Initial states of Thailand

The initial states of Thailand were the polities that held the territory of present-day Thailand before the rise of Sukhothai and the Ayutthaya Kingdom in the 13th and 14th centuries. They include Funan and the peninsular kingdoms of Langkasuka and Tambralinga, the Dvaravati towns of the Chao Phraya plain, and the port polities that Chinese records call Xiān.

Most are known from a thin and uneven record. Chinese annals supply names and tribute dates, inscriptions are few and widely scattered, and the archaeology has been read in more than one way, so that the extent of these polities, and in some cases whether they were polities at all rather than shared cultures, remains disputed.

Prehistoric populations

The Indochinese peninsula was inhabited long before the southward migration of the Tai from Guangxi. Its earliest widely recognised culture is the Hoabinhian, a lithic industry and long-term tradition of stone tools and flaked cobble artefacts found in caves and rock shelters, which emerged around 10,000 BP. First identified at sites in Hòa Bình, Vietnam, the Hoabinhian was later documented in Terengganu, Malaysia, Sumatra, Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Yunnan, southern China.

Iron Age burials of the later prehistoric period show craft specialists interred with the tools of their trade, and graves clustering in groups that have been read as clans. At Ongbah Cave in Kanchanaburi the dead were laid in hardwood coffins carved with birds' heads and buried with beads, bronze and iron tools and weapons, some of the spears deliberately broken. Graves along the lower rivers have yielded Indian beads and figurines and high-tin bronze bowls.Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit note that no arsenals have been found and that there is no definite proof of fortification in this period. Charles Higham is similarly cautious about political form. Much more must be known, he writes, before it can be concluded that hereditary chiefs lived in central places and controlled lesser sites around them, and if they existed they have not yet been found. He does trace continuity of place into the historic period in the upper Mun valley, where the final Iron Age phase of the 4th and 5th centuries CE runs into the foundation of the first brick temples. An Iron Age cemetery lies beneath the main sanctuary at Prasat Phanom Wan on the same orientation as the temple, and Iron Age deposits at Ban Suai on the outskirts of Phimai lead into the brick temple there.

Austroasiatic Mon and Khmer groups, believed to have originated in northeastern India, predominately populated the riverine lowlands of Indochina from around 5,000 BP. Austronesian migrants later arrived along the coast of what is now central Vietnam around 2,500 BP.

The controversial Two layer hypothesis proposes a later migration of agricultural populations from the Yangtze River valley around 3,000 BP. These groups are thought to have introduced wet-rice and millet farming to mainland Southeast Asia.

Chew reports an archaeogenetic study of rice remains from Thai sites by Cristina Castillo and her colleagues. The grains cultivated and consumed from about 1050 to 420 BCE were of the japonica subspecies rather than indica. The peninsular sites with the earliest Indian contact, Khao Sam Kaeo and Phu Khao Thong, yielded no japonica in their Bronze Age levels, and indica appears only in the first centuries of the historic period. Chew reads this as showing that the exchange behind early rice cultivation in northeastern and southern Thailand ran to China rather than India.

The site of Ban Chiang in northeastern Thailand is regarded as the earliest known centre of copper and bronze production in Southeast Asia and has been dated to approximately 2000 BCE. Baker and Pasuk place the appearance of bronze later, at about 1250 to 1000 BCE, while noting that others argue for 2000 to 1800 BCE.

Sing C. Chew, surveying the debate, describes the two positions as a long chronology, which dates the adoption of bronze to about 2000 BCE, and a short chronology of about 1200 to 1000 BCE. The disagreement extends to the source of the technology. Joyce White and Elizabeth Hamilton proposed that metalworkers trained in the Seima-Turbino tradition of the Eurasian steppe reached northeast Thailand and northern Vietnam about 2000 BCE by a route that bypassed the Central Plain of China. Higham and his colleagues instead derive the technology from the Central Plain by way of the Yangtze valley and Lingnan, in the second half of the second millennium BCE. They question the dating of the Ban Chiang bronzes and point to the scarcity of Seima-Turbino material in the region.

Settlement of the Iron Age and the centuries that follow is unevenly known. Miriam Stark reports that sites of the period lie along secondary drainages rather than the main river courses, in side valleys with richer alluvium and less destructive flooding. On the Chao Phraya the middle of the system, from below Sing Buri down to Ayutthaya and the coast, may have stood under the sea as late as about the turn of the era. Marine clays as much as 14 m deep cover it. That stretch has yielded no late prehistoric or early historic sites. Stark reports Bennet Bronson's view that flood deposits have buried them rather than that no one lived there. Sites are known instead along the western, eastern and northern edges of the basin.

Surveys in the Lopburi area report centralisation with satellite settlements, a marked increase in bronze working and the adoption of iron by about 500 BCE. Stark puts the beginning of the central-place hierarchy of the following period no earlier than about 500 CE. Karen Mudar's survey of the same district found only a weak association between sites and wet-rice cultivation before that date, and suggests that dryland farming continued in much of the region.

Early states

The earliest known records of a political entity in Indochina are associated with Funan, which was centred in the Mekong Delta and encompassed territories within present-day Thailand. Chinese annals attest to Funan's existence as early as the 1st century CE, while archaeological evidence indicates extensive human settlement in the region since at least the 4th century BCE.

The kingdoms of Langkasuka and Tambralinga on the Malay Peninsula appear in Chinese sources by the 5th century CE. Alongside Funan, these polities are commonly described as Indianized kingdoms, having adopted elements of Indian culture, religion, political organisation, administration, epigraphy, literature, and architecture following centuries of trade and socio-economic interaction with the Indian subcontinent. Pierre-Yves Manguin argues that the adoption was selective and locally driven. He holds that Vaiṣṇava bhakti, closely tied to kingship, was a major factor in state formation between the 5th and 7th centuries, beginning in the Thai-Malay peninsula and on the mainland in the early 5th century, and that it followed a millennium of trade contact rather than a sudden transfer. A comparable pattern has been read in craft production. Hsiao-chun Hung and Peter Bellwood describe finished ornaments being imported first and local manufacture in foreign materials and techniques following afterwards. Higham likewise reports local industries established under Indian inspiration, or by Indian settlement, at sites such as Khao Sam Kaeo.

Yurayong and colleagues describe several seals from Khao Sam Kaeo as local imitations of the stamp marks of South Asian trade authorities. On one, a misplaced anusvāra turns the name Ananda into a form unattested in Indic. Another is inscribed in correct Brāhmī with a local name, Pākabi, and is made of lead, a material common in southern Thailand and not in South Asia. They take the seals to show local control of certified production by craftsmen who need not have known the script they were copying.

The same spread can be followed in two distributions. Yurayong and colleagues map 777 inscriptions dated between the third century BCE and the ninth century CE. The earliest cluster lies in present-day southern Thailand, on the routes across the peninsula, and no Tai–Kadai language appears in the epigraphy of the early first millennium CE. Inscriptions in more than one language are common throughout. Settlement names show two opposite movements. The Sanskrit elements dhānī, nagara and puri spread from south to north, while Middle Chinese *dzyeng 'fortress' spread from north to south with Tai–Kadai migration and survives in Shan keng and Northern Thai ciaŋ.

Dvaravati

Main article: Dvaravati

The Dvaravati principalities emerged during the middle of the first millennium CE in the lower Chao Phraya River valley of present-day central Thailand. The name rests on a small body of evidence. Medallions inscribed with the Sanskrit phrase śrīdvāravatīśvarapuṇya, "merit of the lord of glorious Dvaravati", were first found at Nakhon Pathom and at about ten other sites on the plain. A traveller from Annam took the robe at To-lo-po-ti early in the 7th century, and Xuanzang and Yijing recorded a country of that name lying between Sri Ksetra and Isanapura without going there. Three tribute missions reached the Tang court under the name, in 638, 640 and 649.

Between the 6th and 12th centuries some forty moated towns grew up across the plain, most of them beside rivers, sharing religious practice, art styles and the use of Mon for inscriptions, but showing no sign of political integration beyond, perhaps, local confederations. Art historians afterwards made Dvaravati the label for a body of styles and for the period in which they flourished, and stretched that far across space and time the name carried its political sense with it. Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit hold that the styles travelled with trade rather than with political authority. Wyatt divides the same ground into three regions with different economies and outlooks, a seaward west from Phetchaburi to Suphan Buri, a more urbanised east centred on Lopburi and standing within the Angkorian cultural orbit, and a northern frontier on the Yom and Nan where incoming and resident populations mixed. He also holds that ethnic labels are anachronistic for the period and prefers geographical terms, writing of the ruler of a named town rather than of a Thai or Khmer ruler.

Dvaravati has often been described as comparatively isolated from the international trade network in which Funan, Langkasuka and Tambralinga stood. That isolation, on later readings, is relative to the sea rather than absolute. Tatsuo Hoshino argues for a substantial overland network across the middle Mekong linking Champa and the Gulf of Tonkin with the Menam basin, with Lopburi at its western end. Foreign material is widespread on the plain, a third-century Roman coin and Indian, Tang and Persian pottery among it. Compositional analysis of 186 glass beads from ten sites identified Chinese and Middle Eastern groups, though most are of Indian or Sri Lankan origin. Most of the surviving religious material is Buddhist rather than Brahmanical.

Empire of the South Sea

By the 6th century, mariners had learned to exploit the prevailing monsoon winds and to navigate through the Strait of Malacca, significantly shortening sea routes to East Asia. This development brought mariners from the Gulf of Thailand into direct competition with seafarers operating in the Java Sea, who were already engaged in long-distance trade from several major ports. During this period, the relative importance of Suvarnabhumi declined, while the Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian archipelago increased in strategic and commercial significance, contributing to the emergence of what is described as the "Empire of the South Sea". Baker and Pasuk attribute U Thong's decline to a shift in the river that cut the town off from easy access to the gulf, and suggest that its people may have moved some 30 kilometres north-east to Suphan Buri.

This expanding maritime network extended across Sumatra, Java, and Sri Lanka. The region formed by these lands and surrounding seas became the commercial and economic foundation of Srivijaya as a maritime power.

Early coastal states continued to expand both territorially and inland, where they encountered societies with established and diverse cultural traditions. Their influence extended into the hinterlands of the Chao Phraya basin. Some historical sources suggest that the "Empire of the South Sea" exercised military power over parts of the mainland. For example, Tambralinga is recorded as having invaded Lavo or Dvaravati in 903.

Records also mention rulers associated with Haribhunjaya, including King Bakaraj (Drabaka), King Ujajitachakravard, and Javaka Raja of Tambralinga. According to chronicles of the Song dynasty, the polity known as San-Fo-Shih sent tribute to the Chinese court in 961 on the orders of King Che-Li-Wu-Ye. The envoy reportedly stated that the name of their kingdom was Xian-Lo-Gua. The compound Xiānluó hú (暹羅斛) came into use after the joining of Xiān and Luó hú, which Chinese sources date to 1349. The notices of that year run both ways, one having Xiān submit to Luó hú and another having Xiān bring Luó hú to submission, a discrepancy Baker and Pasuk attribute to copying error.

Maritime port polities of Xiān

Main article: Xiān

Chinese records of the late 13th and 14th centuries call the polities of the lower Chao Phraya Xiān (暹). Yoneo Ishii argued that the name covered several port polities of the Bay of Bangkok rather than one place, and that in the Chinese classification of tributary countries a name written in Chinese characters need not denote a single locality. Baker and Pasuk make the same reservation, reading Xiān as Ayodhya from the late 13th century while allowing that the Chinese may first have applied the name elsewhere.

The earliest notices of the name are Vietnamese. The Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư records that in 1149 merchant ships from Xiān and two other countries reached Hǎidōng and were granted a trading post at Vân Đồn. In the Chinese record the name first appears in 1282 or 1283, when an official fleeing the Mongol army took refuge there. It sent its first mission in 1292, its ruler presented a gold plate at court in 1295, and further missions followed in 1299, 1300, 1314, 1319 and 1323; over the same span Lavo sent four missions between 1289 and 1299 and Phetchaburi one in 1294. Suphan Buri appears later as Su-men-bang, whose prince, described as heir to the king of Siam, sent missions between the 1370s and 1398. Baker and Pasuk count four towns of the lower plain — Lavo, Suphan Buri, Ayodhya and Phetchaburi — that had each dealt with China in its own name before the union.

Which polity the name denotes has been disputed. The identification of Xiān with Sukhothai began with a translator of the Chinese annals and spread through Cœdès; Yamamoto Tatsurō challenged it in 1989 from the Guangzhou gazetteer of 1297–1307, in which Sukhothai stands as the object of a verb meaning to control and Xiān as its subject, so that the two cannot name one place.

Indigenous states theory

In contrast to theories that emphasise migration from southern China, some scholars propose an Indigenous States theory, under which indigenous polities absorbed external political and cultural influences while developing distinct identities of their own.

Earlier studies of early Thai history were often shaped by the assumption that both the origins and development of early states were primarily the result of Indian influence. These influences were considered central to the formation of early Thai states as unified political entities exercising territorial control across large parts of the Indochinese peninsula. This view was sometimes extended to the belief that the populations of these states were uniformly of Mon descent. Hoshino reads several of the inland polities of the Mun–Chi and middle Mekong valleys as Tai-dominated instead, arguing from their reported customs, their fortifications and their military organisation. Hiram Woodward regards that argument as tendentious and holds that it should be used neither to support nor to invalidate Hoshino's geographical conclusions.

Proponents of the theory argue that such interpretations overlook indigenous societies that already had political and cultural systems of their own, diverse, autonomous and well developed. On this view, exchange among these groups produced shared cultural patterns before Indian influence arrived.

Archaeological work since the 1980s has been read in the same direction. Stephen Murphy and Miriam Stark hold that as the region's prehistory became better known, indigenous cultures were seen to have grown in complexity through the Iron Age. Scholars accordingly credit them with far more agency in selecting and adapting Indic beliefs than nineteenth- and early twentieth-century writing allowed. They add that the perceived break between prehistoric and historic traditions led earlier scholars to overstate outside influence and to pass over interaction between polities.

On their account there is now ample evidence that Dvaravati grew directly out of Iron Age societies before the seventh century. They give Cham developing out of the Sa Huynh in Vietnam and pre-Angkorian settlement in Cambodia growing out of the polity the Chinese called Funan as parallels. Chureekamol Onsuwan Eyre found the sites of the eastern Chao Phraya valley unranked by size between 200 BCE and 300 CE. By about the fifth century those around Chan Sen were arranged on two levels, which she reads as the formative stage of a state-level society. Fiorella Rispoli and her colleagues place a long process of gradual social complexity in central Thailand between the fifth century BCE and the second century CE, accelerating as contact with India increased. Andrew Logie, comparing the region with early Korea, observes that Murphy dates a proto-Dvāravatī stage to the fourth and fifth centuries and that Piphal Heng dates a transition period in the lower Mekong to the same span. He reads the match as a case for a common proto-historical period across central mainland Southeast Asia, while noting that Heng argues for no proto-Pre-Angkor and uses the term for elites and sites rather than for a period.

Chew, writing from a world-systems perspective, argues that the region's peripheral image rests on an Indocentric mentalité that has persisted into recent archaeology, and proposes hybridization, an interchange that weights neither side, in place of Indianization. He cites Higham's judgement that the Indian colonialist and Indianisation models are no longer tenable, with Indian presence one variable among several. On the beads, he takes up Bérénice Bellina's own statement that no concentration of production by-products, and no other Indian material indicating a group of Indians, was found at Khao Sam Kaeo. Against her reading he sets the geochemical study of Robert Theunissen, Peter Grave and Grahame Bailey. Most of the Thai agate and carnelian beads it examined came from a non-Indian source, and it concluded that carnelian beads were made in Southeast Asia from early in the Iron Age, most likely under local control. Ian Glover and Bellina have since supported that finding for the glass beads of Ban Don Ta Phet. Chew adds that almost all written information on the period comes from Chinese and Indian sources composed after the events, so that its milestones tend to begin with foreign contact. Logie separates three senses of "proto-" that discussion of such periods runs together. A proto-state is a level of social complexity below early statehood and is read from archaeology; proto-historiographical representation is a condition of the written record, where attestation exists but is too thin or unreliable to carry events; and a proto-historical period is a periodization bridging prehistory and the historical era. He argues that the three tend to align because the spread of writing is common to them.

The development of early centres such as Suvarnabhumi (Thai: U-Thong; Chinese: Chinlin) and Funan from local communities into coastal hubs is attributed to economic and cultural interaction with seafarers from the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. These contacts introduced new techniques and artefacts to settlements across Southeast Asia and helped turn populated centres into early states.

During the 2nd to 6th centuries CE, these centres became focal points of trade and cultural exchange and maintained links with maritime networks in Southeast Asia. In addition to Suvarnabhumi and Funan, Chinese historical sources record the existence of states such as Tun Sun, Tan-Tan, and Pan Pan, as well as later polities including Chi Tu, Lang-Jia-Shu, To-Lo-Po-Ti, and Lo-Hu. Yoneo Ishii cautioned that in the Chinese classification of tributary countries a name written in Chinese characters need not denote a single locality. His case in point was Sumio Fukami's reading of Sanfoqi (三佛齊), which may cover either one port polity of the Strait of Malacca or all of them together.

These textual accounts correspond with archaeological discoveries in the region, including Roman lamps, copper coins of Victorinus, etched beads, and enamelled beads. Such artefacts are commonly interpreted as evidence of long-distance trade networks linking eastern and western regions.

Economy

The introduction of new techniques and the consolidation of early Thai polities influenced agricultural production. Water buffaloes were adopted as beasts of burden in place of oxen, a practice well suited to wet-rice cultivation. As a result, rice production increased and became the economic foundation for community development. Agricultural surplus supported the emergence of locally organised economic systems and contributed to the growth of political and economic influence over neighbouring states.

For the centuries before Dvaravati, Chew summarises the region's part in Eurasian trade from earlier studies. Tin from Thailand and the Malay Peninsula was mined and exported to India, which lacked it, and high-tin bronze vessels travelled the same way. Gold, widely available on the mainland, entered the trade with India, a search that Kenneth R. Hall connected to Vespasian's prohibition on the export of Roman gold. Ships from India and Sri Lanka called at the Kra Isthmus, where cargo was carried overland in four or five days to ports on the eastern side. Only from the fourth century did the passage through the Straits of Malacca, about six weeks under sail, replace the portage.

Although maritime trade through the Strait of Malacca had been significant since the 6th century, overland routes connecting coastal towns in southern Myanmar with port towns in central Thailand remained important until the early Rattanakosin period. Alongside the rice trade, the kingdoms of Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, and Rattanakosin functioned as key trans-peninsular trade corridors, operating in parallel with maritime routes through the Strait of Malacca.

Population

Population movements shaped the cultural traditions and ways of life of the peoples who came to inhabit what later became Thailand. The historical population combined indigenous groups, such as Proto-Malay, Mon, Khmer, and Champa, as well as migrants from the Indian subcontinent. In addition, coastal communities, maritime populations, Chinese settlers, and numerous other minority groups contributed to the demographic composition of the region. This diversity has been described as a defining characteristic of Thai society.

Thai society and culture historically extended beyond the territorial boundaries of the state. The term Tai peoples refers collectively to a broad group of ethnolinguistic communities in southern China and Southeast Asia who speak Tai languages and share related cultural traditions and festivals, including Songkran. These groups are distributed across a wide area, extending from Hainan to eastern India and from southern Sichuan to present-day Thailand. Although these peoples never formed a single unified nation-state, they historically shared a loosely defined concept of a "Siam" identity, rendered in some regions as Shan or Assam. Many groups self-identify as "Tai".

A more comprehensive enumeration of Tai groups exists in Thai-language sources. For example, the Thai-language classification used in the People's Republic of China identifies 29 ethnic groups and languages as "Tai". Notable Tai groups include:

• The Lao of Laos and northeastern Thailand
• The Northern Thai (Lanna or Thai Yuan) of Thailand
• The Thai of Thailand (Tai Noi, or Little Tai)
• The Shan (Tai Yai, or Big Tai) of Burma
• The Zhuang of China
• The Buyei of China
• The Thai Lue of Laos and China (also known as Dai)
• The Nùng of China, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam
• The Black Tai (Tai Dam) of Laos and Vietnam
• The Red Tai (Tai Daeng)
• The White Tai (Tai Kao)
• The Tai Dom people of present-day northern Vietnam
• Various Tai-speaking groups in Yunnan, China

Society

Early Thai society was characterised by a fundamental division between rulers and the ruled. During this formative period, significant changes occurred in local political and social organisation. Systems of chiefdom, led by a chief, were gradually replaced by forms of divine kingship influenced by Indian political models. The king, together with the royal aristocracy and bureaucratic nobility, exercised primary political and economic authority.

Below the ruling elite was an upper stratum composed of statesmen and high-ranking officials responsible for administering the state and implementing royal policies. At the local level, community leaders played an intermediary role, maintaining close interaction with the general population.

Beneath these groups were the broader population, the majority of whom were either free persons or slaves. Individuals held defined positions in this hierarchy, with duties toward those above and below them. Free individuals were typically clients or retainers of members of the upper strata, while slaves were considered the property of elite individuals or households.

Most free people were engaged in agriculture, although townspeople and traders also emerged, reflecting the state's position along both overland and maritime trade routes. Archaeological evidence indicating extensive commercial activity supports the view that these societies developed into significant centres of trade within Southeast Asia.

Religion

The development of early Thai states was accompanied by a gradual shift from local animistic and shamanistic practices toward a predominantly Buddhist cultural framework. Buddhism became a central religious tradition in early Thai society, contributing to the integration of diverse beliefs and ways of life in the region and influencing political organisation. The faith was recognised by both the state and the general population and played an important role in shaping elite ideology and governance.

Within this context, the king was regarded not only as the principal patron of Buddhism but also as a Dharmikaraja, a ruler whose legitimacy derived from adherence to the Buddhist moral order (dharma). This concept emphasised the ruler's responsibility to uphold righteousness and promote the spread of the faith, alongside the exercise of political and military authority.

Monks fulfilled religious functions that were closely connected to the needs of the wider population. They provided instruction in reading and writing and taught Buddhist doctrine. In contrast, Brahmin priests maintained direct ties with the royal court through their ceremonial and ritual roles. Hermits and mendicants often lived in forested areas, although some exercised varying degrees of influence over politically powerful individuals.

The consolidation of Buddhism in this period laid the foundations of a Buddhist society and polity in the region.

See also

• Early history of Thailand
• Lavo
• Tambralinga
• Raktamaritika
• Javaka