, now completely destroyed. National Museum Dvaravati culture was characterized by the presence of moated urban settlements, among which
U Thong, located in present-day
Suphan Buri Province, is generally regarded as the earliest. Other major sites include
Nakhon Pathom, ,
Si Thep,
Khu Bua, and , among others. The traditional chronology of Dvaravati is mainly based on the Chinese textual account and stylistic comparison by art historians. However, the results from excavations in
Chan Sen and Tha Muang mound at U-Thong raise questions about the traditional dating. Newly dated typical Dvaravati cultural items from the site of
U-Thong indicate that the starting point of the tradition of Dvaravati culture possibly dates as far back as 200 CE. The earliest known epigraphic reference to "Dvaravati" occurs in the
Wat Chanthuek Inscription (K.1009), discovered in
Pak Chong,
Nakhon Ratchasima Province. The text is composed in
Sanskrit and inscribed in the
Pallava script, and is conventionally dated to the 5th century CE. It records a queen of Dvaravati who instructed her daughter to sponsor the dedication of a Buddha image.
Proto-Dvaravati: 1st – 5th centuries This period predates the 6th century CE, although some scholars argue for a narrower chronological range, extending only from the 4th to the 5th centuries. which has been suggested as one of the five capitals of
Tun Sun; the moated city of
Mueang Uthong, which has sometimes been identified as the center of
Chin Lin; alongside other major centers such as
Si Thep in the eastern plain. The territorial interface between this polity and
Yonok of
Tai Yuan is situated in the region around the mouth of the
Ping River. The
Legend of Singhanavati further records sustained interactions between
Tai Yuan and
Lawa or
Lua groups beginning with the formation of the
Yonok Kingdom, Despite the prominence of this migration narrative, no demonstrable relationship has been established between these accounts and the earliest epigraphic attestation of the ethnonym
syam, which appears in a
Funan inscription K.557, dated to 611 CE. Drawing on a distinct documentary tradition from the same period, Chinese sources dating from the late 6th to early 7th century, the
Tang Huiyao and the
Cefu Yuangui, describe the existence of an independent polity known as
Duō Miè, which, although not territorially extensive, was noted for its relatively large population, and seemingly contiguous with the western border of
Tou Yuan, centered at either
Lopburi or , of Dvaravati. This migration narrative also influenced later reconstructions of Tai-speaking migrations, which commonly posit two principal routes: one from the northwest, associated with the polity later known as
Möng Mao, Early Western accounts from the
Ayutthaya period provide retrospective evidence that King
Phrom of the
Singhanavati dynasty, father of
Chaiyasiri, was regarded as
Ayutthaya’s primordial monarch. Authors such as
Jeremias van Vliet,
Guy Tachard, and
Simon de La Loubère report that this belief was widely held and reinforced by court traditions under the reigns of
Maha Chakkraphat,
Prasat Thong, and
Narai, which traced Ayutthayan royal lineage to
Phrom. This belief has also shaped modern interpretation on the Burmese chronicle
Hmannan Yazawin. The chronicle records that in 1056 the
Gywans of
Ayoja (or
Arawsa), described as residing to the southeast of
Thaton, The timeframe claimed in this tradition corresponds to the
Warring States period, during which the
Yue polities associated with
Tai-Kadai and
Austroasiatic-speaking peoples declined, and their royal clans are said to have fled southward by sea into the
Lingnan region.
Early Dvaravati: 6th – 9th centuries , 8th century CE, featuring
Pallava script in
Pali language. and
Mekong Valleys in the 7th century based on the details provided in the Chinese
leishu,
Cefu Yuangui, and others. The pre-Dvaravati communities appear to have become increasingly dense, undergoing continuous development until the construction of major religious monuments in the early to middle Dvaravati period, dated approximately from the first half of the 7th century to the first half of the 9th century. However, following reported
Chenla incursions during the 7th century, several Dvaravati polities are thought to have become involved in wider regional conflicts. ordered his nine sons to establish their own domains in different regions. One of these sons, Khoun Kôm ( or ), is said to have founded
Indaprasthanagara, a polity which the
Ayutthaya Testimonies place to the east of
Sankhaburi, in the
Phraek Si Racha historical region. rendering the area unsuitable for settlement.
Rivalry among Dvaravati polities Rivalries between regional centers such as
Nakhon Pathom and
Si Thep have been suggested by some scholars, and may be sporadically reflected in later local traditions, which have commonly been interpreted as forms of regional competition, although scholarly interpretations vary. The earliest narratives of conflict are preserved in several versions of the
Legend of Nakhon Chai Si and the
Legend of Phra Praton Chedi. These traditions recount that
Siddhijaya, originating from Manohana—a toponym identified with
Ayojjhapura in the Pali chronicles
Ratanabimbavaṃsa and
Jinakalamali;—relocated to the Nakhon Pathom region and established his authority around 590 CE. Kalavarnadisharaja’s reign is characterized in the
Northern Chronicle as a period of territorial expansion, This founder narrative, however, is irreconcilable with the account preserved in the
Cāmadevivaṃsa, which states that in 647 CE—one year prior to
Kalavarnadisharaja’s supposed accession—Lavo was already ruled by Navaratna (), Some sources further propose an earlier foundation date, as early as 538 CE. On the basis of Chinese sources, Tatsuo Hoshino interprets that political power had already shifted significantly around 665 CE, when
Pú jiā yuè mó, The
Jinakalamali and
Cāmadevivaṃsa later introduce Uchitthaka, a
cakravartin who is described as having lost the capital of Lavapura to Sujita of
Tambralinga in 927 CE during a campaign associated with conflicts involving
Haripuñjaya. Uchitthaka is further said, in these accounts, to have marched on Haripuñjaya, seized its throne, and ruled there until 930 CE. By 757 CE, a ruler named
Padumasuriyavamsa is said to have emerged at
Indaprasthanagara in the central
Menam valley. His authority is described in later tradition as encompassing
Lavo and
Sukhothai, and extending eastward into the
Korat Plateau as far as Mueang Talung ( or ) in present-day
Prakhon Chai district; several later Siamese monarchs subsequently claimed descent from him. However, the
Ratanabimbavaṃsa also records that in the early 9th century
Indaprasthanagara was besieged by
Adītaraj of
Ayojjhapura (Si Thep) after the demise of its great ruler. The Si Thep line is further attested by
Bhagadatta, whose reign is dated from 859 CE by the Śrī Canāśa Inscription (K.949) and his dynasty is said to have ended in 949 CE following incursions from
Angkor.
Angkor,
Chola, However, following the siege of Funan's capital by the brothers
Bhavavarman I and
Mahendravarman I of the
Suryavaṃśa dynasty of
Chenla, Rudravarman is said to fled to
Champa, while members of his lineage dispersed to other polities such as
Pan Pan. Claude Jacques has proposed an alternative interpretation, identifying Chakravartin with Mahārājādhirāja Śrī
Devanika, who is described in the
Devanika Inscription (K.365), dated to the early 5th century, as having come from a distant land. Jacques suggested that
Devanika ruled from a center corresponding to
Si Thep and dispatched princes to govern several cities along the trans-
Mekong trade route. These cities may have included
Dong Mueang Aem in modern
Khon Kaen province, in present-day
Yasothon province, and
Vat Phou in southern
Laos. The lineage associated with Vat Phou was later identified as the founding line of
Chenla. However, this identification has been disputed by Zakharova. George Cœdès and Claude Jacques initially dated the Wang Pai Inscription to the mid-6th century and identified the Bhavavarman mentioned in the inscription with
Bhavavarman I of
Chenla. However, Claude Jacques later reinterpreted the inscription and proposed that the Bhavavarman mentioned in the text was a local ruler of
Si Thep rather than the Chenla monarch. whose principal center has been proposed to correspond to modern
Lopburi or . The conflict is described as having concluded with a dynastic marriage between a princess of Chenla and a prince of Dvaravati. and with other polities influenced by Dvaravati, including
Zhu Jiang and
Can Ban. As a result of these dynastic connections, artistic traditions in the Menam Basin, particularly in the western region, show influences from both
Chenla and
Champa. the former seat of Bhavavarman II between 637 and 639.
Jayavarman II (r. 780–850), ruler of Lower Chenla and later regarded as the founder of the Angkorian monarchy, is recorded as having re-established relations with polities in the
Mun–
Chi basins, where the former ally
Zhu Jiang was located, and as having encountered Dvaravati Si Thep in the
Menam–
Pa Sak valleys.
Woodward has further proposed that Jayavarman II defeated
Wen Dan during this period, after which the remaining Dvaravati-associated Wen Dan region in the
Chi valley entered the
Javā era. Archaeological and textual data suggest that by the early 8th century, the political predominance of Dvaravati had entered a phase of decline. Thereafter, Si Thep declined and was abandoned by approximately the 13th century, contemporaneously with the rise of the
Sukhothai and
Ayutthaya kingdoms. Another Dvaravati center,
Lavapura of
Lavo, came under Angkor influence from the 10th century,
Regional power reconfiguration Following the conquest of
Lavo by
Tambralinga in 927 During this period, several Dvaravati polities experienced external incursions or displacement. According to the ''
, Suphannaphum, situated in the western Menam valley, is recorded as having suffered an assault that compelled its two princes to flee northward into Haripuñjaya territory in the 930s, while a series of ultimately unsuccessful Tambralinga campaigns launched from Lavo attempted to advance toward Haripuñjaya. These disruptions coincided with a northward relocation of the political center of the early Siamese polity led by Sudhammaraja from the central Menam valley to Phitsanulok in 937, as mentioned in the Ayutthaya Testimonies. shortly thereafter, Srisimha the Siamese ruler at Phetchaburi returned to the central Menam valley.—marched against the Thaton kingdom, then in the process of annexation by Pagan, an episode corroborated by Burmese inscriptions from the Arakan Pagoda in Mandalay. The chronicles of Thaton likewise mention an attack by the Krom
, with both ethnonyms likely referring to the Khom people. George Cœdès proposed that Ayoja
(or Arawsa'') corresponds to Ayudhya or Siam. The aforementioned hypothesis of
Tai Yuan descent is consistent with the narrative preserved in the
Northern Chronicle, which records that during the reign of
Suvacanaraja of
Mueang Chaliang—commencing around the 1050s—a coalition of several Tai Yuan
mueang, led by Śrīdharmatripiṭaka () of
Ngoenyang Chiang Saen, advanced into the upper Menam Valley. Although the conflict was ultimately resolved through negotiation, a dynastic alliance was established whereby Suvacanaraja gave his only daughter in marriage to Śrīdharmatripiṭaka, In turn, a son of
Kesariraja, Duangkrian Krishnaraja () is reported to have entered into a further interdynastic marriage with a
Xiān princess, who is said to have relocated the capital from
Sukhothai to
Phitsanulok in 1349.
Pagan expansion and final decline As a consequence of the 1056 incursion by the
Gywan, it has been suggested that
Anawrahta of the
Pagan Kingdom extended his authority into the lower
Menam basin, during which Dvaravati Nakhon Pathom may have been destroyed around 1058, after which Mueang Uthong was abandoned
Post-Dvaravati: 12th – 13th centuries Regional transformation The 12th and 13th centuries mark a transitional phase following the decline of Dvaravati, characterized by political fragmentation and competition among several newly emergent centers in the
Menam and
Mae Klong River basins. Many of these polities later developed into historically attested Siamese states, including
Phrip Phri,
Suphannaphum,
Suvarnapura,
Sukhothai, and
Ayutthaya. During this period, former Dvaravati supra-regional centers lost much of their earlier prominence. Of the two principal centers,
Si Thep remained under Angkorian authority but experienced a gradual decline in political and economic significance and is generally considered to have been abandoned by around the 13th century. , western Menam valley, dating to the late 12th–early 13th century and reflecting strong
Angkorian
Bayon–style architectural influence.|240px , built around the 13th century, shows an influence of
Lanka, Lan Na, Pagan, and Ayutthaya to the Sukhothai architecture style|thumb|240px Within this shifting regional configuration, the principal power in the western
Menam valleys appears to have been centred at Mueang Sing, located in the present-day
Mueang Sing Historical Park, while authority in the eastern plain was based at
Lopburi. The latter alternated between Angkorian control and periods of local autonomy. Both centres are identified in the
Preah Khan Inscription as
Sri Jayasimhapuri and
Lavodayapura, respectively. It is possible that conflicts among these polities occurred during this transitional phase. Within this lineage, Jatiraja () is described as a later ruler who exercised authority at
Jayasimhapuri, a polity corresponding broadly to
Indaprasthanagara. In the
Ayutthaya Testimonies, Indaprasthanagara dynasty is described as belonging to the same lineage as the early
Sukhothai monarchs, In contrast, the 1225 Chinese work
Zhu Fan Zhi by
Zhao Rukuo lists Lavo,
Chu fan chi, and Pagan as tributary states of Angkor. Earlier scholarship interpreted the Pagan mentioned in this text as referring to the lower
Irrawaddy basin in present-day Myanmar; while
Chu fan chi is generally identified with
Chen Li Fu. A prince of this lineage, Varashreṣṭhakumāra, who ruled at
Phrip Phri, later ascended the Ayodhya throne under the regnal name
Ramathibodi I (Uthong V) in 1341 Despite the emergence of
Ayutthaya as a new political entity, the legacy of Dvaravati continued to be preserved in nomenclature and historical memory. The full ceremonial name of the capital—
Krung Thep Dvāravatī Śrī Ayutthayā ()—explicitly invoked Dvaravati as a former seat of royal authority. Regional traditions likewise maintained this association. The Laotian ''
refers to Ayodhya prior to 1351 as Dvāravatī
and Śrī Ayodhiyā Dvāravatī Nakhon
(). Corroborating evidence appears in Burmese epigraphic sources. A 1768 inscription of Hsinbyushin of Ava (Serial No. 1128), discovered on a bronze cannon at at Shwezigon Pagoda—acquired by Burmese forces following the second fall of Ayutthaya in 1767 CE—records the “conquest of Dvāravatī” in reference to Ayutthaya. This nomenclatural continuity is further reflected within Ayutthaya’s mandala. A subordinate polity, Suphannaphum, bore the extended designation Dvāravatī Śrī Suphannaphum'' (), indicating the persistence of Dvaravati-derived prestige titles at the regional level. By the late 14th and 15th centuries, all former Dvaravati principalities, including
Lavo,
Suphannaphum, and the northern cities of the former
Sukhothai Kingdom, had been incorporated into Ayutthaya. This process was completed between 1388 and 1438. ==Government==