We just visited Phetchabun, to a place in the mountains, then back to Si Thep, the Siam kingdom (?) before Sukhothai. It's tempting to describe that as the first kingdom of Siam, but this kind of large gap in my own awareness of "local" history has me wondering what else I'm not in on. It turns out that I've read quite a bit on that, from visiting museums and monuments in different places, some of which is referenced here. Of course this isn't going to be a research paper quality reference of that history, but I'll pass on what I learned, it just includes some gaps and errors, sure even after adding more parts. Per Wikipedia it was really a city-state; we can start with that, provisionally.
Many people are familiar with the Ayutthaya and Sukhothai kingdoms and eras, to a limited extent. You can go visit old temple ruins in both places (those are two distinct locations, the capitals of those kingdoms). We've been to both enough times that I couldn't say how many. Maybe only 3 to Sukhothai, or maybe more, but definitely more to Ayutthaya. We were just there, and the time before that wasn't so long ago.
 |
only part of one of many ancient Ayutthaya temples |
 |
visiting Sukhothai in 2021 |
 |
that was for Loy Krathong, in November, a great time to visit there |
Then there was also a state / kingdom in the north of Thailand, La Na, that is well-known. I referenced that in the last description of visiting Ayutthaya, I just didn't mention it:
Maps like that give you an impression that the boundaries of these empires or states were clearly defined over a long period of time, and they may have kept shifting a bit instead. It still works as general background; for an extended time that's probably roughly where those boundaries were, give or take some minor transitions.
The Si Thep state (or whatever it was) was described as starting 1300 years ago by our guide on that outing. It might have been harder for them to pin down a specific date when it ceased to be, since it would've declined over time, perhaps for different reasons. According to him it was well established when the ancient Cambodian (Khmer) state associated with Angkor Wat wasn't developed yet. It's hard for me to know how to place all that he said though; it seems possible a lot was left out, and some parts could've been wrong. Not wrong in the sense that he was badly informed, but related to the whole broad picture changing over time as new details emerge (which gets covered in more detail here).
Scanning the Wikipedia article on Si Thep must fill in some mostly correct background:
Hindu-influenced era: 6th–8th century CE
The second phase of occupation (c. 6th–8th century CE) was characterized by the expansion to the outer city. As the monarchy emerged, Vaishnavism took an important role in Si Thep's society, with relationships to India, Funan, Chenla, and Dvaravati cultures.[12] Si Thep was an urban Dvaravati culture center since the 6th century CE, and one of the earliest communities in Thailand that made contacts with India, attested in stone inscription K 978, written in Sanskrit with Pallava script dated to the 6th century CE. So, Si Thep was developed into an early state along with other early Southeast Asian states like Funan, Chenla, and Sri Ksetra.[13] Charles Higham reports of a 7th-century Dvaravati inscription from Si Thep that states, [a new king took the throne]. " A moat enclosed 4.7 square km, while the Khao Klang Nai structure (Thai: เขาคลังใน) dates from the 6th to 7th century.[14]: 303, 308–309
Buddhism-influenced era: 8th–10th century CE
This phase (c. 8th–10th century CE) was the most prosperous. An irrigation system was developed, and Mahayana Buddhism influenced art as relationships with India, Dvaravati and northeastern cities continued. Si Thep, Sema [fr], and Lopburi sites controlled the routes in the region.[12] The growth of Si Thep led to the establishment of its neighboring city, Tha Rong (Thai: ท่าโรง), located 20 kilometers northward on the bank of the Pasak River, which was later renamed Wichian Buri during the reign of King Nangklao of Rattanakosin.[15] Via Buddhism, several historical evidences supports the connection between Si Thep and another group of Dvaravati-influenced political entities in present Northeast Thailand, Wen Dan.[16]: 91–92
During this era, Si Thep, together with Lavo, was the center of the mandala-style state, Dvaravati; however, due to the weather-induced migration or the pandemic, Si Thep lost its prosperity, and Lavo became the only center of power in the area until it fell under Khmer hegemony during the 10th to 11th centuries.[17]
Rise of Angkorian: 11th–13th century CE
During this phase (c. 11th–13th century CE), Shaivism was a great influence in Si Thep at Angkorian times, and Si Thep had relationships with Phimai in Mun River basin as Sema [th] ceased to control the routes. Due to Jayavarman VII's policy, Si Thep lost importance and was almost abandoned around the 14th century.[12] Prang Song Phi Nong and Prang Si Thep were built in the 11th to 12th centuries.[14]: 303, 308–309
After the decline of Si Thep in the 14th century, a new kingdom, Ayutthaya, was subsequently founded southward on the bank of the Chao Phraya River in mid-14th CE, as the succeeded state,[2] as its capital's full name referred to the mandalas of Dvaravati; Krung Thep Dvaravati Si Ayutthaya (Thai: กรุงเทพทวารวดีศรีอยุธยา).[18][19][20][21] The connection between the ancient Mon people, the predominant population of the Dvaravati, and the present-day Thai people in central Thailand, who are the inheritors of Siamese's Ayutthaya, was established in several genetic studies performed in the 20th century.
So they're describing it as a city-state, not really on par with a full-scale kingdom. It was actually founded in the 4th century (300s CE), but seemed to rise to prominence in the 8th century, as described. To place that in relation to the Sukhothai time-frame, Google offers this: "The Sukhothai era (1238–1438) was the first Thai kingdom..."
Some parts of this are especially fascinating, to me. Apparently there is very little for written references in relation to this city-state, in part because (as I understand it) earlier versions of modern Thailand hadn't developed written language prior to the Ayutthaya era. My understanding isn't much of a guide, and what I learned from our actual guide didn't seem as convincing as it might have been, even though he worked for the local Fine Arts Department that manages those sites.
Let me elaborate. It's only recently that they've excavated the sites we saw, and learned that many of them exist. Of course parts were there to be seen continuously since those centuries back, but not as much as you might expect. Even the giant main site structure had been buried by soil, or so we were told (by another local; they might've had that wrong). A fallen down structure being buried and lost is understandable, but not a monument of that size, tens of meters tall.
Other parts were fascinating, and less speculative. They definitely incorporated aspects of Buddhism and Hinduism in their monuments, and even Khmer artwork, presumably from later on. As the time periods changed apparently they kept updating design aspects and inclusions. Indian influence was primary, but not the only external source. They made parts of the monument, the one in the historical area section, from concrete, a technology our guide said that they would have imported from India. Of course the Romans did a lot with concrete long before this time-frame, but it's especially fascinating to me that during Europe's "dark ages" they lost the technology to make it (even though it would seemingly be from a very simple recipe).
Across all of this experience it seemed especially odd to me that I'd never heard of Si Thep. Or actually I probably had; when we visited Lopburi a lot of the historical references in a museum there would've covered that time-frame [or possibly not, per looking up museum display references, cited in a different section here], and that background, and according to our guide some very important artifacts from Si Thep are kept there. That we saw, no doubt, whether or not the whole background was clear.
I'm just not great with keeping track. Of course it was amazing to me three years ago, during that visit, that Thai history was that much more complicated than I had been aware, but not much of a detailed timeline stuck with me. The more ancient parts were especially fascinating, from 3000 years ago or more, but I'm skipping covering that here.
 |
we hiked up this earlier in the day, which is more difficult than it looks |
 |
good views up there |
 |
this very zoomed-in temple was playing music we could hear up there, maybe 8 km away |
 |
our guide was great, and that historical site dog joined in as a greeter |
 |
very old Buddha cave-art in a cave at the top |
Lopburi museum reference:
I looked up a museum exhibit reference we visited in Lopburi in December 2022 to see what it said about this history, and if possible about Si Thep:
Si Thep is an hour and a half drive from Lopburi, north of there, so although it's possible that the map scope extends further up, and I cut it off, it seems more likely that Si Thep just didn't make this reference list and map graphic. It was definitely from that time period, and also heavily influenced by Indian culture, as they describe, but it just wasn't mentioned here. Strange.
But then if this museum content was from prior to 5 to 10 years ago and much of the scope of ruins at Si Thep were unknown then the omission makes sense. It just wouldn't have seemed like there was that much up there, never mind a large city-state center complex, and massive monument, second only to Borobudur (in Java, Indonesia) in size from that early time period, according to our guide. Let's take a look at that, even though similarities or differences might not stand out at a glance:
 |
it's big (from Dec. 2015) |
 |
seemingly related to Buddhism |
Of course this isn't a claim about tight linkage in background themes between Si Thep and Borobudur, in Indonesia. Our guide said that it's the only other larger related time period monument in SE Asia. One might naturally wonder how the later temples at Siem Reap fit into this. I won't get too far into that, since it's another long history that I'm not all that familiar with, even though I've been there twice. But citing more related background, about visiting another place, does partly link it together.
On a separate trip we visited a related Khmer temple at the edge of Thailand, in Sa Kawo province, again in December 2022, which related to this:
Thai fine arts department page on the temple:
Prasat Sdok Kok Thom is located at Nong Ya Kaeo village, Moo 6, Tambon Khok Sung, Amphoe Khok Sung, Sa Kaeo Province and away from the border of Thailand – Cambodia about 1 kilometer.
It was originally called “Prasat Muang Phrao”, and then Prasat Sadok Kok Thom and Prasat Sdok Kok Thom. The word “Sdok Kok Thom” is Khmer language, “Sdok”came from “Sadok” which meant to overgrown, “Kok” meant to reeds, and “Thom” meant to large. Therefore, “Sdok Kok Thom” meant to overgrown with large reeds.
The religious place was built in 1595 B.E., in the reign of King Uthai Thitayavarman II (1593 – 1609 B.E.) to bestow the Brahmin who left the buddhist monkhood named “Sri Chayantaravarman” or his former name “Sadashiva”. This Brahmin was a son-in- law of King Suryavarman I and also an officiant who performed the Royal Coronation Ceremony to King Uthai Thitayavarman II.2
Prasat Sdok Kok Thom was constructed by the style of Khmer architecture.
Those dates are a little confusing because they're based on the Thai dating that sets the time of the Buddha to zero, not Jesus's birth (it's 2568 now; they're 543 years apart). A related Wikipedia page converts parts over:
Udayadityavarman II (Khmer: ឧទ័យាទិត្យវរ្ម័នទី២) ruled the Angkor Kingdom from 1050 to 1066 A.D. He was the successor of Suryavarman I[1]: 137 but not his son; he descended from Yasovarman I's spouse.
He built the Baphuon Temple to honor the god Shiva, but some of the sculptures are dedicated to Buddha. He also completed the construction of the West Baray reservoir and built the West Mebon, a raised-earth island in the center.[1]: 138 [2]: 103 [3]: 371
The Sdok Kak Thom temple, located near the present day Thai town of Aranyaprathet, was also constructed during his reign. The temple was home to a gray sandstone stele, 1.51 meters high, with a detailed inscription that recounted the sequence of previous Khmer kings.
This was from that temple:
And it looks like this:
It loses a little for people who don't read Thai, but this helps place it and other early somewhat local monuments:
Note that the time-frame for that temple fell between 1050 and 1066 (the beginning of the "Angkorian phase," in that other reference), with the main Buddhist related and most prosperous Si Thep time period falling between the 8th and 10th centuries (700s to 900s CE). Our guide's reference to the main temple being 1300 years old corresponds to this, but that really was the second phase of Si Thep's development, with an earlier Hindu era from the 6th to 8th centuries.
That's probably basically what our guide had been describing. The mix of different dates tied to different parts of the two sites we visited was probably a little confusing to me, but spelled out more clearly in those text citations it all comes together.
Additional thoughts on the Light and Sound show:
Is anyone still with me, through all of these tangents? During that light and sound show one thing that came to mind was considering how authentic any presentation about that history could be. I asked our guide, and he said that they tried to make the clothing (costumes) period specific, based on what little they could find of formal clothing back then. It wouldn't have been much. They were dressed like these guys:
Who were "holding up" part of the temple monument here:
I didn't get a good broad-angle shot of that monument section, so here's one from a virtual tour page hosted by the Thai Fine Arts Department that manages the site:
I guess that it doesn't look like much, but for something 1300 years old that was generally lost to time for an extended period it's still impressive, just probably not in good condition compared to the original form. Of course they have more on the history from other sources; it wouldn't only be based on those ruins, as already covered here. This reference covers the general area, with background on both sites that we visited, Khao Klang Nai (the Si Thep Historical Park) and Khao Klang Nok, the other monument where the light and sound festival was held.
On the subject of how "lost to history" monuments of this scale could be this was from the Sadok Kok temple we visited in Sa Kaeo province, the one that was part of the Khmer empire:
In 1901 a French explorer told the outside world that it was there. Thais already knew that, but the historical context and meaning they probably weren't as clear on, although they probably also knew that it was a part of the Cambodian (Khmer) empire. One particular stone with a lot of writing described important parts of the Khmer history in detail; that's what the citation means "inscriptions discovered there are more important than any inscriptions in Cambodia." This Wikipedia source on Sdok Kok Thom describes that in detail:
The inscription (classified K. 235) is a 340-line composition, in both Sanskrit and ancient Khmer, carved on a gray sandstone stele 1.51 meters high that stood in the northeast corner of the temple's court. Dating to 8 February 1053, it recounts two and a half centuries of service that members of the temple's founding family provided to the Khmer court, mainly as chief chaplains to kings. In laying out this long role, the text provides a remarkable and often poetically worded look at the faith, royal lineage, history and social structure of the times.
Back to the event theme, it seems like the prints of that period costume fabric would only be an interpretation drawn from later time periods. The jewelry worn in the dancing they probably didn't have; according to our guide from early relics found they were using copper and tin (so brass, or other alloys), instead of gold in Thailand in that early period. Of course there couldn't really be a reference to music from then, or dancing style; there isn't much written about the local history and culture, at all.
So a lot of what we saw in that show was from general, modern Thai culture, informed by the Ayutthaya and Sukhothai era background. They had the ancient king (in the story) pay respect to Shiva (I think it was him; a Hindu god, at least), so they at least mixed in a little related story line. I suppose if that particular monument structure was created during the later Buddhist period it might not have all synced.
 |
the related festival sales booths parts were nice |
One last tangent: for being from a rural area myself (in PA) I love small towns in Thailand, and Si Thep had a great feel to it. We walked around a market area in town and found all sorts of great food for next to nothing, buying fruit and snacks to go with it. Walking around that festival people seemed incredibly relaxed and friendly, familiar from my own earlier days. I suppose they're still like that back there now; I visited last a year ago (rural PA), and people there are nice. As they are in Si Thep.
I would highly recommend Bangkok locals or expats go and check it out. It's like visiting Sukhothai before developed tourism shifted everything there to a tourism themed hotel, hostel, restaurant, or gift shop. Actually Sukhothai and Ayutthaya are both great too (you'd be crazy to not eat boat noodles visiting the latter), perfect places to rent a bike and check out at a slow pace, or just to walk around. But Si Thep adds a local small-town feel, at the cost of them still developing the museum display side of things.
 |
if you do hike up that mountain wear pants (there are mosquitos), carry plenty of water, and take your time |
