Loi Krathong - Wat Mahathat, Old Sukhothai

[Stone Inscription 1]

The annual Loi Krathong celebrations will take place in Muang Kao (Old Sukhothai), and be centred at Wat Mahathat. The Festival will last from 24-28 November.

One of the controversial aspects of the festival is its origins. According to many government sites, Loi Krathong began in Thailand at Sukhothai. However, a close reading of the Lamphun, Cammadevi and Chiang Mai Chronicles suggests Loi Krathong first began in the Mon Kingdom of Haripunchai (modern Lamphun). According to these sources, a epidemic took place at Haripunchai and the people of the city moved to stay within their Mon compatriots in Pegu, Burma. Three years later they returned to Haripunchai and to show their respect and gratitude to their Mon brethen in Pegu, they floated lighted candles in flower leaf boats to Pegu.

[Kwasaki]

Here's a good account there are many controversial claims in Thai History..

http://www.loikrathong.net/en/History.php

As I understand it was started with the floating of a lantern and adopted by Thais after Nang Noppamas floated a krathong in Sukhothai.

[Stone Inscription 1]

Thanks for that very interesting explanation. This is the official Thai view; however, it is refuted by evidence from the Chronicles from the North of Thailand. I will quote from one of those tomorrow. I do not have it with me at work now.

Whatever the real history of the festival, Loi Krathong is a historic, enjoyable and fascinating tradition.

[Stone Inscription 1]

This is the information from the Cammadevi Chronicle (Bodhiramsi's Camadevivamsa) translated and commented on by D.K. Swearer and Sommai Premchit. Cammadevi was the Mon female ruler of Haripunchai in the 7th century. The Lamphun, Chiang Mai and Nan Chronicles has similar accounts of the origins of Loi Krathong in the Mon kingdom.

"The people suffering with cholera were abandoned; those who survived destroyed their houses and fled for safety. Therefore, the remaining population of Haripunjaya (Lamphun, Thailand)...fled to a city named Sudhamma (Thaton, Burma) and settled there....

The King of Pukham (Pagan, Burma) observing the masses of weak and starving people, was moved to pity and out of his compassion restored the city of Thaton for them to occupy.

Unable to bear their suffering any longer, the people of Haripunjaya left Thaton and went to Hamsavati (Pegu, Burma) where they continued to live....the king of Pegu...gave them many necessities, including clothing, jewelry, paddy, rice, various salty and sour foods, and dwelling places.

The inhabitants of Haripunjaya and of Pegu came to know and love one another. Even their languages was the same....After six years the cholera epidemic subsided....those who wanted to return to Haripunjaya departed and dwelt again in the city.

Those who did not want to return or who were too old or who had married the sons and daughters of the local people remained at Pegu. Those who had returned to Haripunjaya recalled, 'Many of our relatives-grandparents and parents-still live in Pegu,' and so they annually floated downstream several offerings such as hard and soft foods dedicated to their relatives' spirits....This tradition of remembrance continues to this day."

[Kwasaki]

As the link explained I don't think there is any dispute about when it started just that the Sukhothai Krathong "Floating Crown", was to be made in a Lotus shape :-

" kings of Siam have to make floating lantern- like lotus-shaped "

Edited November 30, 2012 by Kwasaki

[jambco984]

As the link explained I don't think there is any dispute about when it started just that the Sukhothai Krathong was to be made in a Lotus shape :-

" kings of Siam have to make floating lantern- like lotus-shaped "

You know everything Kwaka

[Stone Inscription 1]

He is good, but not that good 555+

[Kwasaki]

He is good, but not that good 555+

But I am still referred to as the "Oracle" by some.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Kwasaki

[Stone Inscription 1]

The problem with your source is that it does not provide any dates, and makes reference to Siamese beliefs. It ignores the Mon and northern Thai traditions that pre-date that of Sukhothai. It is possible from the northern Thai chronicles, as noted above, to argue coherently and effectively that this tradition began in Haripunchai in present-day Thailand.

Just because A Thai-centric link indicates that something is true, does not make it true. They need an inscription or chronicle to back up their claim. This the northern Thai chronicles do.

You still retain the title of Oracle, but you need better sources than that provided.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Stone Inscription 1

[Kwasaki]

The problem with your source is that it does not provide any dates, and makes reference to Siamese beliefs. It ignores the Mon and northern Thai traditions that pre-date that of Sukhothai. It is possible from the northern Thai chronicles, as noted above, to argue coherently and effectively that this tradition began in Haripunchai in present-day Thailand.

Just because A Thai-centric link indicates that something is true, does not make it true. They need an inscription or chronicle to back up their claim. This the northern Thai chronicles do.

You still retain the title of Oracle, but you need better sources than that provided.

Like the source of Gods that are believed in I guess, the only date given is 14th century and of course the Loi Krathong Sukhothai lady mentioned didn't have a birth certificate.

I do like the history though and for sure some of which cannot be proved.

It is believed the Thais moved from their ancestral home in southern China into mainland Southeast Asia around the 10th century AD.

Prior to this, what was known as Greater India the Indianized kingdoms ruled, such as the Mon who settled further to the west in Myanmar or Burma as it is also known.

It is believed the region known as Thailand now, has been inhabited by humans since a prehistoric period know as the Paleolithic era, about 10,000 years ago.

Although the Chiang Saen city according to an ancient chronicle, was built in AD 545 in an area called Yonok by Tai migrants from China the original city of Chiang Saen was believed to have been built in what is now known as the northern part of Chiang Rai province.

The believed history of Thai people was to first establish their own states with there first King of the Phra Ruang Dynasty in 1238.

King Sri Indraditya ruled for 30 years, and the rise of the first Thai or Siamese state as it is traditionally known is also considered to be the Buddhist Kingdoms of Sukhothai, and they existed until 1438.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Kwasaki

[Stone Inscription 1]

I too am a university historian (Southeast Asia, China, British Empire) and would recommend articles written by Michael Vickery who has read many inscriptions and suggests Sukhothai was probably initially Lao and not Thai. Furthermore, the Ramkhamhaeng inscription may be a forgery (I believe the Siam Society has published these articles). Numerous current Thai historians agree with Vickery. Betty Gosling has parts of these arguments in her book, 'Sukhothai: Its History, Culture, Art'.

Here are some articles by Dr. Vickery:

7. "The Ram Khamhaeng Inscription, A Piltdown Skull of Southeast Asian History?", in The

Ram Khamhaeng Controversy, Collected Papers, Edited by James R. Chamberlain, Bangkok,

The Siam Society, 1991, pp. 3-52. http://michaelvickery.org/vickery1991ram.pdf

8. "Piltdown Skull--Installment 2", in The Ram Khamhaeng Controversy, Collected Papers,

Edited by James R. Chamberlain, Bangkok, The Siam Society, 1991, pp. 333-418.

http://michaelvickery.org/vickery1991piltdown.pdf

"The Lion Prince and Related Remarks on Northern History", JSS LXIV, 1 (January 1976), pp. 326-377.

"A Guide Through Some Recent Sukhothai Historiography", JSS LXVI, 2 (July 1978), 182-246.

http://michaelvickery.org/vickery1978guide-rev.pdf *

20. "From Lamphun to Inscription No. 2", The Siam Society Newsletter, 3/1 (March 1987), pp. 2-6.

[Stone Inscription 1]

Here is another article by Vickery:

"The Old City of 'Chaliang'--' Srī Satchanalai'--'Sawankhalok', a Problem in History and Historiography",

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 78, Part 2 (1990), pp. 15-29.

http://michaelvickery.org/vickery1990old-rev.pdf *

The administrator is prohibiting me from including two other references from Vickery owing to the fact that I am new to this forum.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Stone Inscription 1

[Kwasaki]

Here is another article by Vickery:

"The Old City of 'Chaliang'--' Srī Satchanalai'--'Sawankhalok', a Problem in History and Historiography",

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 78, Part 2 (1990), pp. 15-29.

http://michaelvickery.org/vickery1990old-rev.pdf *

The administrator is prohibiting me from including two other references from Vickery owing to the fact that I am new to this forum.

Thanks for the info, and be careful out there, some people are easily upset.

[Stone Inscription 1]

Most academics are open to debates, and the rest of the population, for the most part, do not follow the arguments closely.

Sorry, I could not reply to your PM owing to this message: You are not allowed to use the private messaging system. However, I understand it and know some of the problems. I was a student in History at Chiang Mai U. back in the mid-1980s. Thanks again.

Thanks.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Stone Inscription 1

[kelboy]

Here is another article by Vickery:

"The Old City of 'Chaliang'--' Srī Satchanalai'--'Sawankhalok', a Problem in History and Historiography",

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 78, Part 2 (1990), pp. 15-29.

http://michaelvickery.org/vickery1990old-rev.pdf *

The administrator is prohibiting me from including two other references from Vickery owing to the fact that I am new to this forum.

Thanks for the info, and be careful out there, some people are easily upset.

yes they are arn't they.

[Kwasaki]

Here is another article by Vickery:

"The Old City of 'Chaliang'--' Srī Satchanalai'--'Sawankhalok', a Problem in History and Historiography",

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 78, Part 2 (1990), pp. 15-29.

http://michaelvickery.org/vickery1990old-rev.pdf *

The administrator is prohibiting me from including two other references from Vickery owing to the fact that I am new to this forum.

Thanks for the info, and be careful out there, some people are easily upset.

yes they are arn't they.

Yep for sure !! I use to know a few.

[jambco984]

Here is another article by Vickery:

"The Old City of 'Chaliang'--' Srī Satchanalai'--'Sawankhalok', a Problem in History and Historiography",

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 78, Part 2 (1990), pp. 15-29.

http://michaelvickery.org/vickery1990old-rev.pdf *

The administrator is prohibiting me from including two other references from Vickery owing to the fact that I am new to this forum.

Thanks for the info, and be careful out there, some people are easily upset.

yes they are arn't they.

Yep for sure !! I use to know a few.

Tongue placed in cheek.

[Kwasaki]

Thanks for the info, and be careful out there, some people are easily upset.

yes they are arn't they.

Yep for sure !! I use to know a few.

Tongue placed in cheek.

Tongue cheek err, maybe I can get a word in then Well my friend at least you did not turn out to be as weir as the others.

[jambco984]

Haha i dont know said others but your alright by me matey

[Stone Inscription 1]

It seems the historical controversy over Sukhothai continues,

Daring revision

Book on Thai art by a well-known historian not only provides stunning scholarship, but also sufficient material to keep the controversy cauldron bubbling for the decades

• Published: 4 Feb 2013 at 00.00
  
• Newspaper section: Life
  

The eminent art historian Piriya Krairiksh is a famous iconoclast. He brazenly proposed that the Ramkhamhaeng inscription, the Magna Carta of Thai history, had been faked by King Mongkut (Rama IV).

The Roots Of Thai Art By Piriya Krairiksh River Books (Bangkok), 725 baht ISBN 978-616-7339-11-5

He suggested that the early greats of Thai art history, from King Vajiravudh (Rama VI) to George Coedes, had got just about everything wrong. Most of all he objected to the writing of art history within a political frame _ imagining a sequence of kingdoms and empires (Dvaravati, Chiang Saen, Sukhothai, etc) and then pigeonholing every object into this sequence.

He has spent 30 years evolving a different approach and this magnificent book is the first part of the result.

Piriya's first step of revision, many years ago, was to propose replacing the political classification with an ethnic one, with Mon in the west, Khmer in the east, Tai arriving from the north, and a mishmash of "Southern people" on the peninsula. But that framework was problematic and sometimes just resulted in the reassignment of objects from "Dvaravati art", say, to "Mon art".

In this book, this ethnic division is there in the background, but Piriya has added another critical layer to the analysis. As most of the art objects are religious, especially depictions of the Buddha and Indic deities, then the primary classification must be religious.

Piriya first divides the analysis into Buddhism and Brahmanism, but then goes much further. Instead of pushing modern terms like "Theravada" and "Mahayana" bluntly back into the past, he has researched the contemporary currents of thought about the philosophy of existence and the nature of worship, using Indian texts, the memoirs of itinerant Chinese monks and other sources. He identifies new beliefs and practices which gelled into various sects of both Brahmanism and Buddhism and shows how these resulted in distinctive forms of iconography _ poses of the Buddha, variants of Siva and Vishnu images and so on.

Armed with this approach, Piriya subjects art objects found within the current borders of Thailand to disciplined art-historical scrutiny, analysing the details of pose, dress, body type, accoutrements, framing and so on. He then cross-references the information with his personal mental database of objects known in China, Cambodia, Indonesia and (especially) various regions of India.

Finally, he presents us with a rather precise identification of the image and its sectarian context and a rather precise dating of its origin. The scholarship is simply stunning. Consider the famous Chaiya bronze in the National Museum. In Prince Damrong's classic, Monuments Of The Buddha In Siam, it is captioned "Bronze statue of a Bodhisattva, found at Jaiya. Srivijaya period". Piriya's caption runs "The bodhisattva Padmapani... the two-armed Avaokiteshvara who with Vajrapani and Vairocana form the Garbhdhatu Mandala. The image is believed to be the one for which the king of Srivijaiya built a brick temple in 775 AD".

This volume runs from the mid-5th century, the date of the earliest significant finds, to the end of the 13th century, the eve of the Sukhothai and Ayutthaya kingdoms. Piriya divides this period around 900. The first part, "Preparing The Ground For Thai Art", focuses on the range of outside sources and influences for ideas and iconography, especially coming from eastern and southern India, but also from Sumatra, Champa, Cambodia and China. The second part, "The Forging Of Thai Art", traces the establishment of some dominant beliefs and the emergence of distinctive local iconography (especially the maravijaya mudra). Piriya repeatedly stresses how much of Thai style and artistic convention was established in this early era.

There is enough in this book to spark controversies for the next 30 years. Probably the main lightning rod will be Piriya's account of the early evolution of Buddhism in Siam where he disrupts the standard account of the irresistible rise of Lankan Theravada in multiple ways.

Piriya argues that from the mid-8th to the mid-13th century there were many groups of Tantra practitioners who have left a distinct mark on the iconography. He traces the philosophical basis of this trend back to Nalanda University in India and to a range of texts that appeared between the 2nd and 10th centuries. He argues that the sexual practices associated with Tantra did not travel to Southeast Asia (quite why they didn't is unclear), but mantra verbal formulae and yantra designs were deployed to attain special power. He suggests the usage has survived to the present in the practice of saiyasat. Piriya's analysis of the Tantric iconography of Phimai is one of the climaxes of the book.

Piriya also stresses the dominance of Mahayana-type beliefs and practices from the 6th to the 10th century and identifies many rather well-known images as the Amitabha Buddha.

In this account, Theravada surfaced early, but only as one of many Buddhist sects, and then seems to have died out completely before reappearing in the 9th century, first in the Northeast, and later in Lopburi and Lamphun. Piriya argues that this revived form seems to have had nothing to do with Lankan Theravada (and he hardly mentions Pagan at all). Rather, he suggests it evolved locally, especially in Lopburi, developing some distinctive iconography as well as a focus on the use of jataka tales. Piriya has many equally novel things to say about Hindu imagery, especially about the impact of the bhakti form of worship. He revises the dating of many well-known pieces and, in particular, suggests that many of the pieces found in the crypt of Wat Ratchaburana in Ayutthaya are rather early. Unfortunately, he pays little attention to spirit beliefs and other local forms that are visible in the iconography of many sites.

Besides religious imagery, Piriya covers early imported Chinese ceramics and some decorative work from weapons, battle standards and palanquins.

The book has over 400 beautiful colour plates, many photographed by Piriya, including some objects hidden away in private collections and others that have since been looted or defaced. Many of the objects in museums or sites have here been newly and finely photographed by Paisarn Piemmettawat of River Books.

Over the last 20 years, Piriya has published only a handful of articles in English, though many more in Thai. Here we are lucky that Narisa Chakrabongse has not only published this book in both languages, but has translated the very long text into English. The appendices include a very useful illustrated glossary of religious and artistic terms.

Piriya promises second volume which will bring the story of Thai art through from the 14th to the 20th century. Great. But first let's have some controversy.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/arts-and-culture/book/334145/daring-revision

Edited February 4, 2013 by Stone Inscription 1

[Kwasaki]

So what evidence do they have to make such an insulting insinuation about past Thai Kings, why would it not be believed that King Ramkhamkaeng had the stone carved in the written Thai which he is credited with deriving it from the Khmer alphabet as the Thai alphabet.

I suppose MW pinky and PK perky think the people at Unesco are complete idiots too.

Controversy is OK in the right place but people !! casting doubts, claims, believing it to be fake, regarding something as, does no good in my opionion and maybe if they publish more of what seems their propaganda maybe contracts will be available but at a price of course.

[Stone Inscription 1]

You need to read some of the literature to understand the evidence and know what is going on here. It has a lot to do with linguists and early Thai writing, and the writing on that particular inscription not baring any resemblance to that of the period claimed. Without any background information, you can make all the accusations you want, but they are meaningless if you have no facts at hand, or any understanding of how to read and interpret inscriptions.

I cannot read the old inscriptions; however, I find the debate fascinating.

Vickery does not go so far as saying the Ramkhamhaeng inscription is a forgery, but he does show that the writing on it does not fit with contemporary ones. He also notes that the Lithai inscriptions from the 1300s do not mention Ramkhamhaeng at all in the list of Sukhothai royal ancestors, which suggests that he may not have existed.

Apparently, in the book under review, the author does provide evidence. Have you read it? I have not yet, but intend to do so soon.

Once you read some of the literature you should be able to make a more informed response.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Stone Inscription 1

[Kwasaki]

I have only read general history and findings belonging to the time, not read much of anything disputing it, so yes maybe some assumptions are made when written but surely stories handed down from a past have some value.

I too find discussing the history interesting also the cultural way of thinking has to be taken into account and interpreted as well I guess.

I can't read old inscriptions either and I don't understand my mother inlaw who speaks an older Thai dialect as some other very old people within the village.

Maybe in King Ramkhamhaeng time would you not think seeing as the beginning of Thai alphabet script at that time was in its infancy, there maybe the reason ?

Here's a small piece from internet based history I have read

After the first King of Sukhothai, King Ban Muang his son ruled for 1 year and

then his younger son King Ram Khamhaeng who ruled for 19 years.

King Ram Khamhaeng, at the age of 19 years, participated in his father's successful invasion of the city of Sukhothai, formerly occupied and held by the Khmer (Cambodia) and essentially established the independent states of the Sukhothai Kingdom, because of his bravery and conduct at war, he was given the title "Phra Ram Khamhaeng" the Great, or "Rama the Bold" and he is credited with the creation of the Thai alphabet.

The Thai Alphabet is derived from the Khmer alphabet, which in turn, is derived from a script of the Pallava dynasty of southern India which interestingly was a Tamil region.

The Great King Ram Khamhaeng of Sukhothai was a moral inspiration of Siam

and the Kings Inscription Number 1 founded in Old Sukhothai, states that King Ramkhamhaeng would hear the petition of any Siam subject who rang the bell at the entrance of his palace gate, the King was thus considered to be like the father of his Thai people. ( also the beginning of a kind of democracy ? )

While the Sukhothai Kingdoms evolved one other King, King Mangrai had succeeded his father in 1261 in the far north of Chiang Rai and became the first independent King of unified Tai city states of the Northern Lanna Kingdoms and parts of Northern Laos.

King Mangrai in 1262 founded the city of Chiang Rai as his new capital in the Kok River basin.

King Mangrai's kingdom quickly expanded towards the south by both alliances through the conquest of neighbours towards the Lamphun areas.

In 1287 King Mangrai made a peace pact with Great King Ram Khamhaeng of Sukhothai and also with another King, King Ngammueang of Phayao a Province of northern Thailand to defend their lands against the Mongol Empire which was a massive empire during the 13th and 14th centuries.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Kwasaki

[Stone Inscription 1]

One of the more interesting points about the Three Kings is that Ramkhamhaeng apparently seduced the wife of the Phayao King. Mangrai supposedly intervened to prevent war. This is from The Nan Chronicle. In Chiangmai, there is a statue and memorial to the Three Kings.

It is very difficult to explain the minute details of the controversy over Stone Inscription 1. You need to know ancient Thai, Khmer and maybe Mon and Lao too. Anyway it is something like this. Imagine you read 'Beowolf' and then a few years later noted that the written language was not similar to other contemporary writings. In fact, the writing was much like that of Charles Dickens. This is at the centre of the debate.

The writing on the inscription contains many words and grammar that is similar to that of Central Thai in the 19th century whereas other contemporary inscriptions are not like this at all. Thus, many current Thai historians and linguists argue that it was not possible for Stone Inscription 1 to have been written at that time since it contains nuances in the grammar, letters and words that did not exist until centuries later. This is why people question its validity. It is a legitimate question, and not meant to be rude to Thai leaders of the past.

The earliest inscriptions from Sukhothat that can actually be verified as true are those from the reign of Lithai in the 14th century.

I just came across this http://www.khamkoo.com/uploads/9/0/0/4/9004485/an_epilogue_to_the_ram_khamhaeng_inscription.pdf

I have tried to copy and paste a few paragraphs from the book, but cannot at this time. Read pages 555-557. It is very interesting. Read Vickery for the linguistic arguments.

[Kwasaki]

Quote:- Thai historians and linguists argue that it was not possible for Stone Inscription 1 to have been written at that time since it contains nuances in the grammar, letters and words that did not exist until centuries later :- Unquote.

I would disagree with this it is still only a assumption on their part.

As for King Mongkut I would say he revered so much and liked of what King Ram Khamhaeng had done during his reign, just like so many Thai people of today think also and alway will whatever some people say.

Quote:- Read pages 555-557. It is very interesting:-Unquote.

It reads like some kind of obsession to me and when relating it to the western powers being involved at the time would make it the more difficult to understand.

[Stone Inscription 1]

Well, if you find that difficult to accept try to understand the writings of another expert in the field:

'

The real anomaly, which I pointed out in "Piltdown 2", persists. The Lithai

period inscriptions, the first Sukhothai writings after the dates contained

in No.1, do not use nffollowing "Sukhothai"; whereas, the Khmer-language

No.4 uses the Khmer equivalent,

nel:z, RK resembles Lithai's Khmer more than

Lithai' s Thai. I still consider that it is one of several features of RK which are best

explained as resulting from the influence of No. 4 on the writers of No.

1.

One of the features of RK which is most suspect is its complete tone mark

system, virtually identical to modem standard Thai, in comparison to the rest

of the Sukhothai corpus in which tone marks are incomplete and seemingly

erratic.

88 They seem to show writers searching for signs to mark distinctions

which they felt necessary and which would eventually lead to a complete

system.

It is contrary to what we believe we know about development of

cultural systems, in particular the invention of scripts, to suppose that a great

genius invented the perfect system

in the beginning; if he did, why did his

descendants, within two generations, lose control of it?

we may not hypothesize that Ramaraj, sr'isaddha (with his

contemporary King Lothai}, and King Lithai each spoke, and tried to write, a

different dialect.

It

requires an act of faith to maintain that the epigraphic record may be

interpreted as showing a decline in a full tone marking system devised for RK.

I maintain that the tone marking system of RK is an anomaly, and that no

explanation so far proposed, except the hypothesis of late composition,

accounts for it.

It would be best to go to the article to read and understand it properly.

http://www.siamese-heritage.org/jsspdf/1991/JSS_083_0j_Vickery_Piltdown3RamKhamhaengInscription.pdf

Edited November 11, 2013 by metisdead
Font reset to default forum font. Use Arial size 14, black when posting.