Yonok Kingdom

"Yonok" redirects here. For current settlement in Chiang Saen District, see Yonok Subdistrict.

Yonok Nakhon Chaiburi Ratchathani Si Chang Saen
673 BCE–467 CE
A map created by French scholars illustrating the territories of Royaume de Yona Karastra and Royaume de Yonaka Nagābandhu or the Yonok Kingdom.
StatusSemi-legendary kingdom
CapitalChiang Saen
GovernmentMonarchy
• 673–572 BCE (first)
Singhanavati
• 355–422 CE
Bhrngaraja
• 379–444 CE
Phrom
• 422–438 CE
Duhkhita
• 459–467 CE (last)
Mahavijaya
History 
• Establishment
673 BCE
• Annexation of Umonkasela
669 BCE
• Revolt of Umongasela
357 CE
• Invasion by Thaton
444 CE
• Kamphaeng Phet established
444 CE
• Fall of Yonok
467 CE
• Formation of Wiang Prueksa
556 CE
Preceded by		 Succeeded by
Milakkhu chiefdoms
Souvannakhomkham
Umongasela
Wiang Prueksa

The Yonok Kingdom, also known as Singhanati, was a semi-legendary polity based along the Kok River, centered at Yonok Nakhon Chaiburi Ratchathani Si Chang Saen (Northern Thai: ᩰᨿᨶᩫ᩠ᨠᨶᨣᩬᩁᨩᩱ᩠ᨿᨷᩩᩁᩦᩁᩣ᩠ᨩᨵᩣᨶᩦᩆᩕᩦᨩ᩶ᩣ᩠ᨦᩯᩈ᩠᩵ᨶ; โยนกนครไชยบุรีราชธานีศรีช้างแส่น) in present-day Chiang Saen district in northern Thailand.[1] Archaeological evidence indicates human habitation in the area since the Neolithic period, though direct links between these early communities and later historical states remain uncertain. According to legend, the region was formerly inhabited by Austroasiatic-speaking peoples and included the earlier legendary polity of Souvannakhomkham.

Legendary accounts state that Yonok was founded by Singhanavati, a son of King Devakala, following a migration into the Chiang Saen area. After its establishment, the kingdom consolidated surrounding settlements and expanded its influence across a broad territory. The narrative emphasizes prolonged stability and the sustained patronage of Buddhism by Yonok’s rulers, alongside interactions with neighboring polities and ethnic groups.

Yonok declined after internal rebellion and was ultimately destroyed by an earthquake in the 5th century CE that submerged its capital. Its population dispersed and formed successor states, including Wiang Prueksa and Ngoenyang, the latter becoming a precursor to the Lan Na Kingdom.[2][3][4] Southern offshoots of the Yonok lineage are also associated in later traditions with the early political development of the Chao Phraya Basin.[5][6]

History

Early settlements

Archaeological evidence indicates human habitation in the present-day Chiang Saen district as early as the Neolithic period; however, no conclusive evidence has yet been identified that directly links these early communities with either the prehistoric period more broadly or with later historical settlements in northern Thailand.[1]: 13  A limited number of prehistoric artifacts have been tentatively associated with the ancient Haripuñjaya Kingdom, though further historical and archaeological investigation is required to substantiate such connections.[1]: 14  According to legendary accounts, prior to the establishment of Singhanavati, the region was inhabited by Austroasiatic-speaking populations, particularly the Khmu[7] and Lawa peoples.[8]: 29, 41  The principal preexisting polity, situated on the left bank of the Mekong River opposite present-day Chiang Saen, is described as the legendary kingdom of Souvannakhomkham. Its ruling lineage is said to have later migrated to Umongasela (อุโมงคเสลา), in what is now the Fang area, following the submergence of Souvannakhomkham into the Mekong River.[9]: 187, 283 [10]

Kingdom establishment

According to legend, Yonok was founded by Singhanavati, the younger son of King Devakala (เทวกาล), ruler of Ho people (ฮ่อ) at Rajgir.[8]: 27 [11]: 56  Thai scholars have identified Rajgir with modern Dali in Yunnan,[12]: 15  a region which, during the period in question, lay within the sphere of influence of the Kunming Yi (昆明夷; lit. 'Kunming Barbarian')—a multi-tribal alliance associated with branches of the Di-Qiang peoples[13]—as well as the ancient state of Tsen (8th–2nd century BCE), and the latter ancient tribal confederation known as Ngai-Lao or Ailao (哀牢; 2nd century BCE–2nd century CE).[14]: 222  In subsequent centuries, Ailao contributed to the formation of the six zhao (六詔; Luh tchao)–a confederation of six regional lordships, five of which are recorded as being composed of Tai speaking Lao or Lao-related tribal groups–and later became Nanzhao.[14]: 223 

While his elder brother, Bimbisara, was designated crown prince, Singhanavati and his 28 siblings were instructed by their father to depart the kingdom and seek territories in which to establish their own domains.[8]: 28 [11]: 56–7  At the age of 18, Singhanavati, accompanied by one princess and a reported following of 100,000 people, migrated southeastward, crossing the Sarapu River (สาระพู) and several other waterways. The journey is said to have taken four months, after which the group reached the area corresponding to present-day Chiang Saen. At that time, the site was described as containing the ruins of a pre-existing polity identified in legend as the Kingdom of Souvannakhomkham. Singhanavati subsequently established his domain there.[8]: 29–30  Based on the chronological information preserved in the legend, the foundation of Yonok has been calculated to have occurred in 637 BCE.[a]

Under Singhanavati’s rule, Yonok is recorded as having launched a military campaign against Umongasela, a successor polity of Souvannakhomkham located to the southwest, which was ultimately annexed. The first five years of his reign are characterized as a period of political consolidation, during which efforts were made to unify the pre-existing settlements of the region.[8]: 32 [11]: 59–60  The extent of his authority is described as reaching the Nam Tae River (น้ำแท้) to the east, the Maenam Kong (แม่น้ำคง) to the west, met the Nong Sae region (หนองแส) to the north, and Lavarath (ลวรัฐ; lit. 'land of Lawa people')[8]: 33  near the mouth of the Ping River to the south.[8]: 37  Thai scholars have identified these toponyms respectively with the regions of the Black River, the Salween River, Erhai Lake, and the Chao Phraya River basin.[8]: 33 

Following this phase of influence expansion, Singhanavati’s reign is portrayed as a period of stability, with no recorded internal or external conflicts.[8]: 33 [11]: 60  The text further emphasizes that the duties of Singhanavati and several of his successors were primarily associated with the promotion and maintenance of Buddhism.[8]: 49  This religious orientation is particularly evident during the reigns of Achutraraj[11]: 63–7  and his son Mangrai Naraj.[11]: 67–71  Additionally, royal intermarriage with Lawa communities at Doi Tung is recorded as having occurred during the reign of the third monarch, Achutraraj (พญาอชุตราช).[8]: 36–7 

Revolt of Umongasela

After a prolonged period of relative peace and deep entrenchment in Buddhist institutions, Yonok, during the reign of Bhrngaraja, experienced a major political upheaval precipitated by the uprising of the vassal ruler of Umongasela. Owing to his youth, the Khom king of Umongasela is said to have led a military campaign against Yonok in 357 CE. As a result, Bhrngaraja was overthrown after a reign of only two years and subsequently exiled to Wiang Si Thuang (เวียงศรีทวง; present-day Wiang Phang Kham, Mae Sai district), a tributary polity of Yonok.[8]: 73–4  During his period of exile, he fathered two sons, Duhkhita[8]: 74  and Phrom.[8]: 77  The latter later achieved a notable military success by reclaiming Yonok from Khom control in 397 CE and restoring the throne to his father.[15][16][17] Phrom is further credited with pursuing the Khom forces southward as far as the area of present-day Kamphaeng Phet.[15] Moreover, he established a new town as a defensive outpost in the former Umongasela area to prevent enemy incursions, renaming it Chai Prakan, to which he returned to govern following the conclusion of these campaigns.[18]

Fall of Yonok

The last king of the Singhanati Kingdom was Maha Chaichana (มหาชัยชนะ). During his reign, Yonok was submerged beneath Chiang Saen Lake as a result of an earthquake in 467.[19] The survivors, led by Khun Lung, subsequently migrated eastward to settle at Wiang Prueksa. The remaining principalities, comprising fourteen chiefdoms, formed an assembly to select new rulers, establishing an elective system of governance that endured for 93 years.[8]: 101  The legend also records a series of seismic events during the reign of Singhanavati, the founding monarch of Yonok. These accounts refer to four earthquakes in total, with the most severe allegedly occurring in the 57th year of his reign.[8]: 34–5 

Earlier, in 444 CE, Chaiyasiri, ruler of Chai Prakan and son of Phrom, faced a month-long invasion by the Mon kingdom of Thaton.[8]: 90  Unable to retreat to Yonok due to flooding and military disadvantage, he led roughly 100,000 families south along the Yom River to the southern edge of Yonok in the Chao Phraya Basin, founding a settlement later identified as Kamphaeng Phet. Chaiyasiri ruled there until his death in 457 CE, after which no further records of this southern lineage survive.[8]: 91–3  Two centuries later, Chinese sources—the Tang Huiyao and Cefu Yuangui—mention this area as the location of the Duō Miè Kingdom, situated west of Tou Yuan with a proposed center at Lopburi; it reportedly comprised 30 cities, remained independent of other states, had a substantial population, and practiced Buddhism.[20][21]: 20  By the mid-8th century, the area came to be known as Indaprasthanagara,[b] with Padumasuriyavamsa claimed in later traditions as its first Siamese monarch,[23]: 133 [24]: 38  from whom the lineage of Visnuraja of Phraek Si Racha, a progenitor of the Sukhothai and Ayutthaya monarchs, further asserts descent.[22]: 38 

Following the fall of Yonok, records from 638 indicate the emergence of highland communities at Doi Tung, previously a tributary of Yonok, under the leadership of Lao Chakkaraj,[25] who later became the ruler of Wiang Prueksa in 648. Lao Chakkaraj subsequently reconstructed Wiang Phang Kham and renamed Hiran, an act regarded as marking the beginning of the Ngoenyang Kingdom. This polity continued through successive generations and culminated in the founding of the Lan Na Kingdom at the end of the 13th century.[26]

During this same period, to the south of Wiang Phang Kham, another principality—Haripuñjaya—was established in the Ping River valley in 629 by the legendary figure Sudeva. He later invited the Mon princess Camadevi from the southern kingdom of Lavo to rule the city in 662, an event that marked the expansion of Lavo’s influence into northern regions.

Singhanati clan and the Siamese

Owing to Manit Vallipodom’s interpretation in 1973, which equated the Tertiary Era mentioned in the legend with the Chula Sakarat era, the later monarchs of the Singhanavati dynasty, particularly Chaiyasiri, were consequently dated to the 10th century CE.[7] As the legend states that Chaiyasiri relocated to the Chao Phraya River valley, this revised chronology led earlier Thai scholars to identify him as the progenitor of Uthong, the first monarch of the Ayutthaya Kingdom, by equating him with the legendary ruler Saenpom[5][7] or with Phanom Thale Sri of the Phetchaburi dynasty.[6] In traditional accounts, each of these figures is recorded as having a son named Uthong—namely, Uthong III of the Suphannaphum dynasty in the case of Saenpom,[5] and Uthong II of the Lavo dynasty in the case of Phanom Thale Sri.[27]: 41  This equation of Chaiyasiri with Phanom Thale Sri further led to Chaiyasiri being identified as the founder of the Phrip Phri Kingdom.[6]

These assumptions were later demonstrated to be erroneous. Phanom Thale Sri is explicitly identified as an elder son of Anuraja, a ruler of an early Siamese polity in the Phraek Si Racha region, by the Ayutthaya Testimonies,[22]: 44  while Uthong of Ayutthaya is now securely attested as a son of Baramaraja and must be regarded as a distinct historical figure, separate from the sons of Saenpom and Phanom Thale Sri.[28] Moreover, Vallipodom’s equation of the Tertiary Era with the Chula Sakarat was subsequently challenged by later scholars, notably Phiset Chiachanphong, who convincingly argued that the Tertiary Era should instead be identified with the Shaka era. This reinterpretation places the lifetime of Chaiyasiri in the 5th century CE rather than the 10th century.[7]

Rulers

Chronological issues and calendrical systems

The narrative preserved in the original text employs multiple calendrical era systems, a feature that has given rise to significant interpretative difficulties among earlier scholars.[7] Most notably, Manit Vallipodom equated the Tertiary Era referenced in the text with the Chula Sakarat era. This identification resulted in the placement of the later Singhanavati monarchs in the 11th century CE, thereby creating a chronological overlap between territories attributed to the Singhanavati lineage and those known to have been under the control of Ngoenyang during the same period.[7] Furthermore, Vallipodom introduced an additional ruler, King Mang Saen (พระองค์มังแสน), in order to bridge perceived gaps in the dynastic sequence between Mang Sing (มังสิง) and Mang Som (มังสม);[8]: 103  however, this figure is not attested in the original text.[11]: 76–7 

In contrast, the Secondary Era is explicitly defined in the text in a manner that closely corresponds to the Buddhist Era. This identification is supported by the statement that its second monarch, Phanthati (พญาพันธติ), died in the same year as the Buddha, after which the year count recommenced at one with the accession of the third monarch, Achutraraj (พญาอชุตราช).[8]: 48  This chronological framework is applied consistently throughout the reigns of Geng, Ping, Kom, and Duhkhita, for whom the regnal years recorded in the text correspond directly to Buddhist Era dates cited in the same passages.[8]: 55, 61, 70, 88 

With regard to the Tertiary Era, Phiset Chiachanphong has proposed that it should instead be identified with the Shaka era.[7] When these two propositions—namely, the equation of the Secondary Era with the Buddhist Era and the identification of the Tertiary Era with the Shaka era—are applied conjointly, the resulting chronology remains internally consistent. In particular, during the reigns of King Fan and King Wan, the text records the abandonment of the earlier era system and the institution of a new one; when these dates are converted into the Common Era, the transition occurs without any chronological discontinuity. However, this presupposition results in an almost century-long temporal gap between Yonok and its successor polity, Wiang Prueksa, a conclusion that contradicts the context preserved in the original text, which suggests a seamless transition.[8]: 97–8 

The apparent discontinuity described above is more plausibly attributable to scribal errors arising from successive copying, as is clearly demonstrated by inconsistencies in the regnal chronology.[7] According to the text, Maha Wan succeeded Duhkhita directly;[8]: 94  however, while the terminal year of Duhkhita’s reign is recorded as 349,[8]: 89  that of Maha Wan is given as 469,[8]: 94  implying an implausible interval of more than a century between two successive reigns. This discrepancy is further contradicted by the narrative itself, which explicitly states that Maha Wan reigned for only 21 years.[8]: 102  The problem becomes even more explicit in the case of Maha Chaichana, who is said to have succeeded Maha Wan directly, yet whose terminal year is recorded as 376.[8]: 98  This date not only precedes the terminal year assigned to Maha Wan but also represents a chronological regression within an otherwise linear sequence of reigns, rendering the regnal chronology internally incoherent.[8]: 94  If the terminal dates of Maha Wan’s reign and that of Chaiyasiri, both recorded as ending in 469 SE,[8]: 94  are accepted as accurate, the apparent chronological hiatus between Yonok and its successor polity, Wiang Prueksa, disappears. This adjustment, however, would require the reigns of the remaining monarchs to be shifted forward by nearly a century relative to the dates preserved in the text.

List of rulers

The following section enumerates the rulers of the Yonok Kingdom and the durations of their reigns.

Color legend
  Prathama Era (โบราณศักราช; lit. 'Ancient Era'), counted from year 1 at the birth of King Singhanavati, known as the Anjana Era[7]
  Dvitīya Era (ทุติยศักราช; lit. 'Secondary Era'), equated with the Buddhist Era (BE)[7]
  Tṛtīya Era (ตติยศักราช; lit. 'Tertiary Era'), equated with the Shaka Era (SE)[7]
Name Reign length[8]: 102  Period
Romanized Thai Total years Age Years provided
in original text		 Interpretation by
Manit Vallipodom
(Buddhist Era)
[8]: 102 		 Legendary years in the
Buddhist Era (BE) or
Shaka era (SE) converted
to the Common Era (CE)
Legendary Era Buddhist Era
Singhanavati พญาสิงหนติ 101[8]: 102 
or 52[29]: 5 		 18–120
or 18–70		 18[8]: 30 –119[8]: 36 
or 18–69		 431–? 673–572 BCE
or 624–572 BCE
Phanthati พญาพันธติ 29 42–71 ?–148[8]: 35  or 98 ?–1[8]: 35  532–? 572–543 BCE
Ashutaraja พญาอชุตราช 100 20–120? 1[8]: 38 –? 1–100[8]: 48  561–? 543–444 BCE
Ajatashatru[8]: 42  พระยาอชาตศัตรู
Mangrai Naraj พญามังรายนราช 52 46–97 100–?[8]: 48  660–? 444–392 BCE
Cheung พระองค์เชือง 31 58–89 ?–183[8]: 55  712–? 392–361 BCE
Chuen พระองค์ชืน 17 61–78 ?–200[8]: 55  743–? 361–344 BCE
Kham พระองค์คำ 17 58–75 ?–216[8]: 55  760–? 344–328 BCE
Geng พระองค์เกิง 2 56–58 ?–218[8]: 55  ?–218[8]: 55  776–? 328–326 BCE
Gengthirat พระองค์เกิงธิราช 58 42–100 ?–276[8]: 56  778–? 326–268 BCE
Chat พระองค์ชาต 20 71–90 ?–295[8]: 56  836–? 268–249 BCE
Wao พระองค์เวา 19 62–81 ?–313[8]: 56  855–? 249–231 BCE
Waen พระองค์แวน 17 63–80 ?–329[8]: 57  873–? 231–215 BCE
Kaew พระองค์แก้ว 15 58–72 ?–343[8]: 57  889–? 215–201 BCE
Ngeon พระองค์เงิน 15 56–71 ?–357[8]: 58  930–? 201–187 BCE
Waen II พระองค์แวนที่ 2 16 52–67 ?–372[8]: 58  917–? 187–172 BCE
Ngam พระองค์งาม 33 50–83 ?–450[8]: 59  (✓405?) 932–? 172–193 BCE
Lue พระองค์ลือ 25 66–83 ?–430[8]: 59  965–? 193–114 BCE
Roy พระองค์รอย 15 58–72 ?–446[8]: 59  990–? 114–98 BCE
Cheng พระองค์เชิง 18 52–69 ?–463[8]: 59  1006–? 98–81 BCE
Pan พระองค์พัน 16 56–71 ?–468[8]: 60  (✓479?) 1023–? 81–65 BCE
Klao พระองค์เกลา 17 56–72 ?–497[8]: 60  1039–? 65–47 BCE
Ping พระองค์พิง 19? 52?–71? ?–512[8]: 61  (516?) ?–500[8]: 61 –? 1054–? 47–32 BCE
Si พระองค์สี 17? 54?–70? ?–528[8]: 62  (533?) 1072–? 32–16 BCE
Som พระองค์สม 14? 52?–66? ?–540[8]: 62  (542?) 1088–? 16–4 BCE
Suan พระองค์สวน 18 50–69 ?–560[8]: 62  1002–? 4 BCE–17 CE
Phaeng พระองค์แฟง 20 48–69 ?–581[8]: 63  1120–? 17–38 CE
Puan พระองค์พวน 12 53–65 ?–593[8]: 63  1141–? 38–50 CE
Fu พระองค์ฟู 12 36–47 ?–615[8]: 63  (✓605?) 1153–? 50–62 CE
Fan พระองค์ฝั้น 17 30–47 ?–622[11]: 76  1165–? 62–79 CE
The earlier era system ceased to be used in 622 following the death of King Fan, at which point a new era system was instituted.[11]: 76 
Wan พระองค์วัน 50 17–67 ?–50[8]: 66  ?–671[8]: 66  1182–? 79–128 CE
Mang Sing พระองค์มังสิง 50 35–85 ?–100[8]: 69  ?–722[8]: 69  1231–? 129–178
Mang Saen[c] พระองค์มังแสน[c] 25 55–80 — — 1281–? —
Mang Som พระองค์มังสม 8 72–79 ?–134[8]: 69  1306–? 178–212
Thip พระองค์ทิพ 17 51–67 ?–150[8]: 70  1315–? 212–228
Kom พระองค์กม 5 (✓28?) 43?–47? ?–178[8]: 70  ?–800[8]: 70  1331–? 228–256
Chay พระองค์ชาย 20 30–50 ?–197[8]: 71–2  1359–? 256–275
Chin พระองค์ชิน 15 32–46 ?–211[8]: 72  1378–? 275–289
Chom พระองค์ชม 19 29–48 ?–230[8]: 72  1392–? 289–308
Pang พระองค์พัง 16 28–44 ?–245[8]: 72  1411–? 308–323
Ping II พระองค์พิงที่ 2 15 26–42 245–259[8]: 72  1426–? 323–337
Piang พระองค์เพียง 17 24–42 259[8]: 72 –? 1440–? 337–355
Bhrngaraja พระเจ้าพังคราช 2 18–20 ?–279[8]: 73  ?–900[8]: 73  1458–? 355–357
The text indicates that Yonok was under the control of the Khom of Umongkasela for approximately 19 years.[8]: 104  However, the interval between the first and second
reigns of Bhrngaraja at Yonok exceeds this duration, extending to roughly 40 years.
Bhrngaraja Ruled at Vien Si Tuang ?–280[8]: 75 –? N/a 357–397
Bhrngaraja 2nd reign at Yonok 25 ?–76 (✓86?) ?–344[8]: 88  397–422
Duhkhita พระเจ้าทุกขิตะ 16 55–70 ?–349[8]: 89  (✓360?) ?–968[8]: 88 –? 1515–? 422–438
Maha Wan มหาวรรณ 21 46–67 ?–469[8]: 94  (✓381?) 1530–? 438–459
Maha Chaichana มหาชัยชนะ 8 42–49 ?–376[8]: 98  (✓389?) 1550–1558 459–467
Reign of Maha Chaichana was marked by the fall of Yonok.
Phrom พระเจ้าพรหมมหาราช 59[8]: 89  ?–77[8]: 89  ?–456[8]: 89  (✓360)[d] Chai Prakan: 379–438
Chaiyasiri พระเจ้าชัยศิริ 21[8]: 94  48[8]: 89 –67[8]: 94  ?–366[8]: 91 –469[8]: 94 
(✓379)[e]		 Chai Prakan: 438–444
Kamphaeng Phet: 444–457

Notes

  1. ^ A detailed presentation of the calculations is provided in the table of rulers below.
  2. ^ As says in the Ayutthaya Testimonies that Indaprasthanagara was in the Phraek Si Racha historical region.[22]: 5–6 
  3. ^ a b King Mang Saen does not appear in the original text,[11]: 76–7  and is instead introduced in the research reconstruction proposed by Manit Vallipodom.[8]: 103 
  4. ^ According to the original text, Phrom was born to Bhrngaraja in 283[8]: 77  and died at the age of 77.[8]: 89  However, the same source records his year of death as 456,[8]: 89  which would imply an implausible lifespan of 173 years. If the legendary account stating that he died at the age of seventy-seven is accepted, his year of death should instead be calculated as 360 rather than 456.
  5. ^ Given that the corrected year of death of his father is 360, which also marks the year in which Chaiyasiri succeeded his father at the age of 48, and considering that Chaiyasiri is said to have died at the age of 67, his year of death should be calculated as 379 rather than 469, as stated in the original text.

References

  1. ^ a b c "Wiang Nong Lom Cultural Heritage" (PDF). Fine Arts Department of Thailand. 2023. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 January 2024. Retrieved 21 January 2024.
  2. ^ "เมืองโยนก นครในตำนานล้านนา" (in Thai). Fine Arts Department of Thailand. 2022. Retrieved 18 January 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  3. ^ ""รอยเลื่อนแม่จัน" กับ "โยนกเชียงแสน" ตำนานที่อาจมีอายุมากกว่า 1,800 ปี" (in Thai). Manager Daily. 24 April 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  4. ^ Wood, Spencer H.; Wood, Layle R.; Ziegler, Alan D. (2 November 2015). "Natural degradation of earthworks, trenches, walls and moats, Northern Thailand" (PDF). Journal of Field Archaeology. 40 (6): 675–694. doi:10.1080/00934690.2015.1103645. ISSN 0093-4690. S2CID 32414373. Archived from the original on 8 February 2026.
  5. ^ a b c Kanjana Chansingh (25 February 2020). "พระเจ้าศิริไชยเชียงแสน (บุรุษแสนปม) สร้างเมืองเทพนคร" [King Sirichai Chiang Saen (Burus Saen Pom) built the city of Thep Nakhon.]. Kamphaengphet Rajabhat University (in Thai).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  6. ^ a b c Thanothai Sukthit (26 September 2020). "พงศาวดารกรุงศรีอยุธยา ส่งถวายพระเจ้าหลุยส์ที่ 14 อยู่ที่ไหน?". Art & Culture (in Thai). Retrieved 22 March 2021.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Phiset Chiachanphong (28 January 2022). "พระเจ้าพรหมมหาราช ในตำนานล้านนา นัยสำคัญของกษัตริย์สืบสายทางธรรม VS สายเลือด" [King Phrom Maharat in Lanna legend: The significance of royal lineage through Dharma versus bloodline.]. www.silpa-mag.com (in Thai). Retrieved 23 January 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw Manit Vallipodom. "ตำนานสิงหนวติกุมารฉบับสอบค้น" [The Legend of Singhanawatikumara: Researched Edition] (PDF) (in Thai). Office of the Prime Minister. Retrieved 3 February 2026.
  9. ^ Chayphet Sayarath (23 September 2014). "Dispositifs spatiaux et évolution des villes lao, persistence des pratiques et permanence des formes: la place du centre historique et de l'habitat ancien dans la recomposition de la ville contemporaine" (PDF) (in French). Paris-Est Sup University Group. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 January 2024. Retrieved 19 January 2024.
  10. ^ โรม บุนนาค (9 May 2022). "อาณาจักรโบราณที่สาบสูญก่อนมีประเทศไทย! "สุวรรณโคมคำ" กำเนิดจากแม่ลูกถูกลอยแพ!!" (in Thai). Manager Daily.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i j ประชุมพงศาวดารภาคที่ ๖๑ [Collection of Historical Chronicles, Part 61] (PDF) (in Thai). Fine Arts Department.
  12. ^ Thampanya, Nikon; Phanomprai, Prapaphon (2014). "การสืบค้นและจัดการมรดกทางประวัติศาสตร์เพื่อการพัฒนาและอนุรักษ์แหล่งท่องเที่ยวชุมชนเวียงหนองหล่ม อําเภอแม่จัน จังหวัดเชียงราย" [Exploration and Management of Historical Heritage for Tourism Development and Conservation of Wiang Nong Lom, Mae Chan District, Chiang Rai Province] (PDF). Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna, Chiang Rai (in Thai). Retrieved 12 February 2026.
  13. ^ 《云南各民族历史大事概略》编写组古代史组 (1975). "云南历史上几个族名、地名的由来和演变" [The origin and the evolvement of some ethnic names and the place names in the history of Yunnan]. 思想战线 (Thinking) (in Chinese) (6): 83–86.
  14. ^ a b Grant Evans (2014). "The Ai-Lao and Nan Chao/Tali Kingdom: A Re-orientation". Journal of the Siam Society. 102: 221–56.
  15. ^ a b สงบ สุริยินทร์ (30 December 2022). "เมืองลพบุรีเป็นของไทยเมื่อใด?". www.silpa-mag.com (in Thai). Retrieved 25 December 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  16. ^ โรม บุนนาค (7 April 2023). "๒ มหาราชของคนไทยก่อนเกิดประเทศไทย! ๒ เมืองหลวงเป็นอำเภอและจังหวัดในปัจจุบัน!!" (in Thai). Manager Daily. Retrieved 19 January 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  17. ^ "ประวัติของจังหวัดเชียงราย" [History of Chiang Rai Province] (in Thai). Chiang Rai Provincial Administrative Organization. 2024. Retrieved 21 January 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  18. ^ "ประวัติเมืองเก่าไชยปราการ" (in Thai). Chai Prakan Municipality. Retrieved 23 January 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  19. ^ The chronicle of Yonok-nagabundhu
  20. ^ 钦定古今图书集成，方舆汇编，边裔典，第102卷 [The Complete Works of Ancient and Modern Books, Collection of Geographical Maps, Border and Ethnic Groups, Volume 102] (in Chinese) Text: 按杜氏《通典》，名蔑国，大唐贞观中通焉。在南海边界， 周回可一月行。Retrieved 16 May 2025.
  21. ^ "钦定四库全书: 册府元龟卷九百五十七宋王钦若等撰". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (in Chinese). Retrieved 14 May 2025.
  22. ^ a b c Fine Arts Department, ed. (1968) [First published in Thai in 1912.]. Khamhaikan Chao Krung Kao Khamhaikan Khun Luang Ha Wat Lae Phra Ratcha Pongsawadarn Krung Kao Chabab Luang Luang Prasoet Aksorn คำให้การชาวกรุงเก่า คำให้การขุนหลวงหาวัด และ พระราชพงศาวดารกรุงเก่าฉบับหลวงประเสริฐอักษรนิติ์ [Testimony of the King Who Entered a Wat, Testimony of the Inhabitants of the Old Capital, and Royal Chronicle of the Old Capital: Luang Prasoet Aksorn Version] (PDF) (in Thai). Bangkok: Rung Rueang Tham. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 April 2023. Retrieved 12 December 2024.
  23. ^ Michael Smithies; Dhiravat na Pombejra (2022). "Instructions Given to the Siamese Envoys Sent to Portugal, 1684" (PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. 90 (Part 1 & 2).
  24. ^ Thamrungrueang, Rungrot; Phakdeekham, Santi (18 November 2016). "เกร็ดประวัติศาสตร์และการเมือง ว่าด้วยปรางค์ขอม ปราสาทเขมร และศิลปะลพบุรี" [Historical and political facts about Khom prangs, Khom castles, and Lopburi art] (PDF). Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre (in Thai). Retrieved 26 November 2025.
  25. ^ The chronicle of Hiranyanagorn-ngernyang
  26. ^ The chronicle of Chiang Mai
  27. ^ Chatchai Sukrakarn (October 2005). "พระเจ้าศรีธรรมาโศกราช" [Sri Thammasokaraj] (PDF) (in Thai). Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 August 2024. Retrieved 6 November 2024.
  28. ^ Sujit Wongthes (21 April 2023). "พงศาวดารอโยธยาศรีรามเทพนคร ฉบับ มานิต วัลลิโภดม : อโยธยา เก่าแก่กว่าสุโขทัย ต้นกำเนิดอยุธยา ต้นแบบรัตนโกสินทร์" [The Chronicles of Ayutthaya Sri Ramathep Nakhon, Manit Vallipodom Edition: Ayutthaya is older than Sukhothai, the origin of Ayutthaya, the prototype of Rattanakosin.]. www.silpa-mag.com (in Thai). Retrieved 25 December 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  29. ^ Jaruwan Nanthapong (1 October 2006). "การพัฒนาขบวนการสหกรณ์ในพื้นที่ 36 จังหวัด: จังหวัดเชียงราย" [Developing the Cooperative Movement in 36 Provinces: Chiang Rai Province] (PDF). Thailand Research Fund (in Thai).
This article 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.