Last October I talked about the controversy surrounding the Ramkhamhaeng inscription. Some academics have claimed that it was not authentic and was incised much later than the thirteenth century when King Ramkamhaeng, the purported author of the inscription, ruled Sukhothai. You can read my previous blog here .

The yellow line is the highway from Sukhothai's western gate to Wat Saphan Hin.

I decided to visit Sukhothai with an open mind in the hope of coming up with evidence that would allow me to take one side or the other (yes, arrogant of me, when experts haven’t been able to). One of the points of contention was whether places mentioned in the inscription existed at the time when the inscription was supposed to have been made.

The map shows other forest temple ruins in the vicinity of Wat Saphan Hin. The red cross marks where the body of the Japanese tourist was found.

For example it says to the west of the city there are forest temples including one where there is a large assembly hall, tall and very beautiful, and a standing Attharasa image. (See translation, lines 2.27-2.32) An Attharasa image is a Buddha image 18 cubits (9 meters) tall, which was the height of the legendary Siddhartha Gautama Buddha.

I was escorted by a BPP patrolman. Two detectives were still searching for clues to the murderer almost two weeks after the crime. Wat Saphan Hin (Temple of the Stone Bridge) got its name from the stone walkway, or 'bridge'. TP photo.

There are a dozen or more ruins of ancient forest temples in the western area. But historians who support the authenticity of the inscription point specially to Wat Saphan Hin (Stone Bridge Temple) about four kilometers by road, or 2.5 km as the crow flies (assuming it isn’t drunk) from the city’s western gate. There is an Attharasa image here, the only one to the west of the city. So obviously it would be a top priority for me to visit this temple.

The spot where Nomoko Kawashita's body was found. TP photo.

Sadly, however, a female Japanese tourist in her mid-twenties, Nomoko Kawashita, was murdered on the trail leading up to the temple on November 26, one day after the Loy Krathong festival. I felt a sense of collective guilt on behalf of all Thais. According to news reports she had chosen to visit our country because she admired our Buddhist culture; in return we repay her with murder.

The small, lotus-bud chedi halfway to the top. The style of the chedi dates it to the fourteenth century. TP photo.

Since then the temple has been closed to the public but I went there regardless and was allowed to walk to the top accompanied by a border patrol policeman. It was encouraging to see that two weeks after the murder the investigation had not been abandoned and detectives were still combing the area for evidence. I was told that other detectives working on the case have now obtained a photo of the victim taken with some friends and acquaintances before she arrived at Sukhothai. Police are now trying to locate these people.

The Attharasa Buddha standing 18 cubits tall, which tradition said was the height of the historical Buddha. He has his right hand raised in the abhaya mudra, or gesture of dispelling fear. The columns are all that remain of the vihara or assembly hall. TP photo.

Notice that the Buddha is standing on the same base, or floor, as the vihara. We can thus assume that it was built at the same time as the vihara and was not a later addition. If the vihara and Attharasa Buddha is fourteenth century at the earliest, they wouldn't have been in existence at the time the Ramkhamhaeng inscription was supposed to have been made (ca. 1292).

The spot where the body was found is not in the line of sight of the Buddha image, nor of a small lotus-bud chedi (stupa) halfway up the trail as they are offset somewhat to the left and hidden by foliage. I say in the line of sight of the Buddha image fully aware of the irony in the statement. Even though the Buddha is made of stone and plaster and his eyes are half closed, to a true believer a Buddha image is like the presence of the Buddha himself. It is even more ironic that he is represented as standing with right hand raised in the abhaya mudra or gesture of dispelling fear. What Thai would dare commit a heinous crime in the presence of the Buddha? Nevertheless, the murderer was probably a local man familiar with the terrain who may have followed his victim to this spot.

The police units on standby at the foot of the hill on which Wat Saphan Hin is situated. TP photo.

After taking photos at Wat Saphan Hin I visited other forest temple ruins in the area, all of them having quite grand monastic structures indicating royal support in their heyday. I saw monks in search of serenity and isolation camped near one of the ruins as their brethren have been doing in that area for hundreds of years.  The inscription is correct in that respect.

A monks' camp at a nearby temple. TP photo.

But as to whether the restored Attharasa Buddha at Wat Saphan Hin is the one recorded in the inscription is another problem. First consider the lotus-bud chedi. Historians are agreed that this is an architectural innovation of the Sukhothai kingdom that appeared in the fourteenth century. So the chedi couldn’t have been built by King Ramkamhaeng (?1279-1298).

What about the vihara (assembly hall) right in front of the standing Buddha of which only the laterate columns remain? All the Thai-style temples in and around Sukhothai date to the fourteenth century at the earliest. (The statement in blue is contested by some art historians, such as Betty Gosling.) The few temples antedating that period are in the Khmer style and constructed of laterite blocks rather than bricks which is the preferred material used by Thai builders. So I would have to say the vihara at Wat Saphan Hin is also fourteenth century at the very earliest. Hence it must date later than King Ramkhamhaeng’s reign.

A temporary market selling monks' clothing and supplies at another nearby temple. The murderer could have waited here for a lone female victim to pass by. TP photo.

Ancient Sukhothai Thailand’s Cultural Heritage, by Dawn F. Rooney, published by River Books in 2007 was my guidebook, which I found excellent except for evidence of somewhat hasty editing. Rooney has an introductory section on Inscriptions where she gives an evenhanded account of the inscription controversy. But when she comes to describing Wat Saphan Hin she hedges her bets by stating that the temple is circa late thirteenth to early fourteenth century.

This beautifully-proportioned chedi is at Wat Chedi Ngaam, or Temple of the Beautiful Chedi. The temple is pictured against a backdrop of hills in a sylvan setting. TP photo.

Now if the temple is late thirteenth century that would place it just within King Ramkamhaeng’s reign and the inscription is likely to be genuine. Ramkhamhaeng was said to have gone there on elephant back on the nights of the full moon. (See translation lines 3.19-3.22). But the price for such a dating would be to make this forest temple one of the oldest Thai-style temples in the whole of the Sukhothai kingdom. I think not; however, there are many other aspects of the inscription to consider, so the jury is still out on this one.

This lotus-bud chedi is the main chedi at Wat Mahathat in the center of Old Sukhothai City. The chedi is not mentioned in the inscription probably because it hadn't been built yet, assuming the inscription is genuine. Dawn Rooney hazards a date of construction of the lotus-bud chedi as after 1292 and before 1346/7. TP photo. 210