Ayutthaya kingdom and china: beyond Tributary

relationship
CHAN JIA HAO

A0125354L
National University of Singapore

Foreign relations with China have been a subject of controversy among Westerners in the

past few centuries up till the end of Qing dynasty. In particular, the Imperial Chinese

Tributary System that facilitated foreign interactions was perceived as forceful attempts by

Chinese Emperors to retrieve resources from and ensure the political submission of ‘less

powerful states.1 Here, weaker states in terms of their military capabilities were also assumed

to concede to Chinese demands because they face ‘security dilemma’, they comply for self-

protection at the expense of being perceived as inferior by the Chinese and the inability to

enjoy absolute economic gains through such relationship.2

However, such neorealist concept by the West fails to take into account of a dynamic China.

Changing dynasties, internal political and economic stability over the past millennium that

saw varying attitudes by the ‘Sons of Heaven’ and their court towards their tributary states

have often being ignored. A one sided interest seeking relationship does not correspond with

reality.

Countering these misconceptions, this essay seeks to explore a transformed tributary

relationship between an Ayutthaya Kingdom and Chinese dynasties lasting for four long

1
The westerners saw themselves as China’s military equals and therefore their resistance to give in.
2
Sentiments of an unfair trade with China soared particularly during the Qing dynasty in the 19th century
where the British found themselves on a losing end in a mercantile trade with China because the rate of
flow of Silver out of China to the West was slower than vice versa. This sparked the First Opium War that
forced Qing dynasty to put an end to such a tribute system.

1
centuries; highlighting a wonderful bonding between both.3 This debunks the over-playing of

a superior and inferior dichotomy consisting of struggles between an abusive and victim state.

Under thirty-three Ayutthaya monarchs and over two Chinese dynasties, both cultivated

perpetuate diplomatic ties even as China experienced weakness during transition between late

Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty. Gradually from tributary relationship, an even higher trade

and non-trade interactions between the two was developed towards the end of Ayutthaya’s

span. Clearly, there was no ‘colonialism’ or ‘exploitation’ here. Rather, it is a standing

testimony of a successful mutual reciprocation of diplomacy fostered via the Imperial

Chinese Tributary System.

Tributary relationship between Ayutthaya and early Ming dynasty

According to a Thai translated Chinese Chronicle, “..In the twelfth month of the year of the Ji

Nguan Reign, Lor Hok Kok Orng (Thai King) sent an ambassador to present a tribute to the

Emperor (Yuan Shi Zu)”.4 Although that tribute relation have ceased for four decades from

then, Ming Tai Zu eagerly sent a delegation in 1370 led by Lee Jong Jun, a high-ranking

official to Ayutthaya only shortly after his reign as Emperor in 1368.5 This was despite that

he was unfamiliar with a newly built Ayutthaya Kingdom since its ruler was now different

from previous Sukothai dynasty. 6 His quest was perhaps economically driven since

Ayutthaya has been known as Jin Chen (金陈) and recorded as “having silver from its ground

3
The Ayutthaya Kingdom existed from AD 1351 to 1767 and was the capital of Siam for 417 years under
33 monarchs in total.
4
National Chronicle Department, Translation of the Chinese Chronicle, Rama V'spapers, T.21, File 19,
February 12, 1809
5
Chansiri, Disaphol. 2008. The Chinese É migrés Of Thailand In The Twentieth Century. Youngstown,
N.Y.: Cambria Press. 44.
6
Ibid., 44.

2
with people riding live elephants two thousand li from Funan” as early as in Eastern Han

period in Yang Fu’s Yi Wu Zhi (异物志). In return, King Borommaracha I quickly sent

diplomats with local tropical products alongside animals including elephants and six legged

turtles.7 Borommaracha later received large quantities of Chinese silks and satins from the

Emperor as gifts for his corporation. 8 While it is arguable that such was a naturally

continuation between the previous Sukothai and Yuan Dynasty, their self-willingness to

foster this relationship, regardless of purpose, was clearly present and commendable given

that both were ‘new’ rulers in a sense. Their decision to forged ‘diplomacy’ cannot be

asserted as a natural given judging that both new polities, especially Ming, was heavily

critical of a previous Yuan dynasty’s foreign policy.

Though Ming Tai Zu declared across to his descendants later in his Ancestral Injunction that

Siam should not be invaded because of her unworthiness in terms of produce, in actual fact

Ayutthaya was already considered a Ming tributary state by him.9 Such a directive may have

actually been an attempt to protect and maintain the relationships with the tributary states that

he had self-initiated so that they last in future generations. 10 This purportedly served as

foundation to the later high mutual diplomatic ties between China and Ayutthaya.

7
Adulyadej, Bhumibol. 1999. From Japan To Arabia: Ayutthaya's Maritime Relations With Asia. Toyota
Thailand Foundation. 67-68.
8
Ibid., 68.
9
Wang, Gungwu. 1998. 'Ming Foreign Relations: Southeast Asia'. The Cambridge History Of China8:
311-312. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521243339.008.
10
Yuan dynasty’s overreach in terms of military conquests in Southeast Asia was thought to have resulted
in a backlash where it produced internal problems of governance in those polities. Such conquests by the
Yuan were perceived as cost exceeding benefits. Revolts by the polities eventually did not benefit the
Yuan dynasty in anyways. By not invading these polities and continuously receiving precious goods from
them, it is done with low costs and will produce the maximum benefit for the Ming dynasty.

3
Relationship between Ayutthaya and China during a strong Ming Dynasty

Subsequently in the first half of 15th century, Thai missions to Chinese increased drastically

during a twenty-nine-year period of Ming Maritime expeditions initiated by Emperor Yong

Le. This is despite that a coincidental rise of Melaka as a regional entre port during this

period could have weakened towards trade missions between Ayutthaya and China and the

fact that China seemingly increasingly took Malacca seriously by warning Ayutthaya not to

attack Malacca Sultanate. While it seemed that Malacca was favoured as a protectorate state

of China, the frequency of Chinese missions to Ayutthaya still implied that Ayutthaya

continued to be perceived as an important tributary partner by China.11 Clearly, neither China

nor Ayutthaya was willing to break off contact. A total of eleven Chinese missions to the

Siam kingdom between AD 1402-24 was recorded [See Annex 1.1] 12; same as Malacca, but

with finished goods from the Chinese such as porcelain and silk in exchange for raw material

tributes such as sappan-wood, pepper and ivory from Ayutthaya.13 Furthermore, the list of

Ayutthaya goods sent to the Ming court surpassed the rest; fourty-four different items or

merchandise compared to twenty-six of Malacca and nineteen from North Sumatra.14 Clearly

at Ming China’s peak with maritime expeditions, Ayutthaya stood as the most favourable

tributary partner to China, while Ayutthaya would have felt the same in terms of maximizing

absolute gains in terms of receiving rarities.

11 Malacca also had eleven Chinese missions during this period (Purcell, Chʻên and Tarling 1970).
12
Purcell, Victor, Jerome Chʻên, and Nicholas Tarling. 1970. Studies In The Social History Of China And
Southeast Asia. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. 389.

Victor Purcell, Jerome Chʻên and Nicholas Tarling, Studies in the social history of China and Southeast
13

Asia (Cambridge University Press, 1970), 389.

14Grimm., T. 1961. 'Thailand In The Light Of Official Chinese Historiography: A Chapter In The History
Of The Ming Dynasty'. Journal Of The Siam Society 49 (1): 1-20.

4
Relationship between Ayutthaya and China during a weakened Ming Dynasty

Yet as soon as Ming began to experience internal changes, Ayutthaya’s relationship with

China became more explicit than merely being asserted as a Chinese tributary state. While

many tributary states began to reduce contact with China due to a weakened Chinese imperial

treasury and Ming’s capital shift to Beijing in 1421, Ayutthaya maintained its dispatch tribute

missions to China instead.15 By 1567, only Dai Viet and Ayutthaya continued dispatching

their missions to China.16. While Dai Vet could have done so due to facing geo-political

pressures from China as its neighbour, such could not be argued to be the same for

Ayutthaya.17

In addition, the sustained tributary relationship is certainly not one-sided even when China

experienced rebellions in late Ming period. Van Nijenrode, a director at the Dutch East India

Company in the courts of Ayutthaya, mentioned in 1617 of the Siamese ambassador still

making travelling to China every two years, while Van Vliet reported of the arrival of a

Chinese ambassador in March 1639 whom delivered “a gold-engraved missive and the gifts

consisting of gold, pieces of silk, cloth woven with gold thread, were valued at 600 reals-of-

eight altogether”. 18 Such was during China’s internal political turmoil with the rise of

15
There was actually a “Hai Jin” (Maritime Trade Ban) starting 1550 and ending 1567, a more direct
reason why many tributary state reduced contact with China because they view the tributary relation in
terms of monetary focused and would expect to attain more precious goods from China. During this period,
it was difficult to do so.

Min, Shu. 2012. 'Hegemon And Instability: Pre-Colonial Southeast Asia Under The Tribute System'. 早
16

稲田大学高等研究所紀要 4: 45-62.

17
Like other tributary states, Ayutthaya could have reduced contact with China too. However it did not
probably because it viewed China more than a mere ‘trade’ partner.
18Ruangsilp, Bhawan. 2007. Dutch East India Company Merchants At The Court Of Ayutthaya. Leiden:
Brill. 70-72.

5
Manchu and increasingly facing shortage of bullions in the 1630s.19 Reasonably, China could

have forgone this relationship due to increasing internal problems within, while Ayutthaya

could have done the same too since the Dutch who have already began establishing their

VOC bases in Ayutthaya could provide them more luxury goods from the West and Central

Asia than China could. However, they did not abandon one another.

Trade interactions and concessions seen to Ayutthaya by China during the Qing period

Consequently after transition from Ming to Qing dynasty, a gradual increase in private trade

over tributary trade between Ayutthaya and China showed a clearer emerging relationship

beyond that of tributary between Ayutthaya and China. While Chinese Merchant Zheng

Guanying claimed in his journal that ties between the both cut during Qing dynasty were cut

and Ayutthaya failed to pay tributes to China, such has not been claimed in other sources.20

Conversely, Dutch sources held that King Narai persevered the tradition of sending tributary

missions to Qing in 1659, twice in 1663, 1664 and 1665.21 Moreover, records like “Missive

Van der Spijck to Batavia” revealed that in even during the “Hai Jin” period22, the Ayutthaya

court received a missive in 1674 from the Chinese Emperor with an imperial seal in gold

stating the officials in Canton were no longer allowed to open and translate letters from

Siamese court to Peking.23 This entails that by then, the relationship between both courts have

19
Between 1630 to 1640, the value of one string of a thousand copper coins purportedly plunged from one
ounce half ounce of silver in China.
20
Wu, Guo. 2010. Zheng Guanying. Amherst, N.Y.: Cambria Press. 59.
21
Viraphol, Sarasin. 1977. Tribute And Profit. Cambridge, Mass.: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard
University. 28-57.
22
The Qing dynasty “Hai Jin” period was 1647 to 1685 (Lu, Qian and He 2014).
23Ruangsilp, Bhawan. 2007. Dutch East India Company Merchants At The Court Of Ayutthaya. Leiden:
Brill. 131.

6
become even more closer and direct instead of going through chain of commands and

customary formalities.

Beyond a closer court-to-court relation also lies in private trading activities that occurred

during this “Hai Jin” period. The ban did not halt trade with Thai ports unlike others. Instead,

junks manufactured in Ayutthaya but owned by its already existent Chinese residents were

treated by Chinese authorities as if they were coastal traders from other ports in China and

enjoyed the same tax regime and port regulations as with domestic Chinese junks.24 Later in

the early 18th century, Thai rice were also offered exemptions from import duties by the Qing

government and subsequently allowed duty reductions of up to half of the value of a Siamese

junk’s cargo.25 At the same time, Chinese ships that arrived in Ayutthaya surpassed all other

ships from Japan, Malacca and Batavia according to Dutch records [See Annex 1.2]. 26

Besides, prior to the official emergence of the Canton System, crown junks from Ayutthaya

were already decreed to be able to engage in special summer trading in Guangzhou, allowing

the Ayutthaya Court to trade with China every year instead of a previous restriction of once

every three years. 27 Eventually when the Canton System emerged, junks from Ayutthaya

ports were observed to continue trading with ports as far as Ningbo as had done previously

during the “Hai Jin” period.28 These points to the fact that Ayutthaya continued to maintain

close ties, but now beyond merely tributary with a transformed China in terms of dynasty.

24
Adulyadej, Bhumibol. 1999. From Japan To Arabia: Ayutthaya's Maritime Relations With Asia. Toyota
Thailand Foundation. 25-26.
25
Yoneo, Ishii. 1998. The Junk Trade From Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian
Studies. 99-101.
26
Shimada, Ryuto. 2006. The Intra-Asian Trade In Japanese Copper By The Dutch East India Company
During The Eighteenth Century. Leiden [etc.]: Brill.
27
Yoneo, Ishii. 1998. The Junk Trade From Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian
Studies. 99-101.
28
Ibid.,101.

7
Non-trade interactions by the end of Ayutthaya Kingdom (1767)

As we can see throughout centuries of Ayutthaya Kingdom, an initial tributary relationship

evolved into friendlier ties in trade relations. But other evidence also suggests of non-trade

interaction than what have been discussed earlier by the end of the Ayutthaya Kingdom. This

includes appointing foreign Chinese as high-ranking Thai officials under the Law of the

Three Seals and reserving the role of Praya Praklung (King’s Merchant) for Chinese person29,

permitting intermarriage of Chinese and Siamese people while outlawing Siamese from

marrying other foreigners like Dutch and Malays, by the Ayutthaya Courts.30 In this case, the

Chinese people were held in high regard than other foreigners. Chinese migration was also

observed when the “Yingyai senlan” by Mahuan referred to ‘Sino-Thai’ people while the

“Hai Yu” recorded as early as 1536 that “There are no surname among Thai people before,

Chinese people who settle in Thailand could only keep surname for their two generations”.31

Furthermore, instances of Ayutthaya’s junk blown over to Fukien while one the way to the

Ryukyus in 1404 but intervened by the Ming Emperor to assist in repairing the damaged

vessels and taking care of the crews during Ming dynasty32, to Emperor Qian Long’s order

for Qing armies to defend Ayutthaya from Burma in 1768 as recorded in “Chien Long Tong

29
Chansiri, Disaphol. 2008. The Chinese É migrés Of Thailand In The Twentieth Century. Youngstown,
N.Y.: Cambria Press. 45.
30
From 17th century onwards, this was the case when Dutch and Malay were seen more as ‘outsiders’
whom the Thais only wanted to deal with in trade and diplomatic relations. If the Ayutthaya Courts had
allowed Thais and Dutch people to marry, they fear the extent of interaction between both would no longer
confine to trade, perhaps more politically than ever.
31
Yang, Tsung-Rong Edwin. "Short Memory and Long History: Remembering Ancestors of Hakka
Community in Ayutthaya, Thailand."
32Khun, Wičhitmāttrā. 1973. Prawat Kānkhā Thai (History Of Thai Commerce). Phranakhō n: Hō Kānkhā
Thai. 126-126.

8
Hua Lu”, clearly shows how favourable relations were between China and Ayutthaya.33 Other

interactions like the Ming Imperial Court occasionally asking Thai ambassadors to be

middlemen in passing messages to other polities in Southeast Asia also reveal very high level

of trust by China, certainly cutting beyond mere tributary relationship.34

Conclusion

While not the focus in my essay to discuss non-trade interactions, the above examples

exhibits a simultaneously parallel interaction between formal tributary trade relationship and

non-trade interactions over Ayutthaya’s span of rule among both polities. Though debatable

on whether these non-trade interactions are primary catalysts for fostering the three century

positive relationship or the other way round, it is clear that the Imperial Chinese Tributary

System is not a Chinese tool designed to ‘oppress’ tributary states. Rather, it is a platform for

bilateralism and friendship forged but often Western academics have largely ignored

concepts like ‘Mian Zi’ in Chinese society. It should be acclaimed that when polities like

Ayutthaya could surpass the ‘Mian Zi’ issue that China poses, the tributary system would

never serve as a ‘zero-sum’ dichotomy. Instead, it allows prosperity to flourish among parties

in the relationship.

1933 words; excluding appendixes

33
Disaphol Chansiri, The Chinese émigrés of Thailand in the twentieth century (Youngstown, N.Y.:
Cambria Press, 2008), 44.
34
Kasetsiri, Charnvit. 1992. 'Ayudhya: Capital-Port Of Siam And Its Chinese Connection In The
Fourteenth And Fifteenth Centuries'. Journal Of The Siam Society 80 (1): 77.

9
Annexes
Annex 1.1

Source: Purcell, Victor, Jerome Chʻên, and Nicholas Tarling. 1970. Studies In The Social
History Of China And Southeast Asia. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.

Annex 1.2

10
Source: Shimada, Ryuto. 2006. The Intra-Asian Trade In Japanese Copper By The Dutch
East India Company During The Eighteenth Century. Leiden [etc.]: Brill.

Bibliography
Adulyadej, Bhumibol. 1999. From Japan To Arabia: Ayutthaya's Maritime Relations With
Asia. Toyota Thailand Foundation.

Chansiri, Disaphol. 2008. The Chinese É migrés Of Thailand In The Twentieth Century.
Youngstown, N.Y.: Cambria Press.

Grimm., T. 1961. 'Thailand In The Light Of Official Chinese Historiography: A Chapter In

The History Of The Ming Dynasty'. Journal Of The Siam Society 49 (1): 1-20.

Khun, Wičhitmāttrā. 1973. Prawat Kānkhā Thai (History Of Thai Commerce). Phranakhō n:
Hō Kānkhā Thai.

Kasetsiri, Charnvit. 1992. 'Ayudhya: Capital-Port Of Siam And Its Chinese Connection In
The Fourteenth And Fifteenth Centuries'. Journal Of The Siam Society 80 (1): 77.

Lu, Yongxiang, Chuijun Qian, and Hui He. 2014. A History Of Chinese Science And
Technology, Volume 1. Springer.

Min, Shu. 2012. 'Hegemon And Instability: Pre-Colonial Southeast Asia Under The Tribute
System'. 早稲田大学高等研究所紀要 4: 45-62.

National Chronicle Department, Translation of the Chinese Chronicle, Rama V'spapers, T.21,
File 19, February 12, 1809

Purcell, Victor, Jerome Chʻên, and Nicholas Tarling. 1970. Studies In The Social History Of
China And Southeast Asia. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.

11
Ruangsilp, Bhawan. 2007. Dutch East India Company Merchants At The Court Of Ayutthaya.
Leiden: Brill.
Shimada, Ryuto. 2006. The Intra-Asian Trade In Japanese Copper By The Dutch East India
Company During The Eighteenth Century. Leiden [etc.]: Brill.

Viraphol, Sarasin. 1977. Tribute And Profit. Cambridge, Mass.: Council on East Asian
Studies, Harvard University.

Victor Purcell, Jerome Chʻên and Nicholas Tarling, Studies in the social history of China and
Southeast Asia (Cambridge University Press, 1970).

Wang, Gungwu. 1998. 'Ming Foreign Relations: Southeast Asia'. The Cambridge History Of
China8: 311-312. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521243339.008.

Wu, Guo. 2010. Zheng Guanying. Amherst, N.Y.: Cambria Press.

Yoneo, Ishii. 1998. The Junk Trade From Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies.

Yang, Tsung-Rong Edwin. "Short Memory and Long History: Remembering Ancestors of
Hakka Community in Ayutthaya, Thailand."

12