On two different shores of the Siamo-Malay Peninsula, two fledgling kingdoms some 900 km apart were described as establishing their capitals around the 13th-14th centuries in association with the same kind of special landscape: long beaches with iridescent sands, so eye-catching, pure, and sacred, according to their local chronicles (Figure 1). One is the crystal sand of Nakhon Si Thammarat City on the eastern coast of peninsular Thailand, where King Si Thammasokkarat founded his Nakhon Si Thammarat Kingdom. Another is the white sandy shore of southern Singapore, which attracted King Sri Tri Buana in the first place and where he later founded his kingdom of Singapura. These iridescent sands occupy central positions in their respective chronicles. This unusual parallel is also supplemented by the fact that archaeological excavations at Nakhon Si Thammarat and Singapore both yielded the same special type of prestige pottery, called Fine-Paste Ware, a fine white-bodied type probably produced at Ban Pa-O (including Khok Mo on the Sathing Phra spit, peninsular Thailand). Recent research indicates that Nakhon Si Thammarat was a production centre of this type of pottery as well.

It is probable that Nakhon Si Thammarat and Singapore had connections with each other, most likely because they both belonged to the same socio-political and commercial network which had been passed down from the Srivijayan period in the western part of maritime Southeast Asia. This Srivijayan network of harbour principalities had a particularly complex history and left a long-lasting legacy. The story of Singapore’s founding as told in the Malay Annals/Sululatu’s Salatin explicitly states that Singapore’s founder was first proclaimed king in Palembang, Srivijaya’s capital, before he moved to Singapore. Srivijaya waxed and waned, and its participant polities kept changing, as they also had their own share of fortunes and struggles. To study the history of this network is somewhat like tracing candle lights in the neighbourhood of water, as different polities became more or less luminous in different periods.

This chapter aims to provide a new framework to study Srivijaya, which depicts it not as an empire or one particular kingdom, but as an alliance or network of harbour principalities which shared mutual benefits in maritime trade. The relationship among these principalities should be perceived as collaborative rather than antagonistic, something like what we see in the Hanseatic League in northern Europe in the 13th to 15th centuries. This chapter will also trace the connections between polities in the Srivijayan network with an emphasis on Tambralinga (Tāmbralinga) and Nakhon Si Thammarat (Nagara Śrī Dharmarāja), where recent archaeological and art historical discoveries have provided important information. The legacies of the Srivijayan network were long-lasting and passed down to Singapore and Nakhon Si Thammarat in the 13th-14th centuries.

From Tambralinga to Nakhon Si Thammarat

The kingdoms of Tambralinga and Nakhon Si Thammarat emerged at different time periods but in the same coastal area of modern-day Nakhon Si Thammarat Province on the eastern side of peninsular Thailand. Tambralinga was older, but we can see the continuation between the two kingdoms in several kinds of evidence, especially in Stone Inscription No. 24, belonging to King Chandrabhanu with a date of 1230 CE, found at Chaiya in Surat Thani Province (See map at Figure 7.2). Tambralinga is a Sanskrit name, and its ending with “linga” suggests a Saivaite association.^[1] This fits well with the art historical record found in the area from the 5th to 8th centuries that demonstrates the prominence of Hinduism. Different versions of the name Tambralinga were mentioned, for example, in stone inscriptions in both Thailand and India and in Chinese documents. Tambralinga’s largest population centre, which probably also was its most important political centre, was in Sichon District, where 45 brick shrines (most with their associated ponds) have been discovered in the area between the Tha Khwai, Tha Chieo, and Tha Thon rivers (Figure 7.3). Among these sites, 29 of them were condensed in a small area of 12.5 km2 in the middle of the cluster (W. Noonsuk 2018a, 335).

Beginning around the 13th century, Tambralinga seems to have undergone a major transformation, in conjunction with which its name changed to Nakhon Si Thammarat Kingdom in the Thai historical record. The Sri Lankan school of Theravada Buddhism became prominent, and the capital city was established on the Crystal Beach around 55 km south of Sichon (W. Noonsuk 2018b, 64). However, a 14th-century Chinese record still referred to it as Dan-ma-ling (from Tambralinga), and the Portuguese traders in around 1518 probably followed the Malay people in calling it “Ligor”, which may have derived from -linga in Tambralinga.^[2] This may suggest the continuity between the two kingdoms as well.

The most obvious architectural achievement of Tambralinga/Nakhon Si Thammarat is probably “Phra That Chedi” or the Great Reliquary of Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan Monastery (or Wat Phra Mahathat, literally meaning the Great Reliquary Monastery), also on the Crystal Beach (Figures 4-6). As a living monument, this stupa has experienced a series of restorations for many centuries. The local chronicles also suggest that it was built by the first king of Nakhon Si Thammarat in the 13th century as the Buddhist pillar of the kingdom. However, recent archaeological and art historical studies, which will be presented here, of the Great Reliquary reveal that it was initially constructed in the second half of the 9th to 10th centuries with artistic influences from Nalanda and Central Java, before being heavily restored in the Polonnaruwa style of Sri Lankan art in the 13th century.^[3]

The Great Reliquary of Nakhon Si Thammarat in the 9th–10th Centuries

The Great Reliquary (or Great Stupa) is the largest stupa in the Siamo-Malay Peninsula, at a height of 56 meters on top of a 28x28 meter square base. The golden finial itself is 11 meters in length and is covered with around 600 kilograms of gold sheets. Scholars tend to follow the local chronicles in thinking that the Great Stupa was constructed on the Crystal Beach when the Nakhon Si Thammarat Kingdom had a close relationship with Sri Lanka in c. the 13th century. In general, Sri Lankan architectural influences on the Great Stupa include such features as the sculptures of elephants around its base and the large square platform supporting the ringed spire. North of the Great Stupa, there are also two Bodhi tree shrines, another typical feature of Sri Lankan Buddhism (Figures 5-7).

In 2009, I excavated several sites in the Crystal Beach and in Wat Phra Mahathat (Figure 7.8). Some thermoluminescence (TL) dates of samples found in my excavation indicated that this area was already settled prior to the 13th century. For example, to the south of Wat Phra Mahathat, a brick structure at Wat Thao Khot was TL-dated to 721–901 CE, while two fragments of a terracotta well at Wat Suan Luang gave the TL dates of 670–870 CE, and 745–911 CE. Some Tang Dynasty ceramics (c. the 9th century) are also found in this area (W. Noonsuk 2018, 121).

According to my excavation at Wat Phra Mahathat in 2009, two brick samples from Trench PT.09.3 in the northern area of the temple were TL-dated by the Thermoluminescence Laboratory at Kasetsart University to 919–1081 CE and 983–1135 CE respectively (Figure 7.9 and see also Figures 7.11-4 for the artifacts from the excavation). These dates indicate that there may have been brick structures in the temple area prior to the construction of the 13th-century Lankan-style architecture, especially the Great Reliquary, centrally mentioned in the local chronicles. This is not surprising, however, if we consider, for instance, that some stone architectural parts usually associated with Hindu shrines and an ablution basin, most likely a yoni, are scattered around the temple precinct. This temple area on the Crystal Beach was likely a sacred place and a location of Hindu shrines already by at least the 7th-8th century CE (W. Noonsuk 2018b, 246).

The temple was nominated for and has been on the tentative list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites since 2013. To receive full status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province has established an academic committee, of which I am a member, to study the temple in various aspects and complete the nomination dossier. As part of this endeavour advanced by the Academic Committee, the Fine Arts Department conducted an excavation to study the temple and its Great Stupa archaeologically in 2016. The excavation program included 10 test pits in several spots in the temple precinct and was directed by Phanuwat Ueasaman (Ueasaman 2017).^[4]

Phanuwat excavated the square base or foundation of the Great Reliquary and found courses of large bricks arranged neatly, one on top of the other. Some complete bricks are as big as 28x40x10 cm, and three brick samples from the well-organised lower brick courses from Test Pit No. 10 were collected for TL dating at the TL Lab at Kasetsart University. The dating results were quite consistent, including dates of 846–958 CE, 888–996 CE, and 902–-1008 CE. Although there is a slight chance that these bricks were reused from older brick structures in the past, this is improbable since the architectural form of the lower half of the stupa itself also suggests a pre-13th-century date, as will become clear later. These dates push back the initial construction of the Great Reliquary to the period between the second half of the 9th to the 10th centuries.

Some architectural characteristics, especially in the lower half of the Great Stupa, are comparable to those in northern Indian style from around the 8th to 12th centuries, notably in the Pala idiom. The stupas at Nalanda, Borobudur, and Wat Phra Borommathat Chaiya Worawihan (or Phra That Chaiya Temple) are good examples. It should be noted, however, that the architectural characteristics of the Great Reliquary of Nakhon Si Thammarat demonstrate a composite nature, combining different elements from different places and incorporating local components in a creative way; it was not a direct copy of any particular stupa somewhere else. The art of peninsular Thailand usually expresses this cosmopolitan interrelatedness and composite nature, as the societies in this isthmian tract had been facilitators for exchanges of people, goods, and ideas in the trans-Asiatic trade network since the late centuries BCE.

The bottom half of the Great Stupa of Nakhon Si Thammarat, from the base to the dome, is similar to the Stupa No. 3 at Nalanda, in which the central stupa has four satellite stupas at each corner of its high square base with the entrance facing the north (Kerdsiri 2017, 72-73). As for why the Great Reliquary unconventionally faces north, this was not because of spatial constraints, since the beach ridge is wide enough for a bigger religious complex. It may be suggested that it faces north because it probably is the direction where the palace and/or population centre (s) were situated on the long and narrow ancient beach ridge running in the north-south direction. More excavation in the areas north of the Great Reliquary is much needed.

The dome of the Great Reliquary itself is more cylindrical than the hemispherical domes of the Lankan stupas (Ueasaman 2017). This cylindrical shape is comparable to the top stupa at Borobudur from the early 9th century and other votive stupas in peninsular Thailand dated to c. 8th to 10th centuries (Figure 10). Its square base with protruding decorative pillars is also similar to that of the main stupa of Phra That Chaiya Temple, dated to c. 9th century, on the northern coast of the Bay of Bandon in Surat Thani Province.

The Great Reliquary was surrounded by three square rows of satellite stupas, which mostly replicate the form of the Great Stupa itself (Figure 5). That some of them look different now is perhaps due to restorations in subsequent periods. One of these satellite stupas in the first row next to the Great Reliquary was excavated at its foundation and two brick samples from the lower layers were TL-dated to around the 10th to the first half of the 11th centuries (905–1031 CE and 944–1046 CE respectively), contemporaneous with the TL dates of the Great Reliquary. Thus, it seems that these organised rows of satellite stupas were originally planned as part of the complex with the Great Reliquary at the centre. This layout resembles the mandala structure found at Borobudur, except that the three tiers of satellite stupas at Borobudur are circular (Kerdsiri 2017, 42). Borobudur in the Kedu Plain of Central Java is the largest stupa complex in Southeast Asia. Probably built by the Sailendra Dynasty, the construction at Borobudur likely began around 760 and seems to have been completed by about 830 (Miksic 1990, 25).

There are two Bodhi tree shrines or Bodhighara, namely Wihan Pho Lanka and Wihan Pho Phra Doem, lined up north of the Great Reliquary on the north-south axis (Figure 5). The brick samples from the lower layers from the excavations at the brick foundations of Wihan Pho Lanka (4 samples – 785-903 CE, 855–965 CE, 866–976 CE, and 878–986 CE) and Wihan Pho Phra Doem (3 samples – 878–986 CE, 903–1009 CE, and 905–1011 CE) gave consistent TL dates also around the second half of the 9th to 10th centuries. Although there is no clear existing example of Bodhi tree shrines from this period to compare them with, except those in Sri Lanka, it may be useful to note that the Tree Cult was one of the most ancient beliefs in Monsoon Asia; Bodhi trees were worshipped in Buddhism since the time of the Buddha. The Mahayana communities in Tibet still worship Bodhi trees. Thus, it would not be very surprising if we saw a non-Sri Lankan Bodhi tree shrine from the 9th to 10th centuries. Also, it is possible that these TL brick samples may have belonged to the foundations of other kinds of buildings before they were later converted into Bodhi tree shrines.

All these scientific dates, artistic features, and architectural layouts point to the affiliation of the Great Reliquary of Nakhon Si Thammarat at its conception with the architecture of its neighbours, where Mahayana Buddhism was thriving in the 8th to 10th centuries. Therefore, it may be reasonable to suggest that the Great Reliquary and its initial associated structures were first constructed under the Mahayana framework, which may have been related to the intimate participation of Tambralinga in the Srivijayan network and its relationship with the Sailendra Dynasty in the late 9th to 10th centuries. This reminds us of the messages in the Ligor Inscription.

Ligor Inscription(s)

The Ligor Inscription(s) is (are) written in Sanskrit with modified Pallava script on a stone slab. The Thai Fine Arts Department calls it “Wat Sema Mueang Inscription” (No. 23) because it is believed to have come from Sema Mueang Monastery in Nakhon Si Thammarat City (Figure 4). It has usually been called the “Ligor” Inscription in the non-Thai scholarly literature as well.^[5] However, the Fine Arts Department also leaves open the possibility that it may have come from Chaiya in Surat Thani Province. The record of the inscription’s provenance is unfortunately not very clear, but perhaps we can say in general that it came from the mid-peninsular region, which includes Surat Thani, Nakhon Si Thammarat, and other areas in the middle part of the Siamo-Malay Peninsula (Figure 2). The polities in the mid-peninsula had close relationships with each other and shared similar cultures related to, for example, strong belief in Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism.

Ligor Inscription has two sides, termed Ligor A and Ligor B. The first side (Ligor A) is older and records its date as equivalent to 775 CE. Ligor A announces the foundation of a monastery with three temples of a Buddhist trinity by an unnamed king of Srivijaya (Kulke 2016, 57). This may suggest that Srivijaya used religious donations in foreign countries as part of its characteristic “ritual diplomacy” to create allies and trade partners, as seen in its foreign donative inscriptions in several places in Asia. This inscription may be the first such foreign donative inscription.

Ligor B is undated. Kulke (2016, 59-60) proposed that it may be dated to the late 9th century to the 10th century, as it mentions the name Vishnu of the Sailendra Dynasty. According to Kulke, there were unequal royal titles in both inscriptions. On the one hand, Ligor A uses the very modest title of “King” (rāja) and other modest titles, which still conform fairly to dātu, the traditional Malay title of Jayanāga as the ruler of Srivijaya in the late 7th century. On the other hand, Ligor B praises the king as “Supreme King of Kings” (rājādhirāja), among other grand titles, which conform to the customs of the Sailendra rulers.

The Sailendra Dynasty originated in Java, but in the mid-9th century its prince, Balaputra, was defeated by Rakai Pikatan of the Sanjaya Dynasty (Miksic 1990, 24). Shortly after 856, Balaputra fled to Srivijaya (South Sumatra), which was the homeland of his mother, Princess Tara. He then ruled Srivijaya and made it greatly prosperous. However, for nearly a century after Balaputra until the Sailendra king Udayadityavarman in 960, we have no knowledge at all about the rulers of Srivijaya and their names. Kulke (2016, 60-62) believed that the Sailendra king Vishnu, the author of Ligor B, might have ruled during this period and extended his influence to the mid-peninsula, as suggested by the existence of Ligor B, to fend off the expanding power of the Khmer kingdom across the Gulf of Siam. At this time, the Khmer kingdom reached its first zenith under Indravarman (877–889) and his son Yasovarman (889–c. 910), who moved his capital to Angkor proper.

Importantly, by inscribing Ligor B on the same stone slab as the earlier Ligor A, the Sailendra king affirmed his status as the ruler of Srivijaya and perhaps a blood descendant of the earlier Srivijayan king who inscribed Ligor A as well. In any case, it demonstrates that the Sailendra king was trying to reaffirm his ties with the mid-peninsula. Although we still have no other record elsewhere of King Vishnu of the Sailendras of Ligor B, it should be noted that a king in Southeast Asia may be referred to with different names depending on specific contexts. Vishnu may have been a good name to spread his fame among the people in Tambralinga and the mid-peninsula, since they had a very long history of Vaishnavite tradition here already. The dating of Ligor B to the late 9th to 10th centuries coincidentally fits well with our new scientific dates of the Great Reliquary of Nakhon Si Thammarat. We can also remember that the Sailendra Dynasty was probably responsible for the construction of Borobudur in Central Java in the late 8th to early 9th centuries, based on the mandala architectural pattern, which likely influenced the design of the Great Reliquary of Nakhon Si Thammarat as well. The two large monuments may have been built around a century apart. Therefore, the relationship between Tambralinga/Nakhon Si Thammarat and Srivijaya under Sailendra rule may be seen here. They appeared to be close allies, and the original mandala design of the Great Reliquary complex in Nakhon Si Thammarat may have been, at least partly, a result of this relationship.

The Srivijayan Network and Tambralinga

The Tanjore Inscription of 1030, written in South India during the period of the Chola Dynasty, listed Madamalinggam (Tambralinga) among the targets of the expedition launched against Srivijaya, which took place in 1025 CE (Sumio 2004, 53). A Chinese document, Zhu-fan-zhi, which presented the situation in either the late 12th or early 13th century, mentioned that Dan-ma-ling (Tambralinga) was a dependency of San-fo-qi (at this time referring to Srivijaya’s successor polity then based at Jambi; Sumio 2004, 49; Miksic 2021). From these textual records, it seems that Tambralinga and Srivijaya were closely connected and were part of the same alliance. Their alliance may be traced back in time to 775 CE, as suggested in the Ligor Inscription(s) previously mentioned.

According to historical records, Srivijaya was a prominent polity that flourished in the trans-Asiatic trade network between the 7th to 11th centuries. It was originally centred at Palembang on the Musi River in South Sumatra (Figure 1) (Wolters 1967; Manguin 1993, 23). Historical sources, both foreign documents and local stone inscriptions related to Srivijaya have been discussed extensively by historians (e.g. Coedès 1968; Andaya 2008; Kulke 2016; Wolters 1967). Srivijaya’s first Old Malay stone inscriptions, dating to the late 7th century, in and around Palembang suggest that the polity most likely was the birthplace of Srivijaya. Buddhist and Hindu statues and monuments of the late 1st millennium CE have been found in Palembang, and archaeological excavation and survey there discovered an overwhelming amount of Chinese and local ceramic sherds unmatched at any other site in southeast Sumatra (Manguin 1993). In the late 11th through 13th centuries, the kingdom of Malayu in Jambi, Palembang’s long-term rival (B. Andaya 1993), gained the upper hand, but played much the same role in the Southeast Asian Maritime Interaction Sphere (SAMIS) as the focus of Chinese trade in the Straits of Melaka. In the late 14th century, Palembang (then known to the Chinese as “Old Harbour”) reclaimed its former position as the paramount centre of trade. Jambi may have been attacked and destroyed by the Javanese kingdom of Majapahit (Wolters 1967)

The collaborative nature of relations between indigenous groups of people in Srivijaya was emphasised by L.Y. Andaya (2008). He suggests that the success of Srivijaya in trade was due to its ability to incorporate various groups of people into the kingdom. The most important groups were the Orang Laut and Orang Asli. The Orang Laut were the ”Sea People” who were skillful sailors and collectors of marine products. Although some of them occasionally turned to piracy, Srivijaya’s court was largely successful in using them as naval forces who helped protect the maritime trade routes and piloted ships through the Straits of Melaka, which were the treacherous waters for foreign sailors, as there were many submerged rocks, shifting sandbars, river channels, and invisible currents. Without the Orang Laut, foreign ships would not have been able to arrive at Srivijaya’s ports. They were also vital to the Malay sailors who no doubt formed the majority of the ships’ crews. The mangrove swamps, islands, and reefs also provided many of the commodities in demand in foreign markets. The Orang Asli were forest dwellers who had intimate knowledge of how to collect forest products valuable to the foreign merchants.

Andaya (2008, 62) notes that the image of Srivijaya, which some historians project as an empire created and maintained by force, cannot be sustained because the nature of the seascape and landscape would have limited the efficacy of any punitive expeditions. The Orang Laut and Orang Asli could escape to the many islands and to the deep forest respectively, if military forces were employed to control them, as they were very mobile. Therefore, Srivijaya’s court had to establish a respectful relationship, involving the granting of material returns and honorary titles to attract them to their port.

Although Srivijaya was not a militarily based empire, it was not just an empty name. It had a great impact on Southeast Asian history. According to Stanley J. O’Connor (1996, 596), Srivijaya may be perceived as an alliance of harbour principalities under the leadership of a ruler based initially in the 7th century at Palembang and after the 11th century at Jambi. He notes that peninsular Thailand and Kedah may have functioned within “the greater Srivijayan world.” Under this framework, this chapter will not focus on finding the capital of Srivijaya, but on perceiving it as a significant socio-political and commercial network. For example, we may envision Srivijaya as something like the Hanseatic League in the North and Baltic Seas, an association of mutual advantage. Although there are definitely differences between the two, a comparative discussion on the Srivijayan network and the Hanseatic League may lead to a new framework of study and new knowledge in the future.

The Hanseatic League, or the Hansa, was a league of trading towns in northern Europe during the 13th to 15th centuries. Special characteristics of the Hansa were its economic power and the relatively broad independence of its towns (Schildhauer 1985, 7). The Hansa was founded in the 11th century when new implements appeared in agriculture and crafts, leading to improved production methods. As the market expanded, the trade settlements acquired an economic and legal status that distinguished them from their agricultural vicinities and hinterlands. They became the seeds of future towns, which were places of goods and information, which eventually were fortified. Having acquired economic power, the inhabitants of the towns, including mostly merchants and craftspeople, sought to free themselves from feudal domination.

The evolution of production and the growth of towns led to the spread of German mercantile influence in the Baltic. Lübeck, the centre of the Hansa on the Jutland Peninsula, became the most important link between the North and Baltic Seas, as well as between the extensive overland and maritime trade routes. In the 13th century, the Hanseatic League created a vast commercial network in northern Europe in which its participatory towns enjoyed a great degree of autonomy and were able to negotiate with the central governments of their home countries. Its traders had privileges when trading overseas, and some of them were included in the council of the Hansa that held regular meetings to manage the league and solve problems (Schildhauer 1985, 38).

If Srivijaya were organised somewhat like the Hanseatic League, it could be envisioned as a trading bloc with a number of participatory kingdoms and principalities, in which Palembang would have been the most important centre in its formative years, just as Lübeck was for the Hanseatic League. Situated between the two open seas, the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea, the Srivijayan network may have principally denoted a regional organisation focused on trade and commercial collaboration, rather than on antagonistic competition. It created markets in maritime Southeast Asia and allowed its trading kingdoms a degree of autonomy. The northern end of the Straits, including peninsular Thailand, may have taken precedence in trade with the Indian Ocean, while southeast Sumatra may have enjoyed a monopoly of the China trade. It may be most fruitful to understand Ligor Inscription(s) and the Great Reliquary in this framework of alliance in the Srivijayan network.

One of the most important strategies of the Srivijayan network was to take control of the gates between the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea, including the passages through the Straits of Melaka in the south and the trans-isthmian routes in the north. Tambralinga, like Chaiya and Pattani, became a significant centre in the Srivijayan network, as it controlled some of the trans-isthmian routes and served as a crucial link between the isthmian tract and the Mekong delta.

More importantly, therefore, Tambralinga’s membership in the “Straits League” may have also meant that the Srivijayan network would have stable access to and benefits from the neighbourhood of the Gulf of Siam, where coastal principalities had created a tight socio-political and commercial bond and a large market in this enclosed body of water as well (W. Noonsuk 2017). The Cholas also realised the significance of Tambralinga; therefore, they included Tambralinga in their expedition against Srivijaya. This suggests that Tambralinga was a crucial component of the Srivijayan network.

Nakhon Si Thammarat and Singapore

Once the leadership of the Srivijayan network was weakened (Manguin 2016), the name Srivijaya disappeared from the historical record. However, we can still see some threads of the ancient network among harbour principalities in the 13th-14th centuries in the Siamo-Malay Peninsula down to the Straits of Melaka, which previously was the core zone of the Srivijayan network.^[6] This can be perceived as a legacy of the Srivijayan network. Among these new principalities, Singapore was depicted as a crucial centre in the Malay Annals.
The Malay Annals is the English name of perhaps the most important ancient Malay book, known in Malay as the Sejarah Melayu and in Arabic as the Sulalatu’s Salatin. It is a collection of stories and a genealogy of Malay rulers first compiled by an unknown author living in Melaka in around 1436 and subsequently copied and expanded. The oldest surviving version of the Malay Annals is known as Raffles MS 18, which Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles acquired during his residence in Southeast Asia in the early 19th century. Miksic (2013, 145) suggests that this copy was written around 1612 and reflects the political situation of that time.

The book begins with the story of Raja Chulan and Temasek. Raja Chulan is most likely modelled on Rajendra Chola, who attacked Srivijaya in 1025, suggesting that this great event in Srivijaya’s history was still remembered 400 years later. It also depicts Temasek, the original name of Singapore, as a strategically located place where Indians and Chinese met at the dawn of the evolution of Malay culture (Miksic 2013, 147). The story goes on to describe Sang Nila Utama, one of the sons of Raja Chulan and the fairy princess who lived beneath the sea. Sang Nila Utama appeared on the summit of a hill, called Seguntang Mahameru, near Palembang. It can be noted here again that Palembang was identified as the birthplace of Srivijaya based on the evidence of stone inscriptions.

Sang Nila Utama became the king of Palembang and took the title Sri Tri Buana, which in Sanskrit means “Lord of the Three Worlds,” after the former king of Palembang, Demang Lebar Daun, who abdicated the throne and became his deputy. Eventually, Sri Tri Buana left Sumatra and went to the island of Bintan, which was ruled by Queen Sakidar Shah, a wealthy and powerful queen who adopted him as her son and successor.

One day while hunting, Sri Tri Buana arrived at a very high rock. Climbing to the very top and gazing across the sea, he was captivated by the sight of the land on the other side that had sand so white that it looked like a sheet of cloth. He inquired about the name of that island with the pure white sand and was informed that it was called Temasek. Archaeological research has revealed a layer of fine white sand once extended along the south coast of Singapore from the Singapore River to Kampong Gelam; this eye-catching sandy shore would have shone almost blindingly white in the sun, in contrast with the green hills and blue water which dominated the view from the perspective of a person on a passing ship (Miksic 2013, 150).

Although Sri Tri Buana desired to proceed to this beautiful shore immediately, a severe storm struck halfway across the Singapore Strait, and his ship continued to drift helplessly toward the island of Temasek. The king and his followers went on to hunt on open ground where they briefly saw a strange animal, which Demang Lebar Daun suggested must have been a lion. Sri Tri Buana then decided to establish a city at Temasik and call it Singapura, or “Lion City”. According to the Malay Annals, “Singapura became a great city to which foreigners resorted in great numbers so that the fame of the city and its greatness spread throughout the world” (Brown 1970, 21). Malay literature also recorded that the three most important ancestors of the Malays, including Sri Tri Buana, Demang Lebar Daun, and Queen Sakidar Shah were all buried on the hill of Singapura, which should be the place called Bukit Larangan, “Forbidden Hill”, now called Fort Canning (Miksic 2013, 150-152).

Based on these stories, although Srivijaya is not mentioned in the Malay Annals, Miksic (2013, 152) is right in pointing out that the picture of Singapore as the first great Malay port was probably modelled after Palembang, and the 17th-century editor of the Raffles MS 18 version must have some idea of Srivijaya’s existence. In a sense, Singapura, perhaps founded in 1299, is perceived as the heir of Palembang in the Malay Annals when Sri Tri Buana moved from Palembang eventually to Singapura.^[7] Perhaps as a remnant of the Srivijayan network, it still maintained relationships with polities in the Siamo-Malay Peninsula. Another indication that the Singapura-peninsular Thailand relationship was close is the Portuguese report of the marriage of the Singapura ruler to a Patani princess. A short distance north of Patani, Nakhon Si Thammarat seems to have been a member of this “post-Srivijayan” network as well.

The name Nakhon Si Thammarat (Nagara Śrī Dharmarāja) can be confusing because it can mean several things. The name derives from its king and can be translated as “the city of the glorious, righteous king.” In the present, it is the name of both the province and the city which serves as the seat of the provincial government, on the eastern coast of Thailand. It was also the name of a kingdom and its capital city from around the 13th century. Right on top of this old capital city, the modern city of Nakhon Si Thammarat grew.

The main local chronicles of Nakhon Si Thammarat include Tamnan Phra That Mueang Nakhon Si Thammarat (The Chronicle of the Reliquary of Nakhon Si Thammarat City) and Tamnan Mueang Nakhon Si Thammarat (The Chronicle of Nakhon Si Thammarat City) (Fine Arts Department 2017). They tell almost the same stories, and the opening chapters of both works were influenced by the earlier Buddhist literature of Sri Lanka. Based on his meticulous examination, Wyatt (1975) proposed the dates of the oldest manuscripts of these chronicles to range from c. mid-18th to 19th century. However, the beginning episodes of this textual tradition piggybacked on the 13th-century Sri Lankan chronicles, including the Dāṭhāvaṁsa and Thūpavaṁsa, while creating a unique foundation myth well-grounded on the local sandy landscape (W. Noonsuk 2021).

The textual tradition begins with two royal siblings (a princess and a prince) of an Indian city who took a Buddha’s tooth relic and escaped to Sri Lanka to save it from an enemy who waged war in order to seize it.^[8] On their escape, the royal siblings experienced a severe storm which sank their ship.^[9] They drifted helplessly in the ocean until arriving at the Crystal Beach (Hat Sai Kaeo in Thai, literally meaning “crystal sand beach”), where they buried the Buddha’s tooth relic for safekeeping. After that, a flying arahant^[10] came down to worship the tooth relic and declared a crucial prophecy that King Si Thammasokkarat would later erect a glorious city and large reliquary on this beach. The arahant also helped the princes to sail on a ship safely to Sri Lanka (Figure 1). The king of Sri Lanka was grateful to the royal siblings for the Buddha’s tooth relic and, in return, granted them safe journey back home with a portion of the Buddha’s ashes. The royal siblings returned to the Crystal Beach to bury a part of the Buddha’s ashes they received before they headed back home in India.

The local chronicles continue with the story of King Si Thammasokarat (Sri Dharmasokaraja) ^[11] and his followers who escaped from an epidemic in their native city and set sail to find a new land. They discovered a beautiful shore with iridescent sand, which is the Crystal Beach, and the king decided immediately to establish their new capital there. They found the Buddha’s ashes buried under the sacred sand and, therefore, built the Great Reliquary on top of them.^[12] The new capital was called Nakhon Si Thammarat City. Like the Malay Annals’ omission of Srivijaya, the local chronicles of Nakhon Si Thammarat do not mention Tambralinga. This avoidance of ancient names provides another interesting feature in common, which is difficult to explain.

The Crystal Beach is part of the ancient eastern beach ridge, which was geologically formed around 6,000-8,000 years ago during the maximum postglacial transgression of seawater. The beach ridge runs along the present shoreline of Nakhon Si Thammarat Province. Together with an ancient western beach ridge, it has served as the core of the Tambralinga/Nakhon Si Thammarat landscape, linking people and communities from north to south in a beach ridge society (See Figure 7.3). In the area of the Crystal Beach, there are two old walled cities: Phra Wiang and Nakhon Don Phra, loosely mentioned in different sections of the local chronicles (Figures 7.4 and 7.7). Phra Wiang City (1,000x600 m.) is an earthen-walled city located south of the Great Reliquary. The age of this city is still uncertain, but it should be older than Nakhon Don Phra City, which is guarded by brick walls. Nakhon Don Phra City (2,238x456 m.), also commonly called Nakhon Si Thammarat City, is believed to have been constructed in the 15th century when Nakhon Si Thammarat Kingdom was annexed by Ayutthaya. However, the date of this brick-walled city is not certain either (W. Noonsuk 2018b, 179-181, 215-218).

In a manner strikingly similar to the story of the founding of Singapura, the local chronicles emphasise the significance of the Crystal Beach as eye-catching in the founding of Nakhon Si Thammarat City and as the place where the royal siblings initially buried the Buddha’s tooth relic. To a certain extent, these local chronicles were inspired by the Dāṭhāvaṁsa, the 13th-century Sri Lankan Pali chronicle of the tooth relic, which mentions the “heap of sand” where Prince Danta hid the Buddha’s tooth relic at the broad bank of a river (see Noonsuk 2022; Swami 1874, 63; Woodward 2014). However, this riverine sandy bank in the Pali text did not give birth to any reliquaries or cities. On the other hand, the Nakhon Si Thammarat’s local chronicles give much more attention and greater details to the crystalline character of the ancient beach ridge, which was a real, prominent geographical feature of the local landscape. In some parts of the chronicles, the Crystal Beach is described as the beachhead surrounded by the sea and is extraordinarily called the “Crystal Island” (Fine Arts Department 2017, 179).^[13] Its glittering and pure nature is repeated again and again throughout the text as the sacred place for the tooth relics and the subsequent erection of the capital city and its Great Reliquary.

For Singapura and Nakhon Si Thammarat, the iridescent sands seem to be a manifestation of sacred geography, full of magical potency and suitable for the foundation of new capitals. Perhaps, the significance of iridescent sands was a shared characteristic of local traditions in the Siamo-Malay Peninsula and in maritime Asia in general. Such beaches are not common in the Straits, where most coasts are composed of mangrove swamps, making the white sand beach of Singapura more special.

Harbour principalities, like Nakhon Si Thammarat and Singapura, in the post-Srivijayan network in around the 13th-14th centuries also seem to have shared a particular kind of pottery, Fine Paste Ware (FPW), which was made of extremely fine clay and had thin body in the form of Kendi. Miksic and Yap (1990) proposed that there were at least two main types of FPW, including a white-bodied type (with a large proportion of kaolin) produced in Khok Mo and the red-bodied type produced in east Java. X-ray fluorescence tests (XRF) suggest that examples found during excavations at Fort Canning and other sites in Singapore belong to the white-bodied type and may have been imported from Pa-O or nearby kilns in around the 14th century when Ayutthaya claimed Singapore and other Malay kingdoms as vassals (Miksic and Yap 1990, 55).

A group of scientists and I have worked on the chemical analyses of white-bodied FPW from my 2009 excavation in the Crystal Beach, using energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and synchrotron X-ray absorption near-edge structure (XANES), and found that some of them were probably from Pa-O (including Khok Mo) (Figures 2 and 11-14). More importantly, we also discovered for the first time that some white-bodied FPWs were probably made in Nakhon Si Thammarat around the 13th-14th centuries (Jutimoosik et al. 2017). In any case, this demonstrates that Nakhon Si Thammarat and Singapura were in the same network where FPW were circulated. Future analyses on the FPW from Singapore and peninsular Thailand will prove very fruitful.

Conclusion

This chapter offers a framework for the study of Srivijaya as an alliance and network of harbour principalities under the leadership of a ruler based initially at Palembang. Based on collaboration rather than antagonism, this network created markets and other mutual benefits, especially among the participatory polities in the Straits of Melaka and the Siamo-Malay Peninsula. Tambralinga was an important part of this Srivijayan network, which allowed it to have access not only to the trans-isthmian routes, but also to the neighbourhood of the Gulf of Siam, which was a large market and production hub since the late centuries BCE. The new evidence and scientific dates of Nakhon Si Thammarat’s Great Reliquary and the “Ligor B” inscription might suggest Tambralinga’s close participation in the Srivijayan network.

Around the 14th century, Singapore inherited a legacy from and shared some characteristics with Srivijaya. The picture of Singapore as the first great Malay port, depicted in the Malay Annals (Raffles MS 18), was probably modelled after Palembang during Srivijaya’s economic heyday around the 9th to 10th century. Up north, Tambralinga was succeeded by Nakhon Si Thammarat around the 13th century. Both Nakhon Si Thammarat and Singapura actively participated in the post-Srivijayan network, as evidenced in the distribution of the white-bodied Fine-Paste Ware. Around the same time, these two new-generation kingdoms were rising from their iridescent sands.

Bibliography

Footnotes

1. Placenames ending with “linga” are very rare throughout history. Kalinga, an important ancient kingdom in modern-day Odisha, was named after the prince “Kalinga” who founded the kingdom, according to the Mahabharata (Upadhyay 2000, 49). Thus, among other possibilities, the kingdom Tambralinga, literally meaning a copper or red linga in Sanskrit, may have been named after its founder. However, unlike Prince Kalinga, we have no record of the (legendary or historical) founder of Tambralinga Kingdom. It should be noted here too that the Kalinga country was known for its prosperous maritime trade and has a significant place in both the Nakhon Si Thammarat’s local chronicles and the Malay Annals, which will be mentioned in a subsequent section. ↩︎

2. Another suggestion is that Ligor was a mispronunciation of Nakorn (from Nakhon Si Thammarat). Other variations used by various groups of people include Lugur and Lakhon. Abbreviated versions of long words are common in the southern Thai dialect and culture. For the discussion on this topic, see P. Noonsuk (1983, 155). ↩︎

3. See Chuvichean (2010) for the Great Reliquary’s architectural elements, which reflected the artistic influences from Sri Lanka in the Polonnaruwa period. ↩︎

4. I wish to thank Phanuwat Ueasaman and Professor Chatchai Sukrakan, Chair of the Academic Committee, for allowing me to use the data from the excavation to disseminate the knowledge gained from the project. ↩︎

5. As previously mentioned, Ligor is one of the old names of Tambralinga/Nakhon Si Thammarat. ↩︎

6. Although there were connections among harbour principalities in the Siamo-Malay Peninsula and the Straits of Melaka already before the mid-millennium CE, their connections seem to be greatly intensified in the Srivijayan period (c. the 7th-11th centuries). ↩︎

7. According to Lady Raffles, the significance of Singapore in the memory of the Malay people was an important factor for Sir Raffles (her husband) to establish a base and settlement on the island in 1819 (Miksic 2013, 155). ↩︎

8. In Sri Lankan Buddhism, the Buddha’s tooth relic is the most venerated object. The Dāṭhāvaṁsa, a 13th-century Sri Lankan chronicle describes the war and notes that the tooth relic was from Kalinga (an ancient kingdom on the east coast of India around modern-day Odisha). Kalinga is also the kingdom where Raja Chulan came from in the story of the Malay Annals mentioned previously. ↩︎

9. The severe storm and wrecked ship is a common theme of legends in Monsoon Asia. We may also recall a similar story of King Sri Tri Buana experiencing a severe storm and drifting to Temasek in the Malay Annals. ↩︎

10. Arahant (Pali) or Arhat (Sanskrit) literally means “able, worthy” and has sometimes been translated in the Western world as “the perfected saint” (Tambiah 1984, 11). For Theravada Buddhism, this term denotes a being (usually monk) who has reached the goal and is worthy of worship. On the ladder of spiritual achievement, arahants are placed at the top, and in Sri Lankan and Thai traditions, they also have magical power, derived from their spiritual power, to help devout Buddhists. ↩︎

11. The king’s name was modeled after Asoka, the great Buddhist king of India. In some local folklore in Nakhon Si Thammarat and peninsular Thailand, the king made Lady White Blood (Phra Nang Lueat Khao) his queen. “White blood” is believed (and “naturalized”) to be a physical trait of royal family members in Austronesian world. The white blood demonstrates purity, higher birth, higher potency of life force, magical prowess, and unquestionable power imbedded in their physique, which separates them from commoners by the law of nature (Arhem 2016, 18). This local folklore indicates that Nakhon Si Thammarat and peninsular Thailand probably shared some primordial traditions with the Austronesian world, especially the Malays. ↩︎

12. In light of new evidence from the Great Reliquary previously mentioned, it may be hypothesised that King Si Thammasokkarat did not built the Great Reliquary, but heavily restored and remodeled it under artistic influence from Sri Lanka around the 13th century. ↩︎

13. Even in the modern times, this part of the ancient beach ridge still looks like a sandy island floating above the surface of flooding water during the rainy season, because it is several meters higher than the wet lands and rice paddies to the east and the west. ↩︎