45-46.

v6.c41.s15.16

According to a Tamil inscription⁵ of the eighth or ninth century A.D. Indian merchants appear to have been in trade-relation with Siam in the early centuries of the Christian era, and they are stated to be the Tamil Vaishṇava soldiers who settled in Siam and built the temple of Vishṇu there.⁶

v6.c41.s15.17

⁵ E. Hultsch, *Note on a Tamil Inscription in Siam*, *J. R. A. S.* (1913), pp. 337-339.

v6.c41.s15.18

⁶ Bose, *loc. cit.*, p. 21.

v6.c41.s15.19

The architectural remains of Indian origin are very scanty and poor in Siam, especially in comparison with those in the neighbouring countries of Champa and Cambodia. In fact the Hindu monuments consist of a few unimportant temples and images of Vishṇu, Lakshmī, Śiva, and others. Even the Buddhist monuments are rather unimportant architecturally, but numerous in number, and include monasteries, *stūpas*, *chaityas*, pagodas, and images of Buddha.

v6.c41.s15.20

Temples at Sukhodaya, Phra, Pathom, Sajjanālaya, Ayuthia, Lophaburi, Sangkalok, and Bangkok have been referred to by travellers and historians. There are various structures built within the enclosures of temples. Their general classification and description may be gathered from an account of any one temple.

v6.c41.s15.21

‘The outer enclosure of a temple was always rectangular, and generally of greater length than width. The enclosure walls were as a rule about 3 feet thick, and from 12 to 14 feet high. The most important building in the *vāt* (enclosure) was the *bot* (the sacred temple) and usually the first built. The *bot* was rectangular in plan, and was divided into central and side aisles by columns in stone, carrying open timber roofs covered with glazed tiles in bright colours. The roofs over the side aisles were at a lower level than that of the central aisles, leaving space for a clerestory, which consisted of pierced terra-cotta slabs. Similar perforated screens were built in between the outer columns of the aisles. In important temples the *bot* had double aisles on each side.’

v6.c41.s15.22

‘The principal feature in the *bot*, admission to which was confined to the priests, was the great altar carrying a gilded statue of Buddha, which was always placed in the central aisles, in the last bay but one.’

v6.c41.s15.23

Just like the ordinary shrine, the *bot* (of Vāt Jai at Sukhodaya) stood opposite the main entrance in the east and had a porch in front. ‘In its rear was the principal *phra* (*stūpa*) of the temple, of which there were two types of design,¹ the *phra-prang* and the *phra-chedi*. The former is of a type peculiar to Siam, about half way up is the cell, with its entrance door on the eastern side, access to which was obtained by a steep flight of steps, and recessed niches on the three other sides.’ Thus it differed in many essential respects from similar structures in India or Burma. ‘The top, or upper part, has a domical shape, which we can easily fancy to be derived from the *stūpa*, but the upright part looks more like the *śikhara* of a Hindu temple than anything Buddhist.’

v6.c41.s15.24

¹ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, Plate XLVI.

v6.c41.s15.25

‘The *phra-chedi* (of Vāt Jai at Sukhodaya) is based apparently on the *stūpas* of India, the cells containing the relics of Buddha, however, being placed underground, and reached in the larger examples by secret passages in the thickness of the walls. The enormous structures now existing of the Pathom *chedi* is the second enclosure or envelope of the original *chedi*, and rises to the height of 344 feet. It is surrounded by a triple gallery with numerous pavilions, the roofs of which were in the last rebuilding (of 1862) copied from those of Angkor Vāt in Cambodia.’¹

v6.c41.s15.26

¹ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, Vol. II, pp. 406, 407, 408.

v6.c41.s15.27

The *vihāns* (*vihāras*) and *kamburiens* are similar in design to the *bot*, but smaller in size. Therein also people assembled to offer up prayers and listen to sermons.

v6.c41.s15.28

There are two other types of buildings found only in the royal temples. They are known as *chuttamukk*, that is, *chaturmukha* (four-faced), and *mora-dob*, *mondob*, i.e. *maṇḍapa* or pavilion, both elaborately described in the *Mānasāra Śilpa-śāstra*. ‘The former, cruciform (*svastika*) in plan, was originally built to shelter a statue of the four-faced Brahmā; this has been destroyed, and its place taken by four niches, placed back to back, each with a statue of Buddha facing the cardinal points.’ The finest example is stated to have been found in the Vāt Maṇḍapa Si Nā at Sajjanalaya.

v6.c41.s15.29

The *maṇḍapa* (or pavilion) is ‘usually a rectangular building, containing a statue of Buddha. In the Vāt Si Jum at Sukhodaya, it measured 57 feet wide by 70 feet deep, and sheltered an immense statue of Buddha, nearly 50 feet high, which was constructed in brick, coated with stucco and gilded. The walls of the *maṇḍapa* were also built in brick, and they carried a lofty roof or tower of the same material; at a height of 32 feet from the ground the brick courses commenced to project one in front of the other, till they met at the top, thus forming in section an inverted pyramid.’²

v6.c41.s15.30

² *Ibid.*, Vol. II, p. 408.

v6.c41.s15.31

Smaller pavilions were built ‘to hold the Buddha-pāda, the mythical representation of the sacred feet of Buddha.’³

v6.c41.s15.32

³ Locally known as Phrabat, wheel of the Law, the most famous example in Siam being 12 miles from Lophaburi.

v6.c41.s15.33

The other types of buildings are the Belfry (Ho’ Rakhang) and the sacred Library (Ho’ Trai), the latter found only in the royal temples. The sacred tank in the enclosures was known as Sa, equivalent to the Cambodian Sra and the Indian Saras.

v6.c41.s15.34

‘The principal *phra* differs slightly in design (from those already described), the upper part being partly *chedi* and partly *prang*. It is raised on a platform and surrounded by eight smaller towers, consisting of a lower storey, with niche on each side containing a statue of Buddha, with a superstructure recalling the entrance doorways of Cambodia and Java, though the sculpture is very inferior. Above the architrave, carried by rectangular piers with moulded capitals, is a pediment enclosed with richly carved moulding, with dragons’ heads on each side, and in the tympanum, which forms a niche, is a figure of Buddha in the *nirvāṇa* posture, with other figures. Above, there is a second storey with a repetition of the pediment and niche to a smaller scale, and there may have been a third storey, rising about 25 feet in height, the great *phra* in the centre being 80 to 90 feet high. Three towers of a similar kind, placed side by side, exist in the Vāt Sisavai, also at Sukhodaya where they take the place of the *phra*. Above a plain ground storey, with three angle projections, are other storeys, of which six still exist in the western tower on the right, and on each face is a niche with trefoil head and *nāga* terminations enclosing a statue, and, on the angle projections, antefixae carved with heads of *garuḍas* and other deities. The upper storeys are only slightly set back, one behind the other, so that they may be the prototypes of the *phra prang*.’¹

v6.c41.s15.35

¹ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, Vol. II, p. 409. Plate XLVII.

v6.c41.s15.36

‘Of some of these structures many examples would be found in the same enclosure. Thus in the Vāt Jai at Sukhodaya, the most important temple illustrated by Fournereau, there was one great *phra-chedi* and its annexes, two *bots*, six *vihāns*, three *kamburiens*, one *maṇḍapa*, ten small pavilions, five *phra-prang*, and over a hundred *phra-chedi*, most of these being erected by private persons as funeral monuments and memorials—altogether nearly two hundred structures.’²

v6.c41.s15.37

² *Ibid.*, Vol. II, pp. 408–409.

v6.c41.s15.38

The design of the *phra-prang* is found in the crowning members of the (modern) pagodas of Bangkok. But their ‘elaboration of detail and exuberance of coloured ornament’ is disapproved by Fergusson, and stated to have been ‘here carried to an extent truly barbarous.’ But they show ‘the innate and irrepressible love of architecture they display.’ Fergusson comments, however, in strong terms when he says, ‘but it also shows how easily these higher aspirations degenerate into something very like vulgarity, when exercised by a people in so low a stage of civilization as the modern Siamese.’

v6.c41.s15.39

‘The same remarks apply to their civic buildings: palaces and porticos, and even dwelling-houses, are all as rich as carving and gilding and painting can make them; but, as in the pagodas, it is overdone and fails to please, because it verges on vulgarity.’ Being in despair of the future even, Fergusson concludes that ‘the new civilization is not indigenous, but an importation. The men of progress wear hats, the ladies French gowns, and they build palaces with Corinthian porticos and sash-windows.’ He truly deplores the similar state of affairs in India when he says, ‘it is the sort of civilization that is found in the bāzār in Calcutta, and it is not desirable, in an architectural point of view, at all events, if, indeed, it is so in any other respect.’¹

v6.c41.s15.40

¹ Fergusson, *loc. cit.*, Vol. II, pp. 412, 413.

v6.c41.s15.41

The pagodas generally built on the banks of ruins are, however, ‘like so many monastic towns in the middle of nice gardens with shrines dedicated to Lord Buddha. There are preaching halls and temporary accommodation for pilgrims and houses for monks.’²

v6.c41.s15.42

² Bose, *loc. cit.*, p. 102.

v6.c41.s15.43

The country of Siam appears to have been markedly connected with India from the time of king Asoka. The religions, tradition, culture, and population are of Indian extract. Some 98 per cent. of Siamese at present profess Buddhism. Before the time of Asoka, there are reasons to believe, Hinduism was prevalent there. The images of Vishṇu, Gaṇeśa, and other deities, and of Rāma, Sītā, as well as the incidents of the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Mahābhārata* are found depicted in temples and monasteries in Siam. The names of places like Ayodhya, Saurashtra, Maharastra, Vishṇu-loka, etc., as also of persons, are Indian in origin. The name of the country itself sounds like Indian.

v6.c41.s15.44

Of architecture and sculpture there are numerous examples, as indicated above, to show that India contributed the leading principles.

v6.c41.s15.47

A PAGÁN PAGODA TOGETHER WITH A MONASTERY SHOWING THE HINDU SIKHARA. INSET:—HINDU SIKHARA IN A SIAMESE TEMPLE ‘The story of the *Rāmāyaṇa* is illustrated on the walls of the royal temple at Bangkok.’ The stories of Jātakas were sculptured in Sukhodaya. Thus in religion, in literature, in art, in sculpture, in architecture Siam owes a lot to India. There are kings with Indian titles, ministers and officers bearing Indian names, and Indian customs and ceremonies practised in Siamese families.

v6.c41.s15.48

The Brahmans are stated to have still maintained a leading position in the royal court of Siam. ‘They preside over coronation and other important ceremonies, and occupy as honourable a position as the Buddhist monks in the royal court. They compose the names of the princes, towns, and temples in Sanskrit. They also act as *Hora*, or astrologers, and *Āchār* (i.e. Achārya, preceptor) of pagodas.’¹

v6.c41.s15.49

¹ Bose (*loc. cit.*, p. 109) refers, as his authority, to *Siam* in *E. R. E.*

Linked texts (5)