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.[1][2]

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.[3][4][5][6][7][8]

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.[9]

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.[10] 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.[11]: 4 

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.[12] 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.[13]

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.[14][15]

Dvaravati

The Mon Dvaravati principalities emerged during the middle of the first millennium CE in the lower Chao Phraya River valley of present-day central Thailand.[16] Dvaravati has often been described as comparatively isolated from the international trade network in which Funan, Langkasuka and Tambralinga stood. Mon–Dvaravati culture nonetheless developed a sophisticated artistic and religious tradition rooted in Hindu cosmology. Distinctive stylistic features, such as the faceted mitre positioned high on the forehead and characteristic facial features—particularly the eyes—have continued to influence Thai sculpture.[17]

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 and a chain of archaeological sites along its course, and holds that the volume of traffic on it rose during the Tang period.[18]: 50, 53  On his reading of the Chinese notice of the five polities that sent tribute together in 657, they formed a group federated politically and economically and differing culturally from the coastal region dominated by Dvaravati.[18]: 30 

Baker and Pasuk find long-distance contact by sea as well. A third-century Roman coin, images of Sogdian traders and Indian and Tang pottery have been recovered at U Thong, coin hoards at Phromthin Tai, and Persian and Chinese pottery at Dong Mae Nang Mueang.[11]: 19  The influences that art historians trace in the region's images run to Sri Lanka, Pallava southern India, Ellora and Amarāvatī, and in places to the Ganges valley and to western India, a spread they read as a measure of how complex the trade and cultural contacts were.[11]: 11 

Most of the surviving religious material is Buddhist rather than Brahmanical. The Ye dhamma verse appears in 26 of the 42 known inscriptions, and more than forty three-dimensional wheels of the law have been found in and around the plain against four in South Asia.[11]: 11, 14 

The name Dvaravati 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.[11]: 16, 18 

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. 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.[11]: 18, 24  Wyatt divides the same ground into three regions with different economies and outlooks. The west, from Phetchaburi to Suphan Buri, faced the sea and lived by trade, fish and salt; the east, centred on Lopburi, was the more urbanised and stood within the Angkorian cultural orbit; the north, on the Yom and Nan, was a frontier where incoming and resident populations mixed.[19]: 8–9 

Two long-standing elements of the picture have since been revised. Recent research has the sea receding earlier than once thought, the coastline settling near its present position by 500 CE, which unsettles the view that the lower gulf lay under water in the first millennium and that many Dvaravati sites then stood on the coast.[11]: 3, 13, 15  The distribution of the towns themselves is not in dispute. A survey by Phōngsi Wanasin and Thiwa Supcanya found the ancient settlements of the plain arranged in two rows above the 3.5-metre contour, one running west from Phetchaburi through Ratchaburi to Suphan Buri, the other east from Chai Nat through Sing Buri to Lopburi and on towards Prachin Buri. David K. Wyatt, who reports the survey, reads the rows as the fringes of a plain then largely under water.[19]: 5, 7  The vocabulary of sectarian affiliation is also a modern coinage, Theravada among its terms. Images of Avalokiteśvara and Prajñāpāramitā that present usage would class as Mahāyāna stand alongside the Buddha subduing Māra, and Yijing found the two approaches practised in a mixed way.[11]: 3, 13, 15 

Indigenous states theory

In contrast to theories that emphasise migration from southern China, some scholars propose an Indigenous States theory. This perspective argues that a number of indigenous polities were capable of absorbing external political and cultural influences while developing their own distinct cultural identities.[20]

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.[21] This view was sometimes extended to the belief that the populations of these states were uniformly of Mon descent.[22] 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.[18]: 53–54  Hiram Woodward regards that argument as tendentious and holds that it should be used neither to support nor to invalidate Hoshino's geographical conclusions.[23]: 87 

Proponents of the Indigenous States theory argue that such interpretations overlook the existence of indigenous societies that already possessed their own political and cultural systems. Although diverse and numerous, these systems were both autonomous and well developed.[24] According to this view, interaction and exchange among these groups contributed to the emergence of shared cultural patterns prior to the introduction of Indian influences.

The development of early centres such as Suvarnabhumi (Thai: U-Thong; Chinese: Chinlin[25]) and Funan[26] from local communities into coastal hubs is attributed to economic and cultural interaction with seafarers from the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.[27] These maritime contacts introduced new techniques and artefacts to settlements throughout Southeast Asia and played a significant role in the transformation of 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,[28] as well as later polities including Chi Tu, Lang-Jia-Shu, To-Lo-Po-Ti, and Lo-Hu.[29] Yoneo Ishii cautioned that in the Chinese classification of tributary countries a name written in Chinese characters need not denote a single locality.[30]: 42  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.[30]: 41  Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit make the same reservation about Xiān, which they read as Ayodhya from the late thirteenth century while allowing that the Chinese may first have applied the name elsewhere.[31]: 46 

These textual accounts correspond with archaeological discoveries in the region, including Roman lamps, copper coins of Victorinus, etched beads, and enamelled beads.[32] Such artefacts are commonly interpreted as evidence of long-distance trade networks linking eastern and western regions.[33]

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.[34] 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.[11]: 21–2 

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.[35]

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.[30]: 40  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.[31]: 55–56 

Maritime port polities of 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.[30]: 38, 41–2  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.[31]: 46 

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.[36] 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.[31]: 45, 51  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.[31]: 63  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.[31]: 55 

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.[30]: 37, 38 

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,[37] 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.

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 and migrations significantly shaped the cultural traditions and lifestyles of the peoples who came to inhabit the region that later became the Kingdom of Thailand. The historical population included a combination of 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.[38] 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. Within this hierarchical system, individuals occupied clearly defined social positions, with corresponding duties and obligations 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.[39]

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.[40]

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 during the formative period of early Thai states laid the foundations for a Buddhist society and polity in the region and provided the historical basis for the later development of the Kingdom of Thailand.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Marwick, Ben (December 2013). "Multiple Optima in Hoabinhian flaked stone artefact palaeoeconomics and palaeoecology at two archaeological sites in Northwest Thailand". Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 32 (4): 553–564. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2013.08.004.
  2. ↑ Ji, Xueping; Kuman, Kathleen; Clarke, R. J.; Forestier, Hubert; Li, Yinghua; Ma, Juan; Qiu, Kaiwei; Li, Hao; Wu, Yun (May 2016). "The oldest Hoabinhian technocomplex in Asia (43.5 ka) at Xiaodong rockshelter, Yunnan Province, southwest China". Quaternary International. 400: 166–174. Bibcode:2016QuInt.400..166J. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.080.
  3. ↑ Tarling, Nicholas (1999). The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Volume One, Part One. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66369-4. Retrieved 3 January 2017.
  4. ↑ Sidwell, Paul; Blench, Roger (2011). "The Austroasiatic Urheimat: the Southeastern Riverine Hypothesis" (PDF). In Enfield, N. J. (ed.). Dynamics of Human Diversity. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. pp. 317–345. ISBN 9780858836389.
  5. ↑ "The Austronesian Settlement of Mainland Southeast Asia" (PDF). Sealang. Retrieved 10 February 2018.
  6. ↑ Lipson, Mark; Loh, Po-Ru; Patterson, Nick; Moorjani, Priya; Ko, Ying-Chin; Stoneking, Mark; Berger, Bonnie; Reich, David (19 August 2014). "Reconstructing Austronesian population history in Island Southeast Asia". Nature Communications. 5 4689. Bibcode:2014NatCo...5.4689L. doi:10.1038/ncomms5689. PMC 4143916. PMID 25137359.
  7. ↑ "Austronesian Southeast Asia: An outline of contemporary issues". Omnivoyage. Archived from the original on 25 September 2016. Retrieved 2 January 2017.
  8. ↑ "Origins of Ethnolinguistic Identity in Southeast Asia" (PDF). Roger Blench. Retrieved 10 February 2018.
  9. ↑ Charles Higham. "Hunter-Gatherers in Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to the Present". Digital Commons. Retrieved 10 February 2018.
  10. ↑ Higham, Charles; Higham, Thomas; Ciarla, Roberto; Douka, Katerina; Kijngam, Amphan; Rispoli, Fiorella (10 December 2011). "The Origins of the Bronze Age of Southeast Asia". Journal of World Prehistory. 24 (4): 227–274. doi:10.1007/s10963-011-9054-6. S2CID 162300712.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Chris Baker; Pasuk Phongpaichit (4 July 2017). "Before Ayutthaya". A History of Ayutthaya: Siam in the Early Modern World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–42. doi:10.1017/9781108120197.002. ISBN 978-1-108-12019-7. Archived from the original on 11 March 2026. Retrieved 29 August 2026.
  12. ↑ "The Virtual Museum of Khmer Art – History of Funan: The Liang Shu Account from Chinese Imperial Records". Wintermeier Collection. Retrieved 10 February 2018.
  13. ↑ "State Formation of Southeast Asia and Regional Integration" (PDF). Keio University. Retrieved 10 February 2018.
  14. ↑ National Library of Australia. Asia's French Connection: George Coedès and the Coedès Collection Archived 21 October 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  15. ↑ Han, Wang; Beisi, Jia (2016). "Urban Morphology of Commercial Port Cities and Shophouses in Southeast Asia". Procedia Engineering. 142: 190–197. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.02.031.
  16. ↑ "Dvaravati". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 10 February 2018.
  17. ↑ "The Mon-Dvaravati Tradition of Early North-Central Thailand". The Metropolitan Museum of Art. August 2007. Retrieved 10 February 2018.
  18. 1 2 3 Hoshino, Tatsuo (2002). "Wen Dan and its neighbours: the central Mekong Valley in the seventh and eighth centuries". In Ngaosrivathana, Mayoury; Breazeale, Kennon (eds.). Breaking New Ground in Lao History: Essays on the Seventh to Twentieth Centuries. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. pp. 25–72.
  19. 1 2 David K. Wyatt (2001). "Relics, Oaths and Politics in Thirteenth-Century Siam" (PDF). Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 32 (1): 3–65. JSTOR 20072298. Archived from the original on 26 January 2026. Retrieved 10 September 2025.
  20. ↑ O. W. Wolters, History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives (Singapore, 1982), pp. 4–8, 9–12.
  21. ↑ Justin Van Leur, Indonesian Trade and Society: Essays in Asian Social and Economic History (The Hague, 1955).
  22. ↑ George Coedès, Bulletin de la Commission archéologique de l'Indochine (1911).
  23. ↑ Woodward, Hiram (2010). "Dvaravati, Si Thep, and Wendan". Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association. 30: 87–97.
  24. ↑ Srisakra Vallibhotama, Southeast Asia in the 9th to the 14th Centuries (Singapore, 1986), pp. 229–238.
  25. ↑ Jean Boisselier, The Recent Discovery at Nakhon Pathom.
  26. ↑ George Coedès, Indianized States, p. 22.
  27. ↑ Paul Wheatley, The Golden Khersonese (1966), p. 24.
  28. ↑ Gungwu, Wang (1958). "The Nanhai trade: a study of the early history of Chinese trade in the South China Sea". Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 31 (2): 1–135. JSTOR 41503138.
  29. ↑ Wolters, O. W. (November 1960). "Chên-Li-Fu, a State on the Gulf of Siam at the Beginning of the 13th Century" (PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. 48 (2): 1–35.
  30. 1 2 3 4 5 Ishii, Yoneo (2004). "Exploring a New Approach to Early Thai History" (PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. 92: 37–42. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 July 2020.
  31. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chris Baker; Pasuk Phongpaichit (4 July 2017). "Ayutthaya Rising". A History of Ayutthaya: Siam in the Early Modern World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 43–84. doi:10.1017/9781108120197. ISBN 978-1-108-12019-7. Retrieved 29 August 2026.
  32. ↑ Coedès, George (1928). "The excavations at P'ong Tuk and their importance for the ancient history of Siam" (PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. 21 (3): 195–209.
  33. ↑ Paul Wheatley, The Golden Khersonese (1966), p. 15, note 2; p. 288.
  34. ↑ O. W. Wolters, Early Indonesian Commerce, pp. 154–155.
  35. ↑ Friedrich Hirth and W. W. Rockhill (trans.), Chau Ju-Kua: His Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, Entitled Chu-Fan-Chi (Cheng-Wen Publishing Company, 1967), pp. 31–32.
  36. ↑ "大越史記全書 《卷之四》" [Complete Annals of Đại Việt, volume 4]. Chinese Text Project (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 5 July 2022. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
  37. ↑ An Outline History of China (Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1958).
  38. ↑ Pelliot, "Le Fou-nan", pp. 265–266.
  39. ↑ Skinner, Chinese Society in Thailand, p. 96.
  40. ↑ E. Sarkisyanz, Buddhist Backgrounds of the Burmese Revolution (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965), pp. 33–67.
This page is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.