Preserving the Vanishing Thai Architectural Identity Following the Commencement of the Asean Economic Community (AEC)
Vacharee Svamivastu, Assoc Prof. Architectural Department, Faculty of Architecture, KMITL, Bangkok 10520 Thailand, Email: [email protected]
Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Thai Studies
22-24 April 2014
University of Sydney
ABSTRACT
An investigation into the AEC’s Asean Mutual Recognition Arrangement on Architectural Services reveals a lack of intention on the part of the Council of Thai Architects to preserve the identity of Thai architecture. This fact has led several Thai architecture scholars realized the disappearance of Thai architectural identity is imminent. Therefore, Thailand is required to adopt certain measures to prevent the identity loss in order to preserve the Thai architectural genuine identity. One of the measures is to instill a necessary knowledge and a proper understanding of Thai architecture into the AEC member countries’ architects who seek employment in the Kingdom of Thailand. These architects should be educated on the principles and practices of Thai traditional architecture and Thai vernacular architecture to enable them to suitably apply or adapt the acquired knowledge to their modern or future architectural designs. Although the Asean Mutual Recognition Arrangement on Architectural Services is anticipated to promote an exchange of architectural expertise and, in particular, provide greater economic opportunity, the economic consideration should not take precedence over the preservation of invaluable Thai traditional architectural works and identity.
Keywords: Geometric; Thai architectural Identity; Asean Architects
1. INTRODUCTION
The signing of the Browring Treaty between the Kingdom of Siam (the former name of Thailand) and the Great Britain in 1855, which was during the reign of King Rama IV of the present Chakri dynasty of the Rattanakosin period, had modernized many aspects of Thai society. The modernization is a boon to the country’s economic development but, at the same time, is a bane to the cultural identity of Thailand. In other words, the more westernized Thailand is, the greater the loss of its cultural identity.
A century after the signing of the treaty, as many Thai traditions and cultures had disappeared or been distorted from the original purpose, cultural scholars and experts began to realize the importance and need to preserve and promote the remaining Thai traditions and cultures. The realization has led to the continual establishment of cultural bodies of various academic disciplines, including art, history, archeology and architecture. Their common goal is the promotion and preservation of Thailand’s cultural identity.
Specifically on architecture, in 1987 the Thai Promotion Council in collaboration with Silpakorn University’s Faculty of Architecture held a seminar titled “Thailand’s architectural uniqueness”. The seminar was aimed to create awareness of the condition and development trend in architecture in Thailand and to install a sense of responsibility in Thai architects to preserve Thailand’s rich architectural heritage. It was an important event in Thai architecture as the larger number of architects was made aware of the value of Thai architecture and the negative impacts attributable to the modernization.
Since the founding of the first formal architecture school in Thailand over half a century ago, Thai architecture students have been required to enroll in a full 5-year study program to graduate. The program covers several courses on traditional Thai architecture and arts. The courses are designed to equip the architecture students with a knowledge of traditional Thai arts and architecture and to inspire them to incorporate the knowledge into the design of their modern architectural works. However, evidence shows that most architecture graduates still lack a proper understanding of traditional Thai arts and architecture after graduation.
In 2008, the Thai Architect Council, a regulatory body of Thai architects, officially signed the Asean Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) with the other Asean member countries. The agreement will become effective in 2015 and obligates Thailand to liberalize trade in architectural services including free movement of architect professionals. It also stipulates that participating architects acquire practical and diversified experience of not less than ten years of continuous practice of architecture after graduation, of which at least five years shall be after licensing or registration and at least two years of which shall be responsible for or in charge of significant architectural works.
However, the agreement has left out a requirement that the participating architects acquire an architectural knowledge of the country in which they intend to seek employment. The omission is believed to accelerate the disappearance of Thai architecture in a similar manner to what had happened in the past following the signing of the Bowring Treaty.
The liberalization of trade in architectural services has both benefits and drawbacks. The benefits are, for example, greater employment opportunities and the exchange and sharing of architectural expertise. However, the drawbacks are also plenty, one of which is the disappearance of the true identity of Thai architecture, which is also the focus of this research.
2. CULTIVATION OF A LOVE FOR THAI ARCHITECTURE One major hurdle to the preservation and continuation of Thai architecture is a lack of understanding and appreciation on the part of Thai architects in general and architects of the other Asean member countries in particular of the cultural value of ancestral architectural works. Another hurdle is a paucity of their enthusiasm to incorporate both tangible and intangible aspects of Thai architecture into the present architectural works.
Therefore, public and private organizations as well as educational institutions that involve in architecture must collaborate to overcome the hurdles. The collaboration can be in the form of symposiums, training, research funding, excellent research awards, outstanding architectural design awards, and establishment of an official body to promote Thai architecture. The aims are to cultivate a love for Thai architecture among Thai and Asean architects; and encourage them to incorporate Thai architecture into their designs.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW AND FRAMEWORK OF STUDY
Karl DÖhring, (AD 1879-1941), was a German architect and engineer in the Siamese government during AD 1906-1913. He designed several palaces in Thailand and researched temples in the country. He is best known for his seminal, splendidly illustrated three books: “Buddhist Temple of Thailand: An Architectonic Introduction”, “Buddhist Stupa (Phra Chedi) Architecture of Thailand” and “The Country and People of Siam.” The first and the second books demonstrate traditional Thai architectural proportions of which very few present Thai architects know. Karl DÖhring said, “Contrary to western architects, Siamese architects primarily utilized the simple number relationships in space and form. The ratios of, for example 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 2:3, 3:5, were typically deployed in the construction of Thai architectural works. The Siamese held a view that an architectural work created according to the ratios would be of magnificent quality and beauty.” (DÖhring 1977, p.88)
Bruce Allsopp, (AD 1912-2000) was an architect, professor and chairman of the first meeting of the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain (SAHGB) said, “For civilization we might well substitute the word architecture, for architecture cannot be successfully practiced for long without a sense of history, without the sense of direction which history can give, without a concept of what architecture means, and this concept cannot exist outside time and continuity. The history of architecture is concerned with revealing the nature of architecture in a changing environment and within the inevitable polarity of the architect-client relationship.” (Allsopp 1970, p.58)
Choti Kulayanamitra, (AD 1927-1985), a late professor of the Faculty of Architecture, Silpakorn University, said, “It is hardly believable that Thai architecture works of the early Ratanakosin period adhered to the principle practiced in the Sukhothai and Ayutthaya periods despite an absence of literature...... This implies a possible existence of a disguised key concept or principle. What is that key concept or principle?.” (Kulayanamitra 1982, p.20)
Vivat Tameyapan, an associate professor of the Faculty of Architecture, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, highlighted the importance of a genuine understanding of our cultural roots and new developments. The insight will help bridge between the existing Thai culture with its uniqueness and the emerging modern culture to create contemporary cultural uniqueness. The ultimate goal is to adjust or alter the existing uniqueness to be as compatible as possible with the modern trends in cultural development. (Tameyapan n.d., p.18)
According to Anuvit Chareansupakul, an associate professor of the Faculty of Arts and Architecture, Silpakorn University, the present contemporary architectural works are a descendant of the past civilizations whose influences likely continue into the design and construction of future architectural works. It is therefore of utmost importance that the current and future generations of architects comprehend the history and uniqueness of their cultural roots. (Chareansupakul 1984, p.37)
In his 2006 academic article, Associate Professor Somjai Nimlak, who is also a royal sage, recounted a story about the works of his late teacher Professor Phra Brahma Phichit, founder of the former Faculty of Thai Architecture, Silapakorn University. In his early architectural works using concrete, Phra Brahma Phichit failed to recognize in his architectural designs the nature of mortar and reinforced concrete that lack the tenderness of woods. Woods were a common material in construction of structures and buildings. A subsequent realization of the nature of concrete material and its limitations had influenced his later works, of which intricacies and tenderness were watered down. In addition, Professor Phra Brahma Phichit instructed his pupils to begin with the roof cross-section before roof elevation in roofing design. Professor Phra Brahma Phichit was a pupil of Prince Krom Phraya Narisra-nuvatiwong, chief architect of the Ubosod (main hall) of famous Wat Benjapopit in Bangkok. (Nimlak 2006, p.26-33)
Paul‐Alan Johnson wrote in his book “The Theory of Architecture Concepts, Themes & Practices” that “Geometry has traditionally been a matter of finding the unchanging quality of a spatial relationship, the rule under which it operates. The mathematician Herman Weyl (1952,130) calls geometry “the science dealing with the relation of congruence between spatial figures” and later says, paraphrasing the German mathematician Felix Klein, “a geometry….is defined by a group of transformations, and investigates everything that is invariant under the transformations of this given group” (133). While geometry remains an empirical science in architecture, assisting the resolution of space, isolation of the invariant is the interpretative aspect of the order geometry brings to bear on spatial relationships. (Johnson 1994, p.358)
Professor Vimonsit Horayangkura of the Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Rangsit University said, “There has been widespread criticism concerning the inappropriate application of traditional Thai characteristics to contemporary architectural designs, particularly to buildings of national significance such as the Supreme Court Building and the new Parliament Complex. Yet there are no obvious solutions to meet the demand for a modern Thai architectural identity.” (Horayangkura 2011, p.1)
4. THAI ARCHITECTURAL IDENTITY Most Thais can only picture the outside appearance or “outer shell” of an architectural work when asked to describe the architectural identity of Thailand. This fact applies to Thai architects but to a lesser extent. In fact, apart from the readily visible outside appearances, a significant portion of Thai architecture identity lies hidden in the creation and magnificence of architectural works.
Throughout 35 years as an architect and scholar, the author has dedicated to studying the application of geometrical relationships by architecture schools of various periods in Thailand. The periods cover the Tawarawadi period (AD 600) through the early Ratanakosin period (AD 1900). The author was met with many challenges since no single piece of written records on these ancient architecture works exists. Thus, the study relied on the primary data obtained from measurement of physical ruins. Geometry, which is a logical universal language, was subsequently applied to analysis of the primary data since geometry is central to architecture and embraced by architects as a communication tool. The analysis revealed the use of geometrical grids in the creation of ancient architectural works. In addition, it was discovered that proportions of geometrical grids carry symbolic meanings in architecture.
5. GEOMETRY AND MATHMATICS IN THAI ARCHITECTURE Whether the ancient Thais comprehended mathematics in general and geometry in particular and were able to apply the knowledge of geometry to architectural works had been my curiosity for a long time. This curiosity led author to carry out a research work in 2010 at the Wat Na Pra Main temple in Thailand’s Ayudhaya province and resulted in a book of the same name, i.e. Wat Na Pra Main. The book revealed an ingenious and creative use of geometry and numbers on a magical hand-scripted sandstone tablet (Figure 1a). The tablet is revered as a sacred item, believing that it has protective powers to ward off evils and harms. The book appendix is dedicated to the hidden meanings of the traditional Thai numbers scripted inside a set of grid cells of three different sizes, and the grid cells collectively forms a grid table (Ruanyan). The appendix was contributed by Phramaha YanTwat, a senior monk of high ranking in the Thai ecclesiastical order. (Vacharasin 2010, p.156-169)
A careful examination of the grid table (Ruanyan) reveals that Ruanyan contains two square-shaped rings and one full square: an outer square ring, a middle square ring and an inner full square (Figure 1ba). As shown in Figure 1c, the outer square ring is formed from 16 grid cells whose size is the largest, and the middle square ring is formed from 12 grid cells whose size is ¾ of the largest grid cell (Figure 1d). Nine smallest grid cells, whose size is ½ the largest grid cell, constitute the inner square.
The Thai numbers in the 16 grid cells of the outer square ring symbolize auspiciousness in the ancient Buddhist beliefs, while the numbers in the middle square ring tell of various celestial beings in Buddhism. The inner square contains another set of nine Thai numbers. Unlike those numbers in the outer and middle square rings that carry symbolic meanings, the nine-number set symbolizes nothing but is a mere display of the extraordinary arrangement of numbers by which the sum of the numbers in each row, column and diagonally is 15 (Figure 1e). For this reason, the nine-number set is called “Kol Lek” (the magic of numbers), which, according to some evidence, appeared in a Lanna scripture of AD 1535 and was devised by Phra Sirirattanapanyajarn, a highly revered monk and expert of the Pali language. The ingenious arrangement of numbers and the application of grid cells of three different sizes to form an impeccable grid table attest that geometry and mathematics were commonly used at least five centuries ago by intellects of what is at present known as Thailand. In addition, the use of numbers to surrogate large volumes of texts was found in the grid table.
6. GEOMETRY IN THAI ARCHITECTURE An in situ study of the architectural remains of main structures, such as the spherical pagoda, raised rectangular base and columns, which were enclosed by either an eye-level brick wall or a ditch or both reveal a fact that geometry has been applied to Thai architectural works belonging to various architectural schools over a millennium. The ingenious use of the principles of geometry has produced numerous Thai architectural works of splendor. Nevertheless, this finding remains unknown to a new generation of local architects. In addition, the study leads to an important discovery of the artistic application of simple and pragmatic fundamentals of geometry to the design of majestic architectural works. This first discovery has subsequently led to another discovery of a Thai architectural identity, i.e. the use of simple geometric fundamentals in the architectural design.
7. PROPORTION IN THAI ARCHITECTURE The author conducted two in-depth research works on temples constructed during the Ayudthaya period (1350 - 1782 AD) to the early Rattanakosin period (1782 - 1868 AD). The first research in 1993 investigated eight ancient temples (Vacharasin 2004) and the Sukhothai period (1257 - 1457 AD) in 1995 studied 10 temple ruins (Vacharasin 2007). The research studies revealed the use of principles of geometry by which a rectangle is formed from smaller squares, which are called basic modules (BM) in this research. The dimensions of BM vary with building types and architects’ preferences. As depicted in Figure 2a, the division of a square or BM to the one- sixteenth (1/16) of the original BM removes the hurdle of measurement and determination of the proportion of a geometric form.
The same studies also uncover two patterns of rectangles commonly utilized in the creation of the architectural works under investigation: rectangles formed from pieces of complete BMs, e.g. 1BM:2BM, 2BM:3BM; and those formed from a combination of complete and partial BMs, e.g. 1BM:2.5BM, 2BM:2.5BM, 2.5BM:3BM. The two patterns are illustrated in Figures 2b and 2c, respectively. The methodologies were adopted to floor planning and structure design to produce Thai architectural works of beauty and functionality. 8. GEOMETRY IN BUILDING PLANNING AND LAYOUT The above and other studies by the same author discovered the use of the BM concept to form a simple and perfect grid system in the plan and layout of the architectural works and sites under study. It is also found that the BM dimensions of main structures were rarely identical and most of the dimensions are in fraction, e.g. 5.3750 m. Notwithstanding, the fraction in the metric system can be perfectly converted into the traditional Thai measurement system. For instance, 5.3750 m is equivalent to 2 wah 2 sok 1 kueb 6 nhew (i.e. 12 nhew = 1 kueb, 2 kueb = 1 sok, 4 sok = 1 wah, and 1 wah = 2 meters).
In addition, the studies have identified two principal formats of column arrangements for the architectural sites in the study. The first arrangement format is characterized by a slightly larger distance of the width between any pair of horizontal columns and that between any pair of vertical columns (Fig. 3a). The other format of arrangement is featured by a considerably larger distance of the width between any pair of horizontal columns and that between any pair of vertical columns (Fig. 3b). The BM concept is applicable to determination of the proportions of both arrangement formats.
9. GEOMETRY IN FORM The author also studied ancient architectural temples that belonged to master builders of the periods of Dvaravati (Vacharasin 2011), Sukhothai (Vacharasin 2007), Ayutthaya (Fig. 4) and early Ratanakosin (Vacharasin 2004); and residential architectural buildings made of wood (Vacharasin 1993) and bamboo (Vacharasin 2007), as shown in Figs. 5-6, respectively. It was discovered that the BM concept in the formation of a grid system was applied to building form.
10. SYMBOLISM IN ARCHITECTURAL SPACE An architectural work of nobility requires functionality, majesty and symbolism. A chapter on the Wat Suthat temple in the author’s 2005 book titled “The Study of Vihara” tells of a discovery of the use of symbolism using the BM or grid concept in the temple’s architectural space in addition to aesthetic and functionality. This temple was constructed at the behest of King Rama I of the current Chakkri dynasty.
A comprehensive investigation into the architectural space of Wat Suthat uncovers that the temple was built in accordance with a Buddhist belief (Lausunthorn 1989, p.194) of the Isle of Champu Dawipa (Figure 7a). The oval island has a total area of 10000 yoch, consisting of 4000 yoch of low-lying lands on the outermost ring, 3000 yoch of forests inhabited by mythical creatures, another 3000 yoch of lands for mortals. The lands inhabited by human beings are composed of Machima Pradesh (i.e. the centrality) and Patjanta Pradesh (i.e. vicinity). The centrality covers an area of 900 yoch with 250 and 300 yoch in width and length, respectively. (1 yoch ~ 8000 wah and 1 wah = 2 meters) The Wat Suthat temple is a testimony to the application of BM concept to the temple’s design and construction. It is also found that the proportions of various elements of Buddhavas (i.e. the area of a temple excluding monks’ residential areas) closely correspond to those of the Isle of Champu Dawipa in Thai Buddhist cosmology literature.
By using the BM concept, the total area of Wat Suthat is 8BM:12.5BM, which is assumed to equal 10000 yoch of the Isle of Champu Dawipa. As shown in Fig. 7b, the blue-colored area that represents the low-lying area is the temple’s open space, while the green-colored area signifying the forests is situated an Ubasod (Buddhist chanting hall). A Vihara (Buddhist main hall) is located within the orange-colored area (2.5BM:3BM), which represents the centrality. The yellow-colored area is the vicinity and is an open space for walking meditation. The superimposition of a grid system on the green and yellow areas produces two equal areas of 5BM:6BM. The author has found that the orientation of the temple’s main hall and its surrounding open space is of portrait orientation rather than of normal landscape one, but the ratio remains unchanged (Figs. 7c – 7h).
CONCLUSIONS
Following the signing of the AEC’s Asean Mutual Recognition Arrangement on Architectural Services, the preservation of Thai architectural identity is an urgent topic and deserves greater attention and more active participation from all architect professions. The agreement only stipulates that participating Asean architects acquire practical and diversified experience of not less than ten years of continuous practice of architecture after graduation but fails to require the architects to acquire a knowledge of architecture of a country where they seek employment.
Such a failure would contribute to, if not catalyze, the disappearance of the architectural identity of Thailand, which is the ingenious use of geometry, symbolism, the BM concept and the grid system in the design and construction of Thai architectural works. To prevent the irreversible identity loss, it should be compulsory that Thai architects and Asean architects who seek employment in the Kingdom of Thailand attend courses on the identities of Thai architecture prior to commencing their employment and that they attend similar courses at least once annually. Although this is not a full guarantee that the identity of Thai architecture would not be lost, the practice is one simple but practical solution to preservation of the identity and uniqueness of Thai architecture.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to express deep appreciation to King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL) Thailand, for the continue granting me for ten years of the history of Thai architectural researches. Those works would never have materialized without the assistance of Mr. Vitaya Jirathitijarean, Mr. Wanswang Yensabydee, Mr. Nuttapong Rodchiem, Mr. Kitti Siripitakchai, Mr. Tanachai Duronkaveroj, Mr. Tosaporn Yutasak, Mr. Visava Sujirapong, Mr. supawat Prasertsom, Mr. Kittipoj Watanamankong, Mr. Paskorn Khunkongkri, Mr. Krivit Kittivithayakul and Mr. Nutvor Petintara whose expertise in architecture and computer graphics is of paramount importance to its completion. Sincere appreciation also goes to the Department of Architecture of KMITL for the travel allowances to attend this conference in Sydney Australia. Special thanks go to Krissana Kitcharenlap Assoc, Prof. for their academic assistance and AJARN Vichit Lohprapan for his attentiveness in copyediting.
REFERRENCES Allsopp 1970, The Study of Architectural History, Newyork, Praeger Publishers, Inc. Chareansupakul 1984, The Study of Architectural History: Lay out Organization of Royal Temple in early Ratanakosin, Silpakorn University Journal, Special Issue: To commemorate its 40th Anniversary, Bangkok, Thailand. Döhring 1977, Siam Architecture: Thailand in the Viewpoint of Germany, Kletthai press, Bangkok, Thailand. Kulayanamitra 1982, Thai original architecture, The Association of Siamese Architects under the Royal Patronage of His Majesty the King, Bangkok, Thailand. Lausunthorn 1989, Literature Rehabilitation in the reign of King Rama I the Great, Leang Cheng Press, Bangkok, Thailand. Tameyapan (n.d.), Phenomena Development of Thai Contemporary Architecture, organized by Applied Scientific Research Corporation of Thailand, under the support of UNESCO Conservation of Thai Architectural cultural (Mimeographed). Nimlak 2006, Thai architectural honor, Special Issue: To commemorate its 50th Anniversary, Amrin printing & Publishing, Bangkok, Thailand. Vacharasin 1993, The Architectural Space of The Buddhist Priest’s Residential Area, Research under the support of Thailand Cultural Centre, Bangkok, Thailand. Vacharasin 2004, The Architectural Design: Ubosot, Research under the support of Faculty of Architecture, King Mongkut Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand. Vacharasin 2007, Bamboo fastening, Sabbatical leave research under the support of Faculty of Architecture, King Mongkut Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand. Vacharasin 2007, The Vihara (Assembly Hall) Architecture of the Sukhothai School of Master Builders, Research under the support of Faculty of Architecture, King Mongkut Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand. Vacharasin 2011, Buddhist Architecture of the Dvaravati period: The Early Age of Thai Architectural History, Research under the support of Faculty of Architecture, King Mongkut Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand.
Figure 1a: Figure 1b: Solos-maha-momgkol of Wat Na Pra Meru Yantara diagram of number
Figure 1c: Solos—momg-kol- lanna Yantara diagram of rotational symmetry
Figure 1d: Three-ni-sing-hae Yantra diagram of rotational symmetry
Figure 1e: Jturo Yantra
Figure 1: Graphic analysis of Solos-maha-momgkol Yantara at Wat Na Pra Meru
Figure 2a: Basic grid module (BM)
Figure 2b: The rectangles formed from a combination of complete BMs
Figure 2c: The rectangles formed from a combination of complete and partial BMs
Figure 2: Basic grid module (BM)
Figure 3a: Wat Changlom plan Figure 3b: Wat Sraptum plan
Figure 3: The basic grid module (BM) supplied to analysis in plan
Figure 4: Pan and Section of main hall's Wat Na Pra Meru with grid’s system analysis (BM) = 4.50 m
Figure 5: Plan and section of the Buddhist priest’s residential with grid’s system analysis (BM) = 2.75 m
Figure 6a: Plan superimposed with grid of 0.50m x0.50m basic modules
Figure 6b: Cross Section A - A superimposed with grid of 0.50m x0.50m basic modules
Figure 6c: Long Section B - B superimposed with grid of 0.50m x0.50m basic modules
Figure 6: Plan and section of bamboo hut superimposed with the basic grid module (BM) = 0.50 m
Figure 7a: Figure 7b: Champu Dawipa’s layout from Trai Bhum Simplified diagram of Champu Dawipa
Figure 7c: Figure 7d: Wat Suthat’s layout Wat Suthat’s layout with the BM = 5.25 m.
Figure 7e: Figure 7f: Wat Suthat’s layout with in the BM = 3(5.25 m) Simplified diagram 1 of Champu Dawipa
Figure 7g: Figure 7h: Simplified diagram 2 of Champu Dawipa Simplified diagram 3 of Champu Dawipa
Figure 7: The one of Thai's Buddhist cosmology (Champu Dawipa) showing layout and simplified diagram of Wat Suthat