When, several hundred years later (dates are jumbled and conflicting, but
the most reliable seems to be 101 B.C.), Swankhalôk was built on the
advice of two famous hermits, of whom one was the Sajjanālaya, already
referred to, and under the direction of Ba (Master) Dhammarāja, the chief
of that village community, this latter personage was crowned as King in
the new city upon its completion, seven years having then elapsed from the
commencement of the work (ie., in 94 B.C.). Having married a descendant
of Lady Moggalli, of the sister-village community of Haribhuñja, the new
ruler was honoured by her with three sons, for whom he built walled cities,
which he gave them to govern as vassal Kings. Among the new founda-
tions was Haribhuйja-nagara, or Haribhunjaya, which by the addition of
a royal residence in its midst and protective walls all round was transformed
from a mere cluster of hamlets into a regal city. This fell to the lot of
Prince Ulôka, or Ulūka (Ulôka-kumāra), the second son of the Swankhalok
King. Upon being installed as ruler in the newly-founded residence, this
Prince received from his father the suzerain, with the title of Dharmās‘oka-
rāja, that of King of Haribhuñjaya (circa 70 B.C.). Other versions give, how-
ever, slightly different titles, to wit: Dharmasoka-daya, or simply As'oka-
daya, and it is pretended that out of homage to the name of its first ruler the
city had its original appellation of Haribhuñja, or Haribhuñjaya, changed
into Sukhodaya, which is therefore spelled with the assibilated s thus:
Sukhodaya. This is but another instance of those fanciful etymologies
which native lexicographers often try to foist upon the unwary public. For
although Sukhodaya, meaning "Dawn of Happiness," bears some subor-
dinate relation of sense to As'oka-daya, "Giving freedom from sorrow,"
especially if the latter be read as Asokodaya, "Dawn of emancipation
from sorrow," a literal derivation of the former from the latter by metamor-
phosis of Asoka into Sukha is grammatically inadmissible. What can be
gathered from the above medley is rather that the name of the King must
have been Sukhodaya, and that of the city and region over which he ruled
Sukhada, an assumption which appears to be supported by other evidence
besides that already adduced when discussing the interpretation to be put
upon the term Chih-t'u. Sukhodaya as a designation for the city and kingdom
must have been a later improvement upon its original name of Sukhada,
suggested by the desire to make it convey different fanciful meanings
which I have already discussed in a former number of this Review,* and
honour of having been the scene of some characteristic episode in the life of Buddha, or
of being the birthplace of some eminent Buddhist personage, such as Moggallāna, Sări.
putta, Ananda, King Milinda of debating fame, etc. By reference to the Chinese
accounts of Piao (Lower Burmā), it will be seen how the chief city of that country also
boasted of having given birth to She-li-fo (Săriputta). See Hervey de Saint-Denys'
"Ethnographie des Peuples étrangers à la Chine,” vol. ii., p. 232. Quite in the same
way Moggallana is reputed to have left traces of his residence in Chang-ch'êng (Cochin
China). See Mayer's "Chinese Explorations of the Indian Ocean" in China Review,
vol. iii., and vol. iv., p. 67. Apropos of Sariputta's connection with the capital of Piao,
I think that the name of the latter, as recorded by the Chinese Buddhist travellers,
Hwên Ts'ang among others, is to be read Säri-ksetra, instead of Sri-ksatra, as hitherto
proposed.

January, 1898, pp. 149-154. All I may add here in support of my argument, that the Siamese have long believed in a classic derivation of the term Thai-their self

which it would be waste of space to re-argue here. For the same reason I have to refer the reader to another publication of mine as regards the connection of Sukhothai and its original ruler with the Sukhada and Sukhodaya of the Puranas.*

Reverting, then, to the original argument anent the identification of Sukhothai with the Seng-ch'i of the Chinese envoys, we find it stated in the chronicles of Lamphun that Sukhothai was like a chank-shell (sankha) in configuration, and that, seeing how remarkably this city and its kingdom were prospering, Lamp'hun was built in the same shape, and similarly named Haribhuñjaya, vulgarly corrupted into Lamphun-ch'ai, or simply Lamphun. This was in A.D. 527 according to some chronicles, and in A.D. 657 according to others.

It will thus be seen how very likely it was that, from its shape, Sukhothai might also be given, amongst several other names, that of Sankha-pura or Sankha-nagara-i.e., "Chank[-shaped] City." Of course, this is a mere surmise, not directly corroborated so far by any of the local records I have had occasion to examine, but, taken together with the other circumstantial evidence adduced above, should tend to turn the balance of opinion in favour of Sukhothai being the city visited by the early Chinese envoys rather than Swankhalôk. Naturally, after all, it does not matter much which of the two it was, both cities being in so close proximity, and so strictly related to each other as alternate capitals of the same State, as to preclude the possibility of a mistake on our part anent the kingdom with which the Chinese had their earliest intercourse in this region. A more precise determination of the city which was its capital is merely a matter of archæological speculation. Nor can it be expected that, because the suzerain of the State originally resided at Swankhalôk, this city was still the seat of government, several centuries later, when the Chinese embassy

assumed national epithet-from the name of their ancient capital city Sukhôthai, is a fresh bit of documentary evidence which I had overlooked when writing on "Shan and Siam." This comes from the famous Sukhothai inscription in Kambojan characters of circa A.D. 1365, now preserved within the precincts of the palace temple at Bāngkōk, a passage of which says: "The people of the realm are neither slaves nor bondmen: they are all free (thai) and happy (sukhô) withal, hence the country became known by the name of Sukhothai [i.e., the kingdom of the 'Happy Freemen' (or Thai)]." This important passage has been omitted in both the transliteration and translation which Père Schmitt gives of this epigraphic monument in the publications of the Mission Pavie, tome i., pp. 29 et seq. In the same inscription occurs the collective designation of the State as 'Kingdom of Sri Sajjanālaya Sukhodaya." This also appears in the previous inscription of circa A.D. 1300-the oldest epigraphic monument in the Siamese language as yet found, reproduced in the above-quoted work, pp. 10-26, and numbered I. in the plates.

*

"Researches on Ptolemy's Geography of Eastern Asia," which is to be issued in the "Asiatic Studies" Series of the R.A.S.

The year after that Princess Căma-devī, the daughter of the King of Lavô (afterwards Lop'hburī or Lava-pura) was obtained in marriage for the Lamp'hūñ ruler, and from this union the dynasty that up to A.D. 1281 reigned over Lamp'hüñ-styled therefore the Camadevi-vamisa, or Camadevi Dynasty-is said to have sprung. A hint for Mr. E. H. Parker: this kingdom of Lamp1hūñ (and not Cambodia) is the Nü-wang, or "Female Prince" State, said by the Chinese annalists to have been bordering on the south upon the territory of the Nan-Chau Confederation from the seventh century onwards. See China Review, vol. xix., p. 72, and vol. xx., p. 340.

arrived, for the kingdom appears to have been conquered towards the close of the fifth century by the King from Northern Siam who founded Lavô (apparently in A.D. 493), and the capital forthwith established at Sukhothai, where it presumably remained until the middle of the eleventh century. It was then, as we shall see directly, transferred back to Swankhalôk.

In connection with the foundation of Lavô at the head of the delta in Southern Siam, there is a reference to some relics of Buddha which its founder brought thither from Svänga-puri, a town situated in the present district of Müang Fang on the Nan River (not to be confounded with its namesake to the north of Chieng-mãi), and said to have been built in A.D. 457 by a certain Paṇḍitya (or Paṇḍita)-rājā. I have purposely drawn attention to this town of Svänga-puri in order to show how easily it might lay claim to identification with the Seng-ch'i of the Chinese envoys, were other particulars wanting to establish the rights of Sukhothai-and, in a less probable measure, of Swankhalôk-to such a distinction.

KING RUANG'S CORRECT Date.

Having thus disposed of the principal topographic difficulties besetting the present inquiry, it remains, before we enter definitely into the serial history of Siamo-Chinese relations, to deal with the chief stumbling-block which Siamese records exhibit at the outset in regard to this subject. As the extant memoirs touching that early period are but the disjecta membra of one or more quasi-historical works presumably lost at the time (A.D. 1767) of the destruction by the Burmans of the former Siamese capital Ayuthia (Ayodhya or Ayuddhya), indiscriminately gathered up, regardless of either order or dates, historical facts and traditions, or legend and fiction, into a most chaotic jumble termed the Phongsavadan Nüa, or "Northern Annals [of Siam]," it becomes necessary to clear the ground, by some critical examination of the dates assigned to the relations with China mentioned therein, before we can examine these local narratives with those presented on the Chinese side. These dates all centre, for the early period, round that of the accession of King Rùang, under whose reign the first Siamese intercourse with China took place, according to those records. King Rùang, officially known as Aruṇa-rājādhirāj Ruang Chau or Aruṇavati Ruang, is represented as having been born from the clandestine union of the Sukhothai King Abhayagāma-muni-rājā (evidently a clerical error for Abhayagamani) with Nāga woman. His birth is variously assigned to 950 and 1150 Buddhist era (A.D. 407 and 607), and to 500 or 530 Śaka Era (A.D. 578 or 618); but, as we shall demonstrate directly, neither of these dates is reliable, and all are several centuries older than the correct one. When in his twenty-fifth year of age his father wedded him with the daughter of the King of Sajjanālaya (Swankhalôk), who had no male issue, and the fortunes of whose State and dynasty were declining. Thus Aruṇavati Rùang became a vassal King at Swankhalôk ; but on the death of his father the suzerain at Sukhôthai, instead of transferring his residence thither, he simply placed a relative of his in the ascendant line to govern it, and preferred to continue holding his Court at Swankhalôk, which he made the capital, his kingdom then embracing most

of Northern Siam, and extending as far west as Tōngu (Taung-00) on the Sittang River. This celebrated monarch is credited with having, in his fiftieth year of age, abolished the use of the Buddhist era in his dominions, establishing in its stead the Cula or Culla-Saka (Small) era, henceforth employed, which began on Sunday, March 22, A.D. 638 (Julian reckoning). It is merely on the strength of this vague tradition that the birth-date of King Arunavati Rùang is thrown back to the extent of several centuries, so as to make his fiftieth year of age coincide with the initial year of the era he is represented to have established. But while some MS. copies of the "Northern Annals" place this event in the year 1200 of the Buddhist era = A.D. 656-7, which would be correct if it were assumed that he merely adopted the new era from elsewhere, and sanctioned its employment in his States when nineteen years of it had already expired (i.e., in March, A.D. 657), other copies of the Annals say that he cancelled the Buddhist era in its 1,000th year (ie., in A.D. 457), thus giving us reason to contend that either the era thus abolished was not the Buddhist, or that the newlyfounded one could not be the Culla-Śaka, as this began nearly two centuries later. Neither of these contentions, however, seems tenable, as we shall demonstrate.

THE CULLA-SAKA ERA AND ITS INTRODUCTION INTO SIAM.

The Culla-Saka or Šaka-rāja* era, although employed up to a quite recent period in Siam,† and still in use in the Lau States and Kamboja, is but of comparatively modern introduction. Established according to tradition at Pagān (Bukām), the ancient capital of Burma, by a Primate of the local Buddhist Church who gave up religious life for the throne, and passed in consequence to history under the vague designations of Sangharajā and Pubbajjäraham, § whence it has also become known as the

Also spelled Sakka-rāja, from a belief of its having been established by or at the suggestion and under the auspices of Sakka, i.e., Indra. It is frequently designated by adepts the Khachapañca era, owing to the fact of its being reckoned from the 560th year expired of the Saka Samvat, Mahā Saka, or Mahā Sakarāja (“Great Saka”) era, equivalent to A.D. 638. As usual with Indu astrologers, the figures 560 are expressed by means of mnemonic words written in the reverse order, thus: kha=0; cha=6; pañca 5. In the "Northern Annals" the copyists have made a mess of the above mnemonical formula, transcribing it at times Pahampāyā, and at others Khahampāyā, terms in which it is not easy to discover the vestiges of Khacha pañca. In fact, it took me a good deal of investigation ere I could hit upon the right meaning of that abracadabra, which every local scholar I had occasion to consult so far has declared undecipherable. It occurs in the "Northern Annals in every instance connected with the adoption of the Culla-Saka era by some one or other of the Indo-Chinese potentates.

It was superseded in 1889 by the Ratna Kosindra Saka, or "Bangkōk era," which was made to date from 1782, the epoch of the foundation of the present reigning dynasty and of its capital on the eastern bank of the Me-nam Chau Phyā, or Bängkōk River. The Buddhist era is, however, still in use for religious and important State documents, in these latter it being employed in conjunction with the Bangkōk era.

"Patriarch," or "Chief of the congregation (sangha)," pronounced Thenga-radza by

the Burmese.

§ That is, "Elder Saint (Arhat)"; in Burmese Pouppadzan Rahan.

"Pagan" or "Pouppa-dzau era,"* the Culla-Saka era did not cross the frontiers of the Pagan kingdom until the time of Anuruddha. It was this famous ruler and warrior who brought it along with him in his brilliant career of conquest through Pegu, part of Western and Southern Siam, the "Shan" (Thai) States of Northern Burma, and Northern Lãos. Encouraged by his success in Pegu in A.D. 1057, he shortly afterwards attacked Lavô in Southern Siam, retreating only after having obtained in marriage the sister of the King ruling there. In the course of the following years he started on an expedition to Western Yünnan, and among the petty Thai States which he visited or made tributary was that of Chieng Sen on the Upper MëKhông, north of Chieng-Mãi (Zimmé). The Chieng Sen Chronicles (Part II.) mention Anuruddha's visit to that territory, which gave him occasion to appoint a new King to rule over it, and to establish therein the Culla-Śaka era in substitution of the Maha-Śaka, which had been hitherto in use among its people. The chiefs of all the neighbouring States were summoned to be present at the inauguration of the new style of reckoning, and all convened at the meeting adopted the new era except two-to wit, the rulers of Haribhuñja (Lamp'huñ) and Sukhothai.

It is perfectly clear from this passage from the Chieng Sen Chronicles that Sukhothai had not so far become acquainted with the Culla-Saka era,

* I may, however, call attention to the fact that the epoch of the Culla-Saka era is synchronous with that of the Mägi-San, till now current in the district of Chittagong. Although the years of the latter follow the solar reckoning of the Bengali-San, whereas those of the Culla-Saka are luni-solar, and the intercalation of months takes place on a different system from the one followed in the Indū luni-solar calendar, the synchronism of the epochs of the Magi and Culla-Saka eras above alluded to is, I think, no faint indication that the Culla Saka era was probably introduced into Burmā from either Chittagong or Lower Bengal, and did not at all originate at Pagān, as claimed by the Burmese. A thorough investigation of this point is, however, necessary ere we can definitely settle to which country-whether Bengal or Burmā—appertains the paternity of the Culla-Saka. As far as I can judge for the present, the odds seem to lie on the side of Bengal.

+ This is the date given in the Kalyāṇī inscriptions of Pegu, which state that Anuruddha attacked that country in the year 1600 of religion, and brought thence the Buddhist Scriptures and priests to Pagan in the following year-1601 of religion and 419 Sakarāja= A. D. 1057.

So state with a wealth of details the "Northern Annals" of Siam. The Ratana Bimbavamsa, or "History of the Precious-stone Idol" (the so-called "Emerald Buddha"), and other records, mention how one of the ships sent by Anuruddha to Ceylon in quest of sacred books and relics, when returning from that island straggled on to Kamboja, thus leading to a rupture between Kamboja and Burmā. These events do not appear to have been recorded on the Burmese side, and yet they cannot be devoid of some historical foundation, since the contemporaneous inscriptions of Campa make distinct mentions of slaves-evidently prisoners of war-from Pukam (i.e., Bukam, or Pagán), thus leading us to infer that hostilities must have taken place at that period between Burma and Kamboja—as we know, from both Khmer and Cham epigraphic evidence, it occurred between Kamboja and Campa—in the course of which Burmese prisoners of war made by the Khmers passed into Chām hands. For further remarks anent this subject the reader is referred to my former paper in January, 1898, issue of this Review. I may here add, however, that the invasion of Lavô ascribed to Anuruddha was more probably the work of some one of his successors. This point will be discussed in due course. Like King Ruang for Siam, and Paduma-Suriyavamsa for Kamboja, Anuruddha is Burma's national hero, and thus he is sometimes credited with exploits which partly belong to legend, and partly were instead performed by some of his predecessors or successors.