“The Arts of Thailand”
6. Û Tòng, Ayudhyā, and
the National Style
IN 1350 the Prince of Û Tòng founded Ayudhyā, which became the strongest and most prosperous kingdom in the Southeast Asia Peninsula. Around 1430 its armies invaded Cambodia and captured Angkor, but retired soon after. A few years later Sukhodaya, long since reduced to vassalage, was incorporated into the kingdom. The city of Ayudhyā, it is estimated, had a larger population than London in the 16th century. Its rulers thought of themselves as the inheritors of both the Tai tradition of Sukhodaya and the Khmer tradition of Angkor. Though they were Theravāda Buddhists and gave generously to religion, they also honored the Brahmins and took over the Hindu ceremonial of the Angkorian Court.
In 1767 Ayudhyā was captured by the Burmese and stripped of its treasures. During the disorders the city caught fire and burnt to the ground.
Architecture
THE MOST CHARACTERISTIC and splendid form of monument is the prāṅg. It preserves the old concept of the Khmer temple-mountain, stylized and modified. One of the finest examples is Wat Rājapūrana, founded in 1424. The crypt inside it was recently opened, disclosing some rich mural painting and a large deposit of and images and jewelry.
The design of the Ayudhyā prāṅg remained sturdy and majestic until the latter part of the 17th century, but after that it began to grow attenuated, springing from a slender pyramidal base which looks like a structure of superimposed Chinese tables. Again, a light prāṅg placed on the roof of a timber building had no structural significance: we might suppose it was merely “decorative” if we did not know that it was a badge of royalty.
The bell-shaped stupa perpetuates the traditions of Sukhodaya and Ceylon. Now and then the stucco trim, recalling the glories of Pagán, suggests Mòn work-manship. Often false-bays are added to the stupa base. Sometimes it is surrounded by rather Khmer-looking lions.
Another form of stupa, bell-shaped in outline, but square with deeply recessed angles in plan, vaguely recalls the curvilinear obelisk (śikhara) of Mòn temples like the Ananda at Pagán, but with the terraces and details smoothed away as if the architect had been inspired by some small and eroded replica. Often this type, which was a great favorite, was placed on top of a “Chinese-table” pyramidal base.
One of the most interesting monasteries is the Jayavardhanārāma, built by a king who reigned from 1630 to 1655. The prāṅg is firmly designed, and hardly to be distinguished from earlier models. Some fragments of walls have false-windows ornamented with delightful balusters of brickwork. Several of the towers in this complex are of a rather puzzling shape: perhaps they can be explained as a modification of the Mòn type of Wat Kūkuṭa (page 41), with its corners eaten away by a system of re-entrants. At the same time they recall, though not very distinctly, a type of Khmer monument seen at Bakong and Lolei; perhaps that is what the builder had in mind, for it is said that he had reconquered Cambodia and liked to imitate its architecture for his own glory.
The assembly-halls and ordination-halls of monasteries continued the Sukhodaya tradition.
Van Vliet, in charge of the Dutch East India Company’s affairs at Ayudhyā from 1629 to 1634, gives us a lively description of the “temples” (he means assembly-halls) in the monasteries:
Their appearance is often more beautiful than that of churches in Europe, only they are dark as no glass is used. The roofs are covered with red tiles, some with planks and lead. In the town and neighborhood there are 400 beautiful temples, adorned with many gilded towers and pyramids. Under the seats of the idols in some temples, big treasures of gold and silver have been buried, also many rubies, precious stones and other jewels have been put away in the highest tops of some towers and pyramids and these things remain there forever for the service of the gods. The houses and monasteries of the monks are built all around the temples. Usually they are made of wood. The front and back are ingeniously and expensively decorated with panels and relief work, the inside and outside are beautifully gilded and painted; the roof is covered with tiles; the corners are plastered with lime and are provided with nicely cut wooden decoration.
LaLoubère, Louis XIV’s ambassador, was in Ayudhyā in 1678 and 1688.1 quote from his Historical Relation of the Kingdom of Siam, “done out of French” and published in London in 1693:
They know no exterior Ornament for Palaces, nor for Temples, save in the Roofs. As for what concerns the five Orders of Architecture, composed of Columns, Architraves, Frizes, and other Ornaments, the Siameses have not any knowledge thereof. That which amongst them makes the real dignity of the Royal Houses and the Temples, is that altho there is no more than one story, yet they are not all level. The Roofs are all high-ridged, but the one is lower than the other; as it covers a part lower than another. And a lower Roof seems to come out from a higher Roof, and the highest to bear on the lowest, like a Saddle, the fore-bow of which bears on the hind-part of another.
The overlapping roofs are indeed the glory of Siamese architecture, as any visitor to Bangkok knows. They must have been much the same in Ayudhyā times. A good example, though somewhat restored, can be seen in a building at Lopburî, originally erected for the Persian Ambassador, later converted into a Muslim mosque, and finally into a Buddhist ordination-hall.
Sculpture
IT IS THE CUSTOM to classify under the name Û Tóng a very numerous category of bronze Buddhas. Though it was recognized that most of them might be more correctly termed “early Ayudhyā,” some of them might be pre-Ayudhyā; so the less specific appellation was chosen. They combine Mòn, Khmer and Tai ingredients in varying proportions. If we wish to sub-divide them, we can call those that most resemble Dvāravatī Group A, those with Khmer-looking faces Group B, and those with oval faces Group C.
The dates of the three groups, which no doubt overlapped to some extent, are uncertain. For reasons with which I will not burden the reader, and which in any event are not conclusive, I feel that the terminus a quo given in our Catalogue is in each case about a hundred years too early. For Group A, some of which are perhaps really pre-Ayudhyā, I should say 13th and 14th centuries, but hardly 12th. I suppose Group B belong to the earliest style of Ayudhyā, say 1350-1425, but probably not 13th century. I should put Group C next, say 1400-1475, but I think not in the 14th century.
A deposit of images recently discovered in the crypt of Wat Rajapūrana would tend to corroborate these guesses. The monument, according to the Annals, was founded in 1424; we do not know how many years it took to finish, but the deposit would be placed in the crypt when it was nearing completion. A few of the images found in the deposit are obviously much older than the monument; as to the rest, it is reasonable to assume that those found in the greatest quantity were almost new at the time they were deposited, while those found in lesser but still large quantity were a little older. There were two or three dozen examples of Group B, and several hundred of Group C.
Ayudhyā was the main center of production, though “Û Tòng” bronzes were also made in Cambodia and at Sukhodaya, doubtless the work of craftsmen imitating models provided by the suzerain power. In any case, they are of a very different character from Khmer classic statuary, and even more remote from the Sukhodaya high classic. In general they are marked by a sort of soldierly dignity, particularly Group B, with their square Khmer-looking jaws and uncompromising expression. Group C owe more to Sukhodaya, but convey little sense of spiritual fervor; the modeling is firm rather than fluent. A good example of the style, said to have been dug up in the ruins of Lopburî, bears an inscription in Mòn, unfortunately not dated but attributable to the 15th century on the grounds of spelling and script. Croup C images were produced in enormous quantity. The bronze-casters developed great dexterity in making the metal go as far as possible, often using so little wax in preparing for the casting that the metal is no more than a paper-thin skin over the baked clay core.
Most Westerners find it easy to appreciate the Û Tòng bronzes. The human anatomy, though stylized and simplified, is far less amended by supernatural considerations than at Sukhodaya. The forms are strong and decisive, though frequently softened by a richly-variegated patina which it is worthwhile to examine under a powerful glass.
A large group of stone Buddhas are very similar to the Û Tòng B and C bronzes. In spite of this, when I wrote about them several years ago, historical considerations prompted me to date them in the 17th century. I was wrong; and Dr. R. S. leMay, who had previously attributed an earlier date to them, was right. Now, since two examples were discovered in the Wat Rājapūraṇa crypt, we can safely date them with their bronze counterparts. If we want to go on calling the bronzes Û Tòng — and it would be difficult to change so firmly-established a custom — we should call the stone figures Û Tòng too. Two detached heads in the Exhibition give an idea of the style. One of them corresponds to Û Tòng B, say 1350-1425; the other corresponds to Û Tòng C, say 1400-1475.
cat. no. 19
cat. no. 20
The finds at Wat Rājapūraṇa included some delightful miniature sculpture in gold; logic suggests that it too should be classified as Û Tòng.
Around the middle of the 15th century the Û Tòng style began to merge into the “ordinary Ayudhyā” or National Style. We can sense the transition in the series of Jātaka figures cast in 1458. We are fortunate in having two superb heads from this series in our Exhibition. The treatment of eyes and eyebrows in one of them recalls a variety of Û Tòng Buddhas associated with the Subarṇapurī region; in the other it evokes the National Style.
One of the most charming works of Ayudhyā art is a bronze statuette of a princess, perhaps cast to illustrate the Court costume prescribed in the Palatine Law for princesses of a certain grade; I should date it, like its male counterpart from Chieng Mai, in the second half of the 15th century.
Ayuthyā made some beautiful stucco work, but most of it was destroyed when the city was burned, or by treasure-hunters afterwards. A fine example, of uncertain date, still remains at Wat Lai, in the province of Lopburî.
The National Style lasted for more than 300 years, and ended badly. Mass production was its downfall: the image-makers, I suppose, forgot how to use the sort of memory-picture that could give life to “copying,” and became content with mere copying in the western sense. Some of their best work is in figures of the Buddha wearing the royal attire; but it is the attire, rather than the Buddha, that counts.
We use cookies to analyze our traffic. Please decide if you are willing to accept cookies from our website. You can change this setting anytime in Privacy Settings.