Stylistic hybridity in palatial architecture during the reign of King Rama V: a postcolonial reinterpretation on modern Siam

ABSTRACT

Informed by postcolonial theories, this research presented critical investigations on Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall, the ordination hall at Niwet Thammaprawat Temple, and Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa. Aside from examining the three hybrid Siamese-European buildings beyond stylistic analyses and antiquarian mode of historiography, the upcoming discussions unveiled that the case studies – which were commissioned at the height of Western colonial expansions in Southeast Asia – testified for the Siamese’s: (1) reinterpretations, reappropriations, and recreations of European cultural artifacts; (2) active and authoritative roles in generating, combining, and projecting their versions of contested meanings upon the immediate world and beyond; (3) assertions of a newly acquired self-image by conspicuous consumptions of Western material culture; and (4) long established tradition of mediating power through built forms. In addition, by utilizing the politics of representations as a mode of problematization, these eclectic palatial structures were perceived as representational tools to create a civilized identity and discursive devices for power mediation, as opposed to unskilled or kitschy copies of Western precedents. In conclusion, the inquiries essentially argued that although Siam was among few places in Asia that did not succumb to a direct colonial rule by any Western power, the kingdom was a de facto crypto-colony.

KEYWORDS:

• Hybrid buildings
• palatial structures
• politics of representations in architecture
• postcolonial studies
• crypto-colonization in Siam

1. Introduction

As exhibited by the elegant Opéra Garnier in Paris and exquisite St. Pancras railway station in London, eclecticism was a widely adopted methodology for architectural design in the 19^th and early-20^th centuries. By merging two or more stylistic expressions under a unified aesthetic framework, eclectic buildings combined various elements from different historical styles to generate novel and original attributes, thus distinguishing them from architecture of the bygone era (see: Hamlin 1952, 3–8). Encompassing virtually all types of building, a multitude of public structures devised in the French Beaux Arts and British Victorian manners collectively disclosed that the creations of eclectic built forms always entailed hybridity, which could be characterized as syncretism of diverse structural features, decorative motives, spatial arrangements, as well as design components containing cultural and historical references including those from faraway lands beyond the Occidental world.

Owing to its ability to cultivate more sensational expressions, the means of stylistic hybridization – the modus operandi for eclectic architecture – was commonly employed by Western colonial powers in erecting socio-politically important structures, like royal residences and legislative offices, that performed as material manifestations of their imperial visions and identities. Several notable examples could be observed from the Indo-Saracenic architecture of the British Empire, which came to exist not only in Great Britain – as evident from the Royal Pavilion at Brighton – but also the overseas colonies such as the Secretariat Building in India and Old Kuala Lumpur Town Hall in Malaysia.

Far from being universally appreciated, however, stylistically hybridized buildings had earned myriad voices of disapproval as well. As epitomized by the Indo-Saracenic Brighton Pavilion in southeast England negativity was particularly keen on those incorporating stylistic amalgamations between Western and exotic elements. While some admired the grandeur of this sensuous work of John Nash (Victoriana magazine, 1996–2015), many visitors – not to mention Queen Victoria herself – described its mixture of Neo-classical and Gothic forms with design motifs taken from Britain’s colonial experience of the Orient–i.e., the onion-shaped Mughal dome, Islamic minarets, and Chinese decorative features – as an oddity (Victoriana magazine, 1996–2015), or even a masterpiece of bad taste (De Boigne 1907, 248) that was unfit to live in (Musgrave 1970, 183).

In Southeast Asia, current studies on the plurality of modernity and colonial experiences had examined hybrid Occidental-Oriental structures beyond the notions of cultural borrowing and blending, cultivating new insights by way of multidisciplinary research (see: Chang 2017; Lin 2017, 2023a; Sulistyani 2022; Svetozar and Giang 2016). Against the accepted convention, recent critical investigations on these buildings had further testified that they were not poor copies of Western models engendered by idiosyncratic personal preferences of indigenous ruling elites, but a form of resistance and engagement with dominating power, as much as a hegemonic discourse for power mediation in non-Western societies (Chang and Tajudeen 2019, 5–6, 11–14).

1.1. Purpose and scope of study

Notwithstanding the aforementioned developments in architectural scholarship, critical examinations of hybrid structures in Siam – known today as Thailand¹–that went beyond stylistic analyses and/or challenged the antiquarian mode of historiography had been largely missing. The said observation became even more crucial when considering the fact that Siam was among a handful of places in the world where a “direct” Western colonization did not occur (Patke and Holden 2010, 11–12). Since the 1850s, the Siamese’s encounter with Western colonial expansions and modernity had functioned as a major force in shaping all aspects of life in the society. The processes of Westernization and modernization, together with the Siamese’s reactions to it, had been vividly manifested in the cultural area, which could also be witnessed through the creations of architecture and urban space.

In bridging such a gap of knowledge, this research concentrated its inquiries on key case studies of hybrid Siamese-European palatial buildings commissioned by King Rama V (Chulalongkorn, r. 1868–1910). Operating as the architecture of the state, their constructions were not autonomous artistic creations but cultural constructs, which were historically situated, contextualized, and politicized. Framed by the below questions, the proposed investigations aimed to advance the understanding on the roles of power in the politics of representations in built forms, while at the same time demonstrating the complex nature of the colonial encounter in modern Siam.

How and why did the selected royally sponsored edifices perform simultaneously as a: (1) hegemonic discourse for the ruling elites to transform Siam to a civilized modern nation-state; (2) response to accommodate and resist colonial encroachments from the imperial West; and (3) discursive device for asserting, legitimizing, and maintaining power?

In addition, the critical and analytical discussions here meant foster postcolonial dialogues with contemporary academic literature in similar genres in terms of a comparative study across different cultural heritages, political structures, and economic systems, as each non-Western society – both within and outside Asia – did not necessarily follow an identical path to Siam in experiencing and engaging Western colonialism and modernity (for instance, see: Akcan 2016; Coslett 2019; Jazeel 2017; Lin 2022, 2023b; Mwale and Lintonbon 2020; Nitschke and Lorenzon 2021; Pandya 2020; Rabbat 2018).

1.2. Study context

Similar to the Indo-Saracenic along with other varieties of eclectic architecture around the globe, many hybrid Siamese-European palatial structures erected between the mid-19^th and early-20^th centuries, too, had met with criticism, being condemned as “vulgarity and kitsch, underscoring the mediocrity and banality of a hybrid architectural style created without the pressure of necessity and unguided by an organic tradition” (Poshyananda 1992, 6).

Be that as it may, a growing number of studies had demonstrated that hybrid Siamese-European regal edifices in Siam resulted from the conscious attempts of the Siamese in dealing with the West and modernity (for example, see: Chungsiriarak 2020; Noobanjong 2006, 2013; Peleggi 2002; Povathong 2005). Altogether, these previous inquiries had revealed that: (1) although Siam did not succumb to a similar fate of direct occupation by the Europeans that befell on the neighboring states, the kingdom was a de facto crypto-colony (Herzfeld 2002, 900–901); and (2) Western colonialism – being conspicuous by its physical absence – indeed framed the writing of Siamese national history along with its self-image and productions of cultural artefacts, which often assumed the postulate of hybridization (Jackson 2010, 187–189).

In spite of the abovementioned studies, published research on eclectic palatial structures in modern Siam operating beyond the intellectual boundary of Eurocentrism to challenge the established point of view and/or invalidate negative appraisals on those structures had remained insufficient as noticed earlier. Accordingly, this article presented critical and analytical examinations on a triad of hybrid Siamese-European regal edifices that acted in the capacity of architecture of the state. While the Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall constituted the place of ceremonial purpose, the ordination hall or ubosotha at Niwet Thammaprawat Temple stood for the place of worship, with Munthatu Rattanaroj seaside villa for the place of dwelling and recreation.

In essence, the novelty together with major scholarly contribution of the inquiries on the three royal structures was that they disputed the conservative discourse of “never colonized/independent Siam and Thailand,” which constituted the supposed uniqueness of the kingdom from other non-Western regimes in mainstream narratives on the national historiography. Informed by the concepts of hybridity conceived by Bhabha (1994) and mestizaje (a process of interracial and/or intercultural mixing) envisioned by Canclini (1995)–the research maintained that instead of embodying shoddy or kitschy replicas of Western architecture, the three eclectic edifices illustrated the Siamese’s: (1) reinterpretations, reappropriations, and recreations of European cultural artifacts; (2) active and authoritative roles in generating, combining, and projecting their versions of contested meanings upon the immediate world and beyond; (3) assertions of a newly acquired self-image by conspicuous consumptions of Western material culture; and (4) long-held tradition of mediating power through the designs of built forms.

1.3. Methodological framework

As displayed by Figure 1, two main sources of information – visual materials and textual references – were utilized to investigate the throne hall, ordination hall, and villa. Whereas the former comprised architectural drawings, photographs, three-dimensional visualizations, and maps, the latter was subdivided into two parts. The first group was the primary data, containing archival materials, letters, newspapers, and reports involved in the planning, construction, and preservation of the three buildings from the National Archives and National Library of Thailand. The second category consisted of relevant scholarly publications – including books, journal articles, and conference papers – that supplied the theoretical, historical, and contextual backgrounds for the inquiries.

Figure 1. Research method and procedures.

Source: The author, 2023.

By resorting to a combination of methodological approaches, the means of content and discourse analyses in conjunction with grounded theory were employed through a tripartite procedure (Figure 1). Via content analysis (see: Krippendorff 2018, 413), detailed examinations of the data from the primary sources laid a foundation for authenticating the historical accuracy of the secondary document and illustrative materials. Next, shaped by grounded theory (see: Bakker 2019, 92–96), the verified texts were systematically conceptualized to formulate research questions that would lead to key findings, based on the fact that all of the triple case studies were: (1) palatial buildings; (2) stylistically eclectic/hybridized; and (3) commissioned by Chulalongkorn at the height of Western colonial expansions in Southeast Asia. Finally, by using the politics of representations as a mode of problematization, the forthcoming discussions relied on the method of discourse analysis (see: Jacobs 2021, 152–160), encompassing two intertwining thematic foci, in which Siam’s crypto- or semi-colonial relations with the West – encompassing a duality between submission (accommodating/subordination) and opposition (resisting/empowering) – served as the framework of investigations. On that basis, the throne hall, ubosotha, and villa were initially explored as a representational tool to fashion a new and civilized identity, and subsequently as a strategic device to exercise power of the Siamese ruling elites through discursive means of architectural signification.

1.4. Eclecticism vs. hybridity

Before proceeding further, the definitions of “eclectic” and “hybrid” used here must be clarified. In spite the fact that this research employed the two terms interchangeably, it recognized that they were not exactly synonymous in architectural lexicons. On the one hand, “eclectic” denoted the characteristic of fusing two or more stylistic expressions – either in terms of inter- or intra-cultural amalgamations – under a united artistic whole (see: He 2021; Neville 2020). On the other hand, “hybrid” indicated the quality of merging elements from normally a couple of dissimilar cultural origins together, resulting in the formulation of a distinct stylistic classification that did not necessarily contain a new and coherent esthetical aggregate (see: Hernández 2010).

Nevertheless, because Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall, the ordination hall at Niwet Thammaprawat Temple, and Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa were syncretism of various design components from within and across the Siamese and European architectural traditions, these palatial structures could fit into both categories of “eclectic” and “hybrid,” thus allowing one terminology to be utilized as a substitute for another and vice versa under the said circumstance. In any case, it was crucial to acknowledge that both “eclectic” and “hybrid” architecture should not be defined solely by their stylistic expressions, but should include the internal attributes that enabled them to exist and evolve (also see: Chenga and Neischb 2022, 2).

2. Theoretical foundations

Informed by postcolonial theories, this research integrated the following theoretical premises into its investigations on the three case studies of palatial structures.

2.1. Hybridity, siwilai discourse, and twin trajectories of crypto-coloniality in modern Siam

2.1.1. The Siamese’s discourse of Siwilai

Centuries prior to the arrival of Europeans’ political and cultural domination in Southeast Asia, Siamese rulers – like other indigenous elites in the region – always associated themselves with the global hegemonic powers of the day by selectively adopting the dominant civilizations, as shown by the localizations of Indic and Sinic architectural forms that were transformed into the constituents of their heterogeneous identity (Peleggi 2002, 12). The aura of refinement, elegance, and honor of assimilating prestigious foreign idioms from past and present great powers were seen as a marker of connections with greatness (O’Connor 2003, 254), of which acquisitions often led to hybridized or eclectic artistic expressions that were valued by Siamese monarchs as a symbol of their civility (or khwam siwilai in Thai) and authority (Jackson 2008, 155–156).

A watershed moment of Siam’s realignment toward Western civilization occurred with the signing of the Bowring Treaty with Great Britain in 1855 during reign of King Mongkut (Rama IV, r. 1851–1868). Afterward, similar commercial and diplomatic agreements with other Western nations and Japan soon followed, subjecting the kingdom to a colonial-like status via immense legal, economic, political, and cultural demands from the imperial West. By witnessing all neighboring states in Southeast Asia – namely Siam’s historical archrivals: Myanmar and Vietnam – turning into the overseas possessions of the British and French Empires during the 18^th and 19^th centuries, Siamese ruling elites started to recognize Western nations as the rising global powers, as well as new sources of admirations to be emulated and assimilated by the discourse of siwilai. As a consequence, the annual tributary missions to Beijing were discontinued in 1853 and replaced by the formalization of trade relations with Europe two years later.

Winichakul (2000a) elaborated that the Siamese pivoting toward the Occidental world was largely caused by the European encroachments into China in combination with their conquests of South Asia. Because the Indic and Sinic civilizations traditionally lent a spiritual-cum-cultural foundation for Siamese monarchs to legitimize their political acts, the capitulations of both spheres to Western colonization compelled the Bangkok regime to look westward for a greater hegemonic power, whose geopolitical and cultural authority could be appropriated by Siamese rulers to justify their authoritative controls over the native populations of the present Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Malaysia (see: Brevik-Zender 2020; Panyamanee 2022; Samniang 2021).

In this regard, a corresponding remark could be formulated that khwam siwilai was, in fact, a double-track ideology, consisting of: (1) a hegemonic discourse for the ruling elites to transform Siam to a modern nation-state by means of internal colonization on the indigenous population; and (2) a subaltern’s response to Western powers that negated the power of the imperial West and legitimized the socio-political status of the elites by their efforts to locate the kingdom in a symbolic position of globally recognized prestige while at the same time still preserved local traditions (Winichakul 2011, 25–27). By claiming to be a chief agent of modern civility, Siamese rulers could depict themselves as being “civilized” to the eyes of international and domestic audiences alike. Hence, siwilai discourse (or to borrow the term popularized by Anderson (1990, 6–7), “inverted orientalism”) fulfilled an ambiguous role of the elites, rendering them both similar to and different from Western colonizers. As interpreted by Spivak (2000, 18), such haziness was a key trait of postcolonial hybridity, where the claim of being distinct from yet identical with the colonizers by the colonized was materialized by mimicry and syncretism (see: Connell 2020).

2.1.2. Homi Bhabha’s concept of hybridity and Nestor garcia’s canclini’s notion of Mestizaje

In a corollary view to the above observations, Jackson (2008, 149) suggested that the concepts of hybridity by Bhabha (1994) in conjunction with mestizaje by Canclini (1995) offered a theoretical framework to investigate the dualistic nature of khwam siwilai and crypto-coloniality in Siam. Whereas Bhabha bestowed a critical approach to understand the Siamese’s discourse of siwilai as a form of subaltern resistant to Western ascendency, Canclini supplied a dialectic premise to comprehend how Western colonialism nurtured the subjugating power of the entrenched elites on the indigenous populace via the discourse of siwilai. Under this polarity, the Siamese monarchs assumed a subservient rank to Western powers and a dominant position over their subjects at once (for instance, see: Jackson 2007; Jackson and Jackson 2010; Loos 2006). Consequently, the aforementioned local-global interactions thus provided another empirical ground to substantiate the relevancy of allusions to Bhabha’s and Canclini’s theoretical stances in conducting critical inquiries into Siamese crypto-/semi-coloniality (also see: Bertacco and Vallorani 2021).

Taken together, Bhabha’s and Canclini’s approaches to hybridity were complementing to one another as each supplied a theoretical foundation to examine one of the twin trajectories – foreign versus domestic dimensions – of Western crypto-/semi-coloniality in Siam. Nonetheless, a couple of cautions should be heeded. First, Bhabha’s account might not be able to cover the whole spectrum of colonial encounters in the mid-19^th and early-20^th century Siam (see: Brevik-Zender 2020; Harrison and Jackson 2009; Samniang 2021; Winichakul 2011), which did not suffer a direct colonial rule by the Europeans like the Indian subcontinent. Second, Bhabha’s idea of cultural hybridity was founded on a binarism, emphasizing on a process of fusing bifurcated components together to formulate a new and internally coherent entity. Yet, some critical analyses disclosed that the aesthetics of eclectic palatial buildings in modern Siam was conditioned by a polyvalent society (also see: Noobanjong 2006), where more than two cultural forms – local and/or foreign ones – were aggregated and often displayed in contiguous but non-intersecting ways (Kitiarsa 2005a, 487; and; Jackson 2020, 5).

As shown by recent studies by Thai scholars on consumptions of hybrid cultures during the reign of King Rama V (for example, Eoseewong 2019; Kulkanchanachewin 2020), the abovementioned incongruities became the junctures where Canclini’s mestizaje could come into play as a guiding principle in articulating the Siamese’s discourse of siwilai.² Rather than ending in demises, abandonments, or abolitions, several premodern cultural practices in Siam – in a similar way to those in postcolonial Latin-American countries – had survived or even prospered by Western encroachments (Jackson 2008, 150). The persisting Siamese customs and traditions, then, served as a basis for the creations of hybrid Siamese-European cultural artefacts via references to khwam siwilai, which acted in comparable fashions to the hybrid mestizaje discourse of Hispanic elites in Ibero-America. So, whereas the intricate and multifaceted attributes of Siamese crypto-coloniality seemed to be problematic for Bhabha’s concept of hybridity to effectively address, they could be convincingly engaged by Canclini’s notion of mestizaje (mixing) ideology in terms of a strategic tool for power mediation that functioned through symbolic meanings of cultural artifacts. As demonstrated by many eclectic palatial structures in modern Siam, acquisitions of prestigious foreign symbols frequently resulted in imitative and syncretic forms, indicating the dual-track trajectories of Siamese crypto-/semi-coloniality.

2.2. Postcolonial studies in Siamese/Thai context

As perceptively pointed out by Panyamanee (2022, 57, 71), postcolonialism had generally been regarded as the theory of critical Eurocentrism (also see: Boatcă, Farzin, and Go 2023; McLeod 2010). Since the 1960s, the theory had been developed as a critical tool for insisting on the positioning and existence of postcolonial society and its inhabitants. In social sciences and humanities, postcolonial scholars performed their critical inquiries into postcoloniality through discourse analysis rather than addressing colonialism historically and culturally by class conception as did their Marxist counterparts, because there were disciplines such as culture, literature, and history – as well as architecture and the built environment – which were constructed by ruling elites and state authority alike (Gupta and Ferguson 1992, 8–11).

Being a well-known scholarly method throughout former Western colonies and third world countries (see: Albrecht 2020), postcolonialism incorporated both critique and discourse analysis, and had frequently been used as: (1) a theoretical device for challenging the accepted conventions (Eurocentrism/Orientalism, nationalism/ethnocentrism); and (2) an analysing instrument to understand indigenous people–i.e., subaltern agency – by way of dismantling a colonialist discourse. As a result, proliferations of postcolonial lexicons, such as “subaltern,” “hybridity,” “fragment,” and “diaspora” had become evident across academic boundaries in the 1960s, 1980s, and 1990s (Chibber 2013, 3–4, also see:; Fanon 1967; Guha 1983; Spivak 1985; Prakash 1994; Chakrabarty 2000; Winichakul 2000a; Said 2003; Spivak 2013 for examples of seminal postcolonial texts).

Although Siam and Thailand had no collective experience of trauma comparable to those of other nation-states in Southeast Asia, the kingdom had never isolated itself from the colonial system economically and culturally. For that reason, Winichakul (2014: xviii) boldly argued that “Siam went straight into postcolonial conditions without a colonial stage.” Consequently, an emerging generation of Thai scholars had adopted postcolonialism as their epistemology for understanding the phenomena of Thai history, literature, and cultural artifacts (for instance, see: Chunjandang 2020; Panyamanee 2022; Panyaphet 2014; Suwatthanavanich 2004). Not only did the said studies provide the methodological precedents, but also theoretical justifications for this research in applying Bhabha’s concept of hybridity by along with Canclini’s notion of mestizaje to its critical and analytical investigations on the discourse of khwam siwilai and crypto-coloniality in modern Siam via the Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall, ubosotha at Wat Niwet Thammaprawat, and Munthatu Rattanaroj seaside villa.

In effect, there were two main theoretical stances dominating the Siamese/Thai postcolonialism. First, since Siam and Thailand had never been directly colonized by Westerners, the accepted convention in Thai studies had maintained that postcolonialism did not fit the Siamese/Thai milieu. Hence, typical Thai scholars, especially in the field of history, had largely avoided utilizing postcolonialism as their academic epistemology. Nonetheless, some studies had coined the concept of crypto-, semi-, and inter-colonialism to comprehend the circumstances of postcoloniality in the Siamese/Thai context (see: Brevik-Zender 2020; Harrison and Jackson 2009; Rajchagool 1984; Samniang 2021; Winichakul 2011).

Second, whereas the three terms connected the kingdom with China, Japan, and Turkey through a status of exception from a directly rule by Western colonizers, they significantly helped disseminate an image of an independent and neutral nation to the eyes of international community, as noticed by Patke and Holden (2010, 11–12): “states of the mainland either suffered colonization by European powers, or – in the case of Thailand – maintained strategic neutrality as buffer areas.”

Even though adopting the first position, this article did not totally with the second one. Despite the fact that the kingdom indeed served as a buffer state between the French and British empires in Southeast Asia during the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, it did not always act as a politically neutral regime.³

2.3. Mediations of power in built forms

In examining the politics of representations in modern architecture in Thailand, Noobanjong (2007, 33–34), proposed that by perceiving architecture as a system of signs, buildings signified their meanings through representations in the same way as proper names (the signified) stood for the objects denoted by them (the signifier) (also see: Saussure 1966, 14, 65, 68–69, 112–113). Because the meanings were given, together with the practices that created them, the uses of stylistic elements presupposed the practices aimed to provide justifications for architectural designs and significations (Goodman 1968, 1–12). For architecture associating with power of state like the Chakri Maha Prasat, the ordination hall at Niwet Thammaprawat Temple, and Munthatu Rattanaroj, the practice of power mediation signified their meanings that were interpreted by, as much as became interpretations of, other signs, buildings, or texts. To put it more precisely, the symbolism and iconography of these stylistically hybridized edifices turned out to be a “discourse” for mediating power of their creators (for detailed theoretical reviews on discourse, see: Habermas 1972).

According to Foucault (1972, 86, 140–141), discourse was a construction of subjectivity within certain historical, social, and cultural systems of knowledge in a society. Just as the subject was produced by, and must perform within, the laws of language, a discourse generated a subject equally dependent upon the rules of the system of knowledge that engendered it. Discourse was used to legitimate the exercise of power and therefore was always associated with desire, but these links had to be masked if the desire and power were to be manifested.

As noted by Dovey (1999, 15), the masking of power in built forms resulted from rapid changes in political situations, requiring swift moves from one method of exercising power to another to conceal itself in the transitional process. Since a naked will to power was morally unacceptable, one’s rise to power must be legitimized and portrayed as the common good of a society, which was normally carried out through an allusion to ideologies. In built forms, architecture of the state propagating political contents usually functioned under an ideological guise via the creation of identity. Nevertheless, the identification ascribed to an ideology did not present any intrinsic quality of it, but simply represented what it created: a discourse for power mediation (Dovey 1999, 16–19).

In addition, further elaborations must be made before proceeding to the investigations on the throne hall, ubosotha, and royal villa. Since the proposed inquiries on the postcoloniality in Siamese/Thai context focused more with the power/knowledge manipulation, this research essentially espoused the Foucauldian thought in examining the hybridized Siamese-European architecture in terms of a discourse making for a particular power/knowledge system. As explicated earlier, the stylistic hybridity observed from the three eclectic buildings suggested identity construction and mediation of power, thus consolidating the following remarks.

First, the fact that the case studies indeed incorporated both mixed-use and single-purpose structures lent justification for a theoretical allusion to Foucault (1998, 461) in contesting that subjectivity (meanings of these palatial edifices) were not solely constructed from the presentations of the signified but represented variously by the signifiers as well. Second, Bhabha (1994, 4) argued that hybridity built by mimicry reflected both concerns with ambivalence and authority, hence indicating the flux and twin trajectories in a relationship of colonial domination vis-à-vis subordination.

While accepting Bhabha theoretical position, it must be acknowledged that the construction of a civilized identity by the Siamese ruling elites during the late-19^th and early-20^th centuries also denoted the creation of a “third space” (Bhabha 1990, 211)⁴ in order to attain, legitimize, and preserve authority under the ideological guise of anti-colonial nationalism, rather than suggesting the West’s civilizing mission of Siamese people. In other words, by paraphrasing Nandy (1983), the so-called third space in Siam (the occidentalizing project (see: Kitiarsa 2005b) resulted from continuous learning in colonization, leading to the making of a new and hybridized cultural form that enabled the Siamese ruling elites to assume the ambiguous role of being “neither/nor” yet “nearly/not quite identical” to Westerners.

Taken together, Foucault’s idea of subjectivation of discourse⁵ coupled with Bhabha’s theorization of hybridity then, provided a basis to put forward from a postcolonial perspective that the mediation of power in the built environment in Siam in the late-19^th and early-20^th centuries did not imply a neutral and objective phenomenon, but a form of collusion among various participants who operated in different agencies. Being a system of conspiracy, domination in power relations represented by stylistically hybridized cultural artifacts – including architecture – therefore signposted a chosen alliance among stakeholders in the context of crypto-coloniality.

In any case, Bentley (1999, 16) warned that there was nothing intrinsic to associations between architecture and authority. Buildings did not contain any form of power by themselves – neither inherently subjugating, empowering, nor emancipating – but were employed by their creators to create such meanings. Nonetheless, while those built forms were used as a strategic device to mediate power, their symbolism and iconography sometimes ironically served political interests for which they were not originally intended through a discursive mode of significations, as elucidated by the below critical and analytical discussions on the eclectic compositions of the Chakri Maha Prasat, ubosotha at Wat Niwet Thammaprawat, and Munthatu Rattanaroj.

3. The politics of representations by stylistically hybridized palatial architecture in modern Siam

3.1. Chakri maha prasat throne hall as a place of ceremonial purpose

Situated at the heart of Phra Borommaha Ratchawang (Grand Palace) in Bangkok, the eclectic – if not idiosyncratic – Chakri Maha Prasat (Figure 2) occupied the central position not only in the palatial compound, but also in the socio-political landscape of Siam in the late-19^th century. Although a major alteration of the superstructure of throne hall happened between 1926 and 1932 during the reign of King Rama VII (Prajadhipok, r. 1932–1940) to fix the weak connecting details between steel and wooden members of the spires (prasat) (see: NA, R7 ME, (4) STh 2.1.2.1/5, 21 January 1926; NA, R7 MP, M R7 W/5 W8/3, 22 January 1926; and Sirikiatikul (2019), 68–69), this paper concentrated its examinations on the original appearance of the building as it existed in the reign of King Rama V.⁶

Figure 2. Front Façade of Chakri maha prasat throne hall.

Source: The author, 2023.

The commission of the throne hall signposted a major step in realizing the sovereign’s desire to build himself a seat of power entirely in Western fashion in the wake of his visit to the British’s colony of Singapore and Dutch’s overseas territory of Java in 1871. Three years later, John Clunish – a Singapore-based Briton who took part in devising the Government House of Singapore (known today as the Istana) as an assistant to the Colonial Engineer John McNair – received an offer from the Siamese crown to work as a state-employed architect (Povathong 2005, 82). In 1875, Clunish generated a set of preliminary architectural drawing and model before presenting them to King (Bhanurangsri 1996, 415). The architect was soon joined by his cousin John Ross Clunish, a civil engineer, together with Chaophraya Bhanuvongse Maha Kosathibodi (Tuam Bunnag) and Phra Praditakarn Pakdi. These individuals formed the core personal of a working party on both the design and construction of the Chakri Maha Prasat lasting from 1876 to 1882, where the two Siamese aristocrats served as the director and accountant of the project respectively (Bhanurangsri 1996, 54, 175; and; Moonsin 2012, 29).

Positioned between the Dusit and Amarindra Vinichai Halls in the area once called Left Garden, the new throne hall stood in front of the Borromratch Sathitaya Maholarn, which was a part of a building complex linking the middle to inner sectors of Phra Borommaha Ratchawang. In brief, Figure 3 depicted the chronology of construction projects in the Grand Palace between 1868 and 1878, including the creations of the Chakri Maha Prasat and adjacent structures, could be classified into four major phases (Kulkanchanachewin 2021, 239).

Figure 3. The four major phases of erecting Chakri maha prasat throne hall between 1868 and 1878.

Source: Kulkanchanachewin (2021), with notations from the author.

3.1.1. Chakri maha prasat throne hall and Chakri maha prasat compound

As shown by Figure 4a,c, Chakri Maha Prasat should be comprehended as a group of eleven buildings rather than a single edifice, making the whole aggregated structures an assortment of ceremonial and residential facilities. A geometrical analysis disclosed that this compound of buildings – consisting of the throne hall, royal mansion, and other auxiliary functions – were: (1) subdivided by a sequence of access ranging from semi-public, semi-private, to private areas – in the east-west direction (cross-axis) into three zones, as conventionally organized by Siamese royal buildings; and (2) linked together in the north-south direction (longitudinal axis) by a large reception area where the throne was positioned (Figures 3c,d, and 4c).

Figure 4. Plan of Chakri maha prasat throne hall and other structures in the same building complex during the reign of king Rama V.

Source: The author, 2023, based on Saksi (1996).

3.1.1.1. The outer section

Devised in the neo-Renaissance style, the throne hall was an annex to the existing Borromratch Sathitaya Maholarn mansion (Figure 3b and c). Dwelling in the outer part of the compound (semi-public zone), the new addition contained three stories. Based on an inverted T-shaped plan, the location where the north-south axis intersected the east-west one emerged the waiting hall (Figure 4b,c). At the crossing point above the waiting hall, a large prasat in combination with two smaller counterparts on its left and right contributed a visual unity to the front façade by creating an absolute balance in the overall formal composition of the building. Richly adorned Corinthian columns supported deep cornices, bands of laurel leaves, and framing balustrades, while the windows featured various designs with arches, scrolls, and pediments. (Figure 2) (Noobanjong 2013, 55–58).

At the front end of the Chakri Maha Prasat, two wide staircases guarded by a pair of bronze elephants on high pedestals led to an enclosed portico flanked by galleries or reception rooms. The main entrance gates on either side of the portico were made of glass and wrought iron. The portico formed a vestibule to the waiting hall, from which flights of six-step staircases arose before entering the reception hall. At the left and the right of the waiting hall, the stairs lead directly to the galleries. The east and west corners of the building sheltered the king’s and queen’s private reception rooms for personal guests (Figures 2, 3 c, and 4c). Furthermore, above the reception hall were the shrines housing the urns of previous monarchs, organized into separate wings connecting to one another by processional arcades. At the top level, additional attics were placed under the gabled roof below the triple spires. Finally, under the reception hall and reception rooms lay a storage area – keeping valuable objects and furniture – plus an office of the royal guards and armory (the public zone), all of which were furnished with rusticated stones on the exterior (Figures 2, 3 c, and 4c) (Noobanjong 2013, 55–58).

3.1.1.2. The middle section

Completed in 1882, the middle portion (semi-private zone) centered on the throne hall, which could be accessed by an antechamber from the north (Figure 4b,c). East of the throne hall stood Munsathan Borommaat and Piphatpong Thavornwichit Halls, whereas Sommottithewarat Upabat and Damrongsawasdi Ananwongse Halls lay at the west (Figures 3a and 4b). In the east-west axis, the crown arrived from the east entrance, guarded by a pair of lions, before progressing to a large interior courtyard equipped with a grand stairway to the throne hall. In the opposite direction to the king’s atrium, an indoor pool provided refreshing atmosphere for royal guests and entourages. Overall, the courtyard and pool functioned as transitional space linking the middle and outer sections of the entire complex together (Figures 3a and 4b) (Kulkanchanachewin 2021, 247). Being the earliest constituents of the Chakri Maha Prasat compound, the aforementioned structures were utilized for performative purposes, e.g., hosting receptions of governmental officials and foreign dignitaries, as well as regal ceremonies. The Munsathan Borommaat was reserved for state dinners and banqueting events (Figures 3a and 4b) (Nana 2009, 57).

3.1.1.3. The inner section

Being a “forbidden city,” the inner section (private zone) was inhabited by female members of the royal family and their attendants. No males over the age of twelve, except for the sovereign, were permitted to enter unchaperoned. Even royal pages on official business had to be accompanied by a female guard (see: Woodhouse 2012). The area started with the rear foyer in the south used exclusively by the royal family to enter the throne hall from their residential quarters that occupied the southernmost area of the Chakri Maha Prasat compound. The foyer also connected to two-story Borromratch Sathitaya Maholarn mansion, which was surrounded by five ancillary buildings, comprising two levels as well. Erected between 1876 and 1878, these residential halls were the Amornphiman Manee, Suthasri Apirom, Bannakhom Sonranee, Ratcha Pridi Warothai, and Dhebdhanai Nanthayakorn (Figures 3d and 4a), some of which were still under construction even after the completion of Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall in 1892 (Laddawan 1978, 92).

Historical records indicated that the sextuple structures were the setting where most of the King Rama V’s domestic life during the adulthood unfolded until the crown decided to relocate the royal court to Dusit Palace situated in a northern suburb of the capital city in 1906. Throughout the first half of his 42-year-long reign, Borromratch Sathitaya Maholarn Mansion was the center of recreational activities for the monarch, his wives, concubines, and courtesans, as well as royal progenies and siblings, in addition to few privileged guests on some occasions. While the Amornphiman Manee was his majesty’s sleeping quarters, the Suthasri Apirom was the bedchamber of Queen Consort Saovabha Phongsri, an agnatic half-sister of Chulalongkorn who later became the Queen Regent in 1878 (Smith 1982, 106).

3.1.2. Interpreting the stylistic hybridity of Chakri maha prasat throne hall

The most conspicuous, and therefore recognizable, characteristic of Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall was the superimposition of three Siamese spires on a neo-Renaissance body (Figure 2). However, this stylistic hybridity – or disharmony to be exact – was not intended from the onset when Clunish received the regal commission to devise the building. Initially, the edifice was to be capped with three domes. The alteration of the superstructure arose from the concerning voice of Srisuriyawong, the former regent who remained an influential aristocrat, who appealed to the sovereign that the construction of the Chakri Maha Prasat entirely in the Western style would violate and disrespect the royal traditions. Aside from urging Chulalongkorn to change the proposed round roof by Clunish to Siamese prasat, Srisuriyawong justified his cause by reasoning that “Siamese monarchs in the past had always built their palaces in the manner of a three-season prasat” (Chittrabongs 1992, 72). In consequence of this advice, the king told Phraya Ratchasongkram (Dhat Hongsakul), the royal master builder, to switch to the Siamese-style roof despite the fact that an order for iron to construct the domes had already been placed with the manufacturer abroad (NA, R5 Contents of Special Accounts, M R5 rl-ps/2, 3 June 1878).

In effect, Chulalongkorn’s acquiescence to Srisuriyawong’s suggestion to create a hybridized Siamese-European structure had been perceived as a material embodiment of the internal power struggle within the Siamese ruling elites between the monarch’s modernizing faction and conservative nobles led by the Bunnag family (Saksi 1996, 100–101; and; Chungsiriarak 2020, 200). The encounter implied that, by the late-19^th century, the conservative party was still a formidable force to be reckoning with. So, the progressive circle (Young Siam) had to compromise and could not fully proceed with their modernization scheme (Noobanjong 2013, 69).

While aptly delineating the domestic politics in the early reign of King Rama V, the said analysis did not capture the full extent of the dynamism behind the hybridity of the throne hall (Peleggi 2002, 81, as cited in; Sirikiatikul 2019, 73). Because stylistic hybridization was commonly employed by European architects working in Asia, it was not too farfetched to hazard the following propositions. First, Clunish might simply tag along the trend of eclecticism that was fashionable in the 19^th century (Peleggi 2002, 81). Second, Chulalongkorn’s visit to the British Raj or India in 1872 to study colonial administration could have familiarized him with the eclectic Indo-Saracenic architecture (see: Piammettawat 2000). Hence, commissioning a hybridized Siamese-European building that could reconcile with the conservative bloc and simultaneously operate as a marker of civility for modern Siam seemed to be a practical choice for the crown who had yet to totally consolidate his hegemonic power. Third, by alluding to the notion of mestizaje, it could be construed that the use of the en vogue eclecticism in the design of the Chakri Maha Prasat, then, became a self-aggrandizing and self-justifying means for the Siamese sovereign and his clique to construct their civilized self-image through the discourse of siwilai (Chungsiriarak 2020, 184).

Notwithstanding their well-grounded readings on the royal consumption of cultural artifacts and the remaking of their self-image via the built environment, the abovementioned interpretations were still incomplete when it came to critical examinations on the political implications of the throne hall. On that account, this research argued that the hybridized Siamese-European edifice, too, illustrated Siam’s resistance and accommodation to Western colonialism by way of domesticating Western material culture. By resorting to the methods of appropriation and subversion, the Siamese rewrote, reinterpreted, rearranged, and recreated – instead of merely replicating and reproducing – Western cultural artifacts and practices to pursue their political goals.

On the one hand, the applications of subversive discourse to combat Western colonization were apparent from the building’s disharmonious juxtaposition of different stylistic elements. The Greco-Roman constituents of the façades–e.g., the rusticated base, carefully proportioned structural bays superimposed by pilasters, as well as projecting cornice, frieze, architrave, and engaged Corinthian order – collectively formed a pedestal for the surmounting traditional Siamese roof and spires that pointed toward the sky. By literally placing Siamese over European architectural components, Chulalongkorn could semiotically proclaim the cultural supremacy of the former over the latter. Albeit being conceptualized in a Western manner, the throne hall’s hybridity acted as a parody of its origins, undermining the strength of Western civilization, and thus invalidating the claim of Western righteousness in their colonial process (Figures 2 and 3d).

For that reason, the aesthetics of the Chakri Maha Prasat testified that Siam was not a helpless victim of Western aggression as promulgated by the mainstream narratives that constructed the official account of modern Thai history (ETB 1992, 127–150). On the contrary, the Bangkok regime in the late-19^th century was, in fact, an active and capable contender against France and the United Kingdom in the game of territorial conquests for lands and natural resources in the present Thailand, as well as the areas deemed by Siamese kings as their nominal suzerainties in Indochina and the Malay Peninsula. In a nutshell, Siam’s colonial contests happened through a combined process of administrative reformation, foreign trade formalization, social modernization, cultural Westernization, technological importation, political institutionalization, and most importantly internal colonization.

Moreover, regardless of its dwindling authority, the Hindu-Buddhist Triphum cosmology still exercised a considerable influence in functioning as a framework of reference in propagating the regal power. In this respect, Chakri Maha Prasat relied on the concept of double identities by creating a “homologous opposition” to mediate the royal authority. The traditional Siamese elements, namely the spires and roofs, signified the cosmic model – the heaven, earth, and underworld – in which the seat of power of Chulalongkorn, whose kingship denoted an incarnation of Vishnu, the almighty Hindu god – dwelled at the center of the universe. At the same time, the European body of the throne hall manifested the existence of that ideological universe on the earthly world: the physical reality in Newtonian physics that could be bodily experienced. Consequently, rather than being perceived as opposite polarities, or as a separation between the sacred and profane, the Siamese ruling elites viewed the dualism of this stylistically hybridized structure as complementary and uniting (Aasen 1998, 20).

Although the Triphum cosmology had lost its predominance prior to the accession to the throne of Chulalongkorn, the commission of Western architecture during his reign was still in accord with the regal code of architectural elements, or thana nusakdi nai ngan sattapattayakam. Historically, Siamese sovereigns institutionalized a code of cultural consumption that exhibited a person’s social status. Derived from the Indian caste system, certain ranks in the sociopolitical hierarchy were entitled to specific designs of cultural artifacts, including architecture, costume, language, and custom, while particular qualities – such as a seven-tiered roof designating the seven domains of heaven – were reserved solely for the monarchs. Violating the codes amounted to committing a high crime on the lèse majesté charge. Embellished with regal paraphernalia, seals, and emblems, the Chakri Maha Prasat was therefore instrumental in mediating the royal power to enforce social regimentation.

Whereas the European architectural components of the throne hall were not officially codified, they performed as a social ordering device in built forms, as much as what Bourdieu (1986) called an “objectified cultural capital” for King Rama V. Because the construction of this building was prohibitively expensive, only the monarchy could afford it. To cite an obvious example, there was a report that the cost of the London-made marble grand staircase and furniture alone withdrew over 80,000 pounds sterling from the privy purse (Bock 1986, 10). Such economic capability differentiated the royal elites from ordinary people, operating as a representational mechanism to legitimize their control over the population apart from refashioning a Westernized, modernized self-image, which was further projected onto the identity of the kingdom.

On the other hand, the homologous opposition of double identities engendered by the hybridity of the Chakri Maha Prasat exemplified the conflict of preserving cultural identity while accepting Western influences. This bipartite ambivalence was an outcome of the ruling elites’ split mentality, which had been symptomatic since the time of King Mongkut. Like the throne hall, several hybridized Siamese-European structures erected since the 1850s were telling evidence, exposing the real state of affairs of Siam in coping with Western colonialism and modernity. These hybrid edifices attested that the kingdom was able to avoid direct colonial rule, only to fall into the trap of Western cultural and intellectual colonization, where the Siamese ruling elites assumed the leading role of collaborators.

For instance, because the Chakri Maha Prasat was initially devised by Clunish in neo-Renaissance style, a counterargument could be formulated that its hybridity was indeed an afterthought. Even with the imposing Siamese superstructure, the building still looked predominantly European with numerous modifications of Siamese designs to suit the Western concept, not the other way around. Accordingly, the “civilized” image that the Siamese ruling elites proudly adopted turned out to be the identity of a crypto-colony in reality. In spite of their best efforts to realize the concept of homologous opposition through the eclectic design of the throne hall, the creation of a new self-image of the elites was, ironically, an affirmation of their capitulation to Western hegemony, which was “mirrored, via the travelogues by the court’s foreign guests and the later visits of Rama V to Europe, [in terms of] a recognizably ‘civilized’ image back onto the West itself” (Peleggi 2002, 24).

Furthermore, the homologous opposition was not limited to the formal composition but included the spatial configuration of the throne hall as well. The sequence of access in a linear alignment on the longitudinal axis (the north-south direction) in the plan of the Chakri Maha Prasat complex (Figure 4b,c) was analogous to the spatial order of palatial architecture in premodern Siam, as evident from the layout of the nearby Phra Maha Monthien residential compound in the Grand Palace, where progression from public to private areas was subdivided into three stages along the length of buildings, consisting of the outer, middle, and inner zones (Chungsiriarak 2020, 183–184). This mode of spatial regulation set a precedent for other European-style throne halls subsequently commissioned during the reign of King Rama V – such as the Italianate Anantha Samakhom – to emulate.

Overall, the previous discussions reflected that notwithstanding its controversial stylistic amalgamations and schizophrenic connotations, the hybridized Siamese-European Chakri Maha Prasat was “the outcome of the cult of innovation and originality which developed during decades of cross-cultural influence” (Poshyananda 1992, 6) in representing a new and eclectic albeit syncretic identity of Siam that was distinct from yet similar to the West. The cultural identity of the kingdom as expressed by the dualistic design of throne hall was a mixture of what appeared to be a Western and modern-oriented culture, conservative practice, and traditional values. Here, the confluence of globalizing forces (colonial domination: Westernization and modernization), which drew Siam and its people, as well as events, onto the world stage, coexisted with the power of localizing forces (colonial resistance: Siamization) that reified, exoticized, and ultimately turned Siamese culture into opposition against the globalization process (Van Esterik 2000, 15). A play between the exoticism of locality and the globalization process encapsulated by the hybridity of the Chakri Maha Prasat then generated a paradox abundant with ambiguity, complexity, and contradiction, thus affirming the cultural identity of Siam.

In sum, a closing statement could be drawn that the aesthetics of the throne hall bore a crucial aspect of modern Siam and its identity: an anxiety to become a civilized nation-state that could still preserve its own traditional social practices and cultural heritage, resulting in a kind of split – or schizophrenic – national mentality. Such disparity essentially exposed an intricate dynamism and the paradoxical nature of modern Siam. Although the West and modernity were normally perceived by the ruling elite as “suspected Others,” the civilized identity of the kingdom and its people could never be completed without foreign contributions. The fact that Westerners and their material culture played a key role in refashioning the royal self-image, which was subsequently projected onto the creation of the new Siamese identity, reiterated the role of otherness in the process of identification. Without the importation and assimilation of Western culture along with modern knowledge and technology, Chulalongkorn and his court would not be able to construct the concept of chat and reform of the kingdom, which were necessitated by the Western colonial discourse.

3.2. The ubosotha at wat niwet thammaprawat as a place of worship

If Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall was the most visually bizarre member of the stylistically hybridized ceremonial buildings commissioned by King Rama V, then its discernable counterpart in religious structures would probably be the ordination hall at Wat Niwet Thammaprawat in Pang Pa-In district of Ayutthaya province, standing on the east bank of the Chao Praya River about 60 kilometers north of the capital city. Situated on a small island on the waterway, the monastery was a part of the summer palace, Pang Pa-In, of which renovation was initiated by King Mongkut and later pursued by Chulalongkorn in 1872. Once being used as palatial ground for King Prasat Thong of Ayutthaya Kingdom (r. 1629–1656) (Rajanubhab 1970, 66–67), Pang Pa-In Palace housed several Western-style edifices, most which were completed in 1889 (Povathong, Sirithanawat, and Yaimeesak 2010, 137).

Boasting multiple architectural styles – ranging from the traditional Siamese prasat at Aisawan Thiphya-Ard Pavilion, and neo-Italian Renaissance Warophat Phiman Mansion, to Chinese Wehart Chamroon Residential Hall – this summer palace was one of the sovereign’s favorite rural retreats throughout his reign due to its picturesque landscape of vast gardens and ponds, coupled with convenient location from Bangkok that could be reached via motorboat and train (Singhalampong 2016, 128). Frequently accommodating royal guests, important international dignitaries who stayed at the pang Pa-In included Nicholas II of Russia (when he was the Tsesarevich) along with his cousin in 1891, Prince George of Greece in 1891 (RG 7, 52, 29 March 1891), Count of Turin (Prince Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy-Aosta) in 1898 (Royal Thai Government Gazette RG 15, 38 1898), Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich of Russia in 1902 (Royal Thai Government Gazette RG 19, 9 1902), as well as Duke John Albert and Duchess Elisabeth of Mecklenburg in 1910 (Royal Thai Government Gazette RG 26, 0 ng 1910). Being a site for displaying the Siamese’s domestication of Western material culture, the eclectic summer palace ostensibly performed as a showpiece for Chulalongkorn to demonstrate the civility of modern Siam under his rule to foreign visitors, aside from providing a comfortable setting to welcome European royalties.

3.2.1. A Buddhist temple in a guise of a neo-gothic church

In accordance with the regal tradition of Siam, King Rama V erected a royal temple, known as Wat Niwet Thammaprawat, to accompany the riverfront Bang Pa-In palace (NL, 1878, Chronicle of King Rama V, (black paper folding book), Bind 71, Number 4). While the construction of this Buddhist monastery was commenced on 26 January 1877, the foundation stone laying ceremony for the ubosotha was held four months afterward on May 25. Chulalongkorn hired an Austro-Hungarian architect of Italian descent Joachim Grassi to design the building in Western style, of which construction was completed almost four years later (Archives of Bang Pa-In Palace and Wat Niwet Thammaprawat Temple [in Thai] 1994, 143–145). According to a contemporary witness, Florence Caddy, an English writer who travelled to Siam in 1888, the Niwet Thammaprawat was indeed a “copy of modern Gothic church” (Caddy 1889, 174) (Figure 5). As narrated by the inscriptions on a marble slab on the wall of the ordination hall, the modernizing monarch stated that the commission of the ubosotha in such an unorthodox manner was not indicative of his conversion to a different religion. Being a faithful Buddhist, he would like the building to be a wonder as his homage to Buddhism, as much as a spectacle for the people since this kind of stylistic expression had not been employed before by other Buddhist monasteries in Siam (Inscriptions from Wat Niwet Thammaprawat [in Thai] 1968, 7–12).

Figure 5. The ordination hall at niwet thammaprawat temple.

Source: The author, 2021.

Standing on the islet opposite Bang Pa-In Palace, the temple was consecrated on 24 February 1879 (in 1994, 143–145). Singhalampong (2016, 129) opined that the spatial configuration of the ordination hall at Wat Niwet Thammaprawat (Figure 6) based on a rectangular plan with the main steeple at the south end was reminiscent to the plan of St. Andrew’s Cathedral, a neo-Gothic cathedral attended by King Rama V during his visit to Singapore in 1971. The king’s idea of erecting a Buddhist temple in the neo-Gothic style, therefore, might not just come out of thin air, but it could be inspired by his recollection of bodily experiences with the architecture of St. Andrew’s Cathedral, conceived by Ronald MacPherson (Beamish and Ferguson 1989, 48–51).

Figure 6. Plan of the ordination hall at niwet thammaprawat temple.

Source: The author, 2023, based on Wongchaturabhat (2010).

No matter what the true motive behind the neo-Gothic appearance might be, the ubosotha was undeniably a hybridized Siamese-European structure, particularly with regard to its symbolism and iconography. For example, in place of a church bell as usually seen from typical Gothic bell towers, the steeple was crowned by a miniature brass stupa (or chedi in Thai) (Figure 7). The twin pinnacles of the portal over the north entrance were embellished with two bronze statuettes of Buddhist deities in a common fashion to Buddhist temples. Nevertheless, unlike any other places of worship either Christian or Buddhist one, Siam’s Coat of Arms on the pediment and a stained glass above the entrance illustrating a portrait of Chulalongkorn donning a royal gown (Figure 8) marked a clear and significant break from the tradition.

Figure 7. Section of the ordination hall at niwet thammaprawat temple.

Source: The author, 2023, based on Wongchaturabhat (2010).

Figure 8. Stained-glass portrait of king rama v inside the ordination hall at wat niwet thammaprawat.

Source: The author, 2021.

3.2.2. Critical reading on the eclecticism of the ubosotha at Wat Niwet Thammaprawat

In Siam before the 1850s, the ornamental elements of royal temples did not specify the personality of the individual monarchs who sponsored them, but referred to the royalty as a collective body, an institution, or an abstract idea. Like his father, however, Chulalongkorn saw himself as a human being who assumed the kingship as much as a living demigod. While portraying himself as a real human character, the king ruled over his subjects through the concept of divine authority. As shown by the stained glass in the ordination hall at Wat Niwet Thammaprawat (Figure 8), regal architecture constructed during the reign of King Rama V was personified, serving as an autobiography for the existence of the sovereign who erected them in both physical and spiritual realms.

As explained before, in order to secure a place for Siam in the globalizing imperial system, the acquisition of a civilized identity via the refashioning of the Siamese monarchy’s image was projected onto the creation of the national and cultural identity of the kingdom. Inheriting an intellectual reform from King Mongkut, Chulalongkorn accelerated the pace of hegemonic shift from the Indo-Sinic sphere of influence – which derived from ontological beliefs informing religion, form of governance, and social and cultural practices – to Eurocentric civilization and modernity as evident from the predominantly neo-Gothic aesthetics of the ubosotha (Figures 5, 7 and 9).

Figure 9. The interior of the ordination hall at niwet thammaprawat temple.

Source: The author, 2021.

The abovementioned paradigmatic change was further incorporated into the Rama V’s notion of state or chat, which was vastly different from the nationalistic principles of contemporary Western regimes that were based on the ideals of citizenship, civil rights, and liberty. In essence, chat was a mixture of the Indo-Buddhist belief in righteous kingship, or dharmaraja, and Louis XIV’s vision of absolutism (see: Baker 1990, 225–226) into an idea of a united sociopolitical entity, or samakkhi, comprising all classes and peoples who were royal subjects divided into orders by birth under the personality a divine leader (Tambiah 1976, 198). As exhibited by the hybridity of the ordination hall, the ancient ideal of dharmaraja–signified by the image of the crown (Figure 8) – was amalgamated with Western and modern concepts of statehood – depicted by the Coat of Arms (Figure 9) – as a basis to mediate regal authority and the identity of the sovereign, which was one and the same as that of the kingdom. For that reason, the politics of representations at Wat Niwet Thammaprawat was comparable to that of Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall for the ways in which the architectural symbolism and iconography of these stylistically hybridized built forms articulated the personality of the monarch through the discourse of siwilai.

Similar to its exterior, the interior of the ordination hall featured neo-Gothic atmosphere as well. Supplementing the Western-style decoration was a high altar enshrining the images of the Buddha and two disciples (Figure 9). The hammerbeam roof – a timber roof truss typical of religious structures in the United Kingdom during the Victorian era – gave a tectonic clue that the ubosotha was, in fact, a derivative of English Gothic architecture, rendering Wat Niwet Thammaprawat a de facto Anglicized Buddhist temple (Figure 9) (Singhalampong 2016, 130). This observation should not come as a surprise because the exquisite interior of the ordination hall at Wat Ratchabophit in Bangkok, which was another royal Buddhist monastery commissioned by Chulalongkorn, also employed a fusion of Siamese and neo-Gothic styles.

Although much has been said on the subject of Wat Niwet Thammaprawat as a material embodiment of the refined and forward-thinking image of the royal Self as well as of the cultural and national identity of the modern absolutist Siam, the ordination halls and other structures on the property markedly differed from other buildings in Bang Pa-In Palace in manifesting the regal authority. Unlike the beautiful and spacious landscape together with handsome Western-style edifices on the palatial ground, the temple operated as a quasi-public space – a place where commoners could enter and interact with the those in higher socio-economic echelons – as opposed to the restricted accessibility and stringent code of conducts of the nearby royal court. Besides the monastery, the island lodged a small school for local children that later became an ecclesiastical college for persons of humble origins to get their basic education (Ministry of Culture 2012). Hence, the intended audiences for the politics of representations in the arts and architecture of this religious structure was not constrained to members of the royal family, aristocrats, courtiers, and visiting foreign dignitaries, but included ordinary people as well.

On that account, it could be argued that the eclectic design of the ubosotha at Niwet Thammaprawat Temple facilitated the creation of double identities by generating a homologous opposition to mediate the royal authority. Corresponding to the holy book of dharma–the Tripitaka – the hybridity of the building could be equated with the two different levels of knowledge: the mundane, or lokiya, and the supramundane or enlightened, known as lokutara. Metaphorically, the knowledge of the physical world commanded by the king – the profane, namely Western science and technology – was signified by the neo-gothic form (Figure 5), structural components (Figures 8 and 9), and spatial layout of the ordination hall (Figure 6). Coexisting with it was the knowledge of enlightenment – the sacred that only Rama V, a Bodhisattva-king, possessed – which was exemplified by the references to Buddhism–i.e., the miniature chedi, statuettes of Buddhist deities (Figure 7), as well as the images of the Buddha and disciples (Figure 9) – in combination with the stained-glass portrait of Chulalongkorn (Figure 8).

Regardless of the fact that the homologous opposition was perceptible from the esthetical expressions of the ubosotha, the stylistic hybridity of the building was more visually harmonious and thus less confrontational than that of the Chakri Maha Prasat. Informed by the transcultural discourse of mestizaje, a couple of corollary remarks could be made that the ordination hall functioned primarily as: (1) a representation of the monarchical power via Buddhist symbolism and iconography, in which European material culture was employed to formulate such a meaning; rather than (2) a mimicry or parody of Anglican churches in neo-Gothic fashion to combat Western colonial encroachments, thus reiterating the situations of crypto-coloniality in Siam during the late-19^th century that occurred in cultural and intellectual terms.

In short, it became obvious that the aesthetics of the ubosotha at wat Niwet Thammaprawat along with other hybrid Siamese-European royal buildings commissioned by King Rama V contradicted the belief popularized by the mainstream narratives that the modern identity of Siam could be ascertained by the binarism of nature/history, stability/change, authenticity/inauthenticity, identity/difference, dominance/docility, and orientation/disorientation (see: Dovey 1999, 15–16). Ironically, however, the incongruity and contradiction between the syncretic forms and conflicting meanings of these eclectic built forms precisely captured the true characteristics of Siam during the reign of Chulalongkorn, where the antagonistic forces of globalization and localization competed, reflected, converged, and integrated. The two opposing forces of colonial accommodation and resistance worked together in constituting the modern image of the kingdom, which had always been subjected to appropriation and contestation (Keesing 1989, 36–37), leading to multiplicity and ambiguity in architectural significations.

Nonetheless, since Chulalongkorn’s appropriations of Western architecture in transforming Siam into a civil society were conditioned by the Siamese’s encounters with the imperial West called for a reexamination of Niwet Thammaprawat Temple under a colonial gaze. In this regard, Kwanmuang (2014, 64–67) interestingly suggested that the overall neo-Gothic composition of the ordination hall presented an innovative design solution by merging the forms of a pagoda and hall into a single structure called “pagoda-hall” to maximize the use of space in the vertical dimension (Figure 10). Whereas a sermon hall (vihara), ordination hall (ubosotha), and main pagoda (chedi) were built structurally independent from one another in a traditional Siamese Buddhist monastery complex, the ubosotha of Wat Niwet Thammaprawat appropriated the uprightness of a belfry, campanile, steeple, and spire of a Gothic church to craft a vertical form that not only replaced a pagoda, but also created a novel holistic entity (Figures 6, 7 , and 10). When considering that the entire monastery occupied a confine space of a tiny isle, Kwanmuang’s interpretation sounded quite plausible and convincing.

Figure 10. Formal analysis of the ordination hall at niwet thammaprawat temple.

Source: Developed from Kwanmuang (2014) by the author, 2023.

Apparently, the new building typology of “pagoda-hall” produced by the eclectic design of the ordination hall unveiled that the hybridity of the building took place in terms of both inter- and intra-cultural fusions. Chulalongkorn and the modernizing elites took decisive actions in negotiating modernity and Western material culture by commissioning an original built form that could eloquently convey their versions of civility upon the immediate environment and beyond, while simultaneously manifesting their Westernized identity and authoritative status in the socio-political fabric of modern Siam.

Perhaps more than anyone else in Siam, King Rama V knew full well that although the constructions of completely Western-style structures could make the kingdom appear civilized in the eyes of the international community and his subjects, they could at the same time undermine his legitimacy as the ruler. Extensive use of Western architecture could alienate the monarch from his people, depicting him as a collaborator of the colonial powers instead of the savior of the Siamese people in the face of Western aggression. This might deprive the crown of popular support and eventually lead to the downfall of the absolute monarchy. For instance, after reviewing the design of the Italian neo-Renaissance Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall with the chief architect Mario Tamagno, the sovereign voiced his concern that future generations of Siamese people might see him as being so fond of Western culture and negligent of his own cultural origin (Chulalongkorn, King of Siam 1909, as cited in; Horayangkura et al. 1993, 21).

In order to appease a potentially disenchanted public about his disregard of Siamese culture and tradition, the king sponsored several renovation and extension projects for buildings in the Grand Palace in combination with old Buddhist monasteries, some of which dated before the foundation of Bangkok in 1882. Moreover, Chulalongkorn built himself a modest traditional Siamese house known as Ruean Ton at Dusit Palace (Noobanjong 2013, 82), in conjunction with a number of hybridized Siamese-European royal residences – that incorporated some recognizable aspects of Siamese wooden architecture – including Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa at Chudadhuj Rachasathan Palace on Sichang Island in 1892.

3.3. Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa as a place of dwelling and recreation

As modern medical science introduced the practice of seaside rehabilitation among the Siamese ruling elites in the late-19^th century, King Rama V took an ailing son to Koh Sichang for recuperation in 1891. Situated around 12 kilometers off the shore of Si Racha district in the current Chonburi province – which was known then as the town of Bang Pla Soi distancing about 120 kilometers southeast of Bangkok – Sichang archipelago were called by Western seafarers as Dutch Islands, whereas the isle itself earned a sobriquet of Amsterdam due to frequent visits by ships of the Dutch East India Company since the 17^th century (Crawford 1830, 193). Occupying the southeast portion of the Sichang, Chudadhuj Rachasathan Palace grew out of a pavilion erected by King Mongkut and became the sole royal palace in Siam located on an island. The transformation of the site from an entrepôt to a sanatorium led to the constructions of a new Buddhist temple, bridge, a lighthouse, and roads around the area (Suriyothin 2021, 2).

In fact, the place was named after Chulalongkorn’s issue with Queen Consort Saovabha Phongsri – Prince Chudadhuj Dharadilok – who was born there in 1892. Functioning primarily as a convalescent home that provided fresh air and striking scenery for its inhabitants, examples of key members of the royal family who regained their health at the littoral palace besides the queen herself were her two other sons, Prince Vajiravudh (who later ascended to the throne as King Rama VI, r. 1910–1925), and Prince Asdang Dejavudh. Covering a mountainous terrain of approximately 37.92 hectares, the palatial ground contained several residential structures accompanied by a regal park endowed with many beautiful landscaping elements – such as gardens, walkways, stairs, ponds, fountains, waterways, and waterfalls – of which names were conferred by the monarch (see: Chulasai and Povatong 2010).

As the crown stayed for a vacation on the Sichang for several months, this maritime hideaway underwent a major expansion in 1892. However, the constructions of four new wooden structures–i.e., Kosrivasubhan, Munthat Rattanarot, Chotirosprapa, and Mekkhalamanee villas – together with fourteen auxiliary buildings were never completed. In the following year, the role of the Chudadhuj Rachasathan as a place of recreation and dwelling came to an unexpected end when the Franco-Siamese conflict over the sovereignty of Laos and Cambodia broke out. As the aftermaths of a brief but deadly naval skirmish that included a seizure of Koh Sichang, not only did France sent battleships to blockade the Chao Phraya River and Gulf of Siam, but also stationed combat troops along the eastern coast of the kingdom, rendering the palace unsafe for royal sojourns. So, it was disowned and deserted (see: Chulasai 2005).

3.3.1. From a seaside convalescent home to a permanent residence

During his visit to the eastern coast several years afterward, Chulalongkorn saw the four unfinished regal villas on Koh Sichang in a deteriorating condition, so he ordered them to be torn down. While the fates of the other three structures were uncertain, the Munthatu Rattanaroj (Figure 11a) was reassembled as Vimanmek Mansion (Figure 11b), the first major royal edifice erected on the ground of Dusit Palace in Bangkok (Royal Thai Government Gazette RG 17, 24 1900). Being enlarged into a gigantic teakwood structure, the Vimanmek served as his majesty’s permanent residence until 1906 (Povathong 2011, 191), when the inauguration of the Art Nouveau Amphon Sathan Residence that allowed the king to live in a proper European manner took place in late-February (Royal Thai Government Gazette RG 23, 49 1906).

Figure 11. (A) Munthatu rattanaroj villa under construction in 1892. (b) vimanmek mansion in 2014.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/thairoyalfamily/photos/บน-พระที่นั่งมันธาตุรัตนโรจน์-ขณะก่อสร้างเมื่อปีพุทธศักราช-๒๔๓๕-ตั้งอยู่บริเวณพร/1784257541613209/?locale=th_TH, with notations from the author.

Although the actual architectural drawings of the Munthatu Rattanaroj could not be found, few photographic materials on the villa had existed (Figure 11a). Originally devised by Prince Thongthaem Thavalyawongse (Rama V’s half-brother), this wooden seaside structure consisted of both one and two stories (Sidhithanyakit 2019, 318). Equipped with hipped roof, wooden railing balcony, and simple decorations, the overall appearance of the villa (Figure 11a,b) exhibited the Siamese’s interpretation of the late-19^th century American Stick Style architecture to suit the tropical environment of the kingdom, emphasizing on good ventilation and harmony with physical setting (Chungsiriarak 2010, 123). The octagonal stone base where Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa once stood on Sichang Island demonstrated that it was based on an elongated rectilinear plan with an octagonal tower attached to one corner and a pair of semi-circular porticos affixed to the front and rear ends at the middle portion (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Aerial view of the base of munthatu rattanaroj villa on sichang island.

Source: Google Map, 2019.

In the morning of 31 August , Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa began its new lease of life as Vimanmek Mansion when the foundation stone laying ceremony performed by the crown himself took place (Royal Thai Government Gazette RG 17, 24 1900). Under the supervision of Korn Hongsakun, the chief court carpenter, the reconstruction was completed in March 1902. Developed into a three-story building on an L-shaped plan with two 60-metre-long wings running westward and northward, the building appeared emphatically horizontal (Figure 11b). The general width of the structural bays was 15 meters, although the spans of certain parts sometimes rose to 35 meters. Containing thirty-one rooms to accommodate the extended family of the sovereign, the octagonal tower consisting of four stories was exclusively reserved as the king’s living quarters and bedchamber. The height from the ground level to the ceiling of the fourth floor measured 20 meters, or 25 meters from the ground to the top of the roof (Subhamitr 2008, 132). Accompanying the Vimanmek were teakwood residences of various Gothic Revival renditions to accommodate Chulalongkorn’s three queens, favorite consorts and concubines, as well as young royal children (Povathong 2011, 191).

Chungsiriarak (2010, 123) insisted that the precedent of American Stick architecture in the designs of Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa and Vimanmek Mansion did not come as a surprise, because American missionaries introduced this so-called Gingerbread Style to Siam since the reign of King Rama IV in the 1840s. Incorporating the tectonic characteristics of Japanese timber architecture, the degree of thermal comfort afforded by the balloon frame-like structure of the Stick Style lent itself well to the hot and humid climate of Siam, as opposed to that of a Western-style buildings made of bricks and stones. Moreover, as noticed by Singhalampong (2016, 120), the exquisite wooden decorative details suggested a recognizable trait of the Arts and Crafts Movement, which was applied to aesthetics of the villa and mansion through Chulalongkorn’s awareness of patronizing and preserving traditional culture that led to a of revival old techniques of wooden carpentry in Siamese architecture. As evident from the wooden joinery, trims, and skeletal frames of the Munthatu Rattanaroj and Vimanmek, the skilled carpentry of Siam’s craftsmanship – a value shared with the Arts and Crafts Movement⁷– was exercised in devising Westernized built forms to shelter a modernizing monarch, who cherished his own cultural root, while at the same time selectively assimilating Western material culture and modernity to civilize the kingdom.

3.3.2. Postcolonial reflections on Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa and Vimanmek Mansion

Unlike the other two case studies in this research – Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall and the ubosotha at Wat Niwet Thammaprawat – the hybridized Siamese-American designs and constructions of Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa and Vimanmek Mansion were not executed by Western architects hired by King Rama V, but by the native officials and craftsmen who were exposed to foreign artistic influences and modern technology. The result was an eclectic wooden edifice that displayed neither visual incompatibility between Siamese and Western architectural elements, nor concealment of traditional utilitarian requirements under a European cloak. On the contrary, the two palatial structures demonstrated an esthetical synthesis, which could be experienced not by just visual expressions, but through all sensory receptions. In other words, one needed to be in situ either at Chudadhuj Rachasathan or Dusit palaces in order to haptically appreciate the Siamese’s negotiations of the West and modernity by the hybridity of the Munthatu Rattanaroj and Vimanmek. Besides their finely crafted wooden details and structural system, the following observations identified other attributes of these residences that engendered the aforementioned architectural qualities.

First, the structural bays and skeletal frames of the buildings (Figure 12) indicated a utilization of modular system that generated a set of rhythms in the façades, of which constituents were geometrically proportionate to one another (Figure 11a,b). Such well-ordered compositions were reminiscent to the fah pakon system of residential structures in the central region of Siam, where the walls employed a basic module that gave visual coherence to the architecture and imparted unity to the whole. Second, the fact that the Munthatu Rattanaroj was: (1) taken into various pieces; (2) transported from Koh Sichang; and (3) reassembled in Bangkok as the Vimanmek, reflected a quintessential feature of traditional Siamese wooden dwellings. Owing to their nailless joinery–e.g., mortise, tenon, dovetails, as well as tongue-and-groove connections – the use of metal fasteners was minimized. For that reason, the houses could be dismantled, repositioned, and reconstructed at new locations with relative ease.

Both remarks were substantiated by the Siamese custom of removing wooden abodes that fell into disuse from properties, before donating them to Buddhist monasteries as monk cells or for other monastic purposes. Altogether, they supplied an empirical foundation to remark that not only did Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa and Vimanmek Mansion: (1) testify for the Siamese’s ability to reconcile with modernity; but also (2) operate as a subversion of Western hegemony to manifest their civilized identity by constructing stylistically hybridized buildings that were formally established in the face of Western dominance, which became prevalent in the productions of architecture of the state in Siam during the first decade of the 20^th century.

Although the above explanations helped understand the Munthatu Rattanaroj and Vimanmek in the context of colonial encounters, Chulalongkorn’s decision to reconstituted the villa as a royal mansion begged additional analytical probes into the subject matter, especially when realizing that: (1) King Rama V was widely known as a lavish spender on and connoisseur of Western material culture as shown by his commissions of Western-style structures throughout the 42-year-long reign; (2) the regal authority reached the level of absolutism by the turn of the 19^th century when the Vimanmek was built (Wyatt 1984, 199), hence budgetary constrain did not appear to be a concerning issue for the constructions of buildings in Dusit Palace; and (3) the unfinished Munthatu Rattanaroj bore a traumatic memory of France’s gunboat diplomacy in 1893 that abolished Siam’s suzerain controls over Laos and Cambodia. Being a watershed moment in the relationships between the kingdom and Western powers, its ripple effects had been felt throughout the 20^th century and beyond. Under the banner of nationalism and anti-colonialism, the clash had been employed as a rallying point for mobilizing popular support for the state up to nowadays (Winichakul 1994, 148).

While typically attributing the revival of Munthatu Rattanaroj seaside dwelling as Vimanmek Mansion to an example of Chulalongkorn’s financial prudence – not to mention his personal fondness of Koh Sichang – Thai scholars had largely disregarded a historical link between the edifice and his majesty’s bitter experience with the French colonial encroachments in 1893. Yet in reality, this armed conflict (the so-called R.S. 112 Incident) inflicted a deep scar on the psyche of the ruling elites, particularly the king who endured both mental and physical breakdowns, withdrawing from affairs of state for several months apart from suffering a long period of depression for many years after the confrontation. Likewise, the Siamese ruling elites’ self-confidence was slow to recover and never regained the same level of self-assurance in dealing with Western colonization that they had enjoyed prior to 1893 (Battye 1974, 369).

On top of the cessions of Laos and most of Cambodia, France asked for a retribution of 3,000,000 franc and occupation of the Siamese eastern seaboard provinces of Chanthaburi and Trat until other conditions and the payment were met. Furthermore, the kingdom had to establish a 25-kilometer demilitarized zone inside its boundary along the west bank of the Mekong River, as well as throughout its remaining western Cambodian territory. With French naval vessels sailing up the Chao Praya River and pointing their weapons at the Grand Palace in Bangkok (Vanner 2017, 206–207), King Rama V had no alternative but to accept the terms offered by signing a treaty with France six months afterward (Simms and Simms 2001, 206–207). Conventional narratives on the history of Siam in the 19^th century had always portrayed the French gunboat diplomacy in 1893 as an ultimate act of aggression by the imperial West, despite the argument put forward by a growing number of scholars in Thai studies that Siam never really owned the territories in Laos and Cambodia that it was forced to surrender, and therefore did not lose any of them (for instance, see: Winichakul 1994, 150–153).

When taking these historical occurrences into consideration, Chulalongkorn’s resurrection of the Munthatu Rattanaroj – of which location was violated by French troops in 1893–was rather perplexing. What rationale behind the monarch’s reconstruction of this villa as his permanent residence when he could have easily built himself a new abode that had nothing to do with the colonial ordeal and humiliation caused by the 1893 Incident, one might wonder. Since a direct answer could not be obtained from primary Thai sources, examinations on circumstantial situations might shed some light on it.

On the one hand, the commission of Vimanmek Mansion could be construed as: (1) an embodiment of Siam’s resilience in salvaging and turning what was left from a difficult situation into something magnificent; and (2) a symbol of the triumphant survival from European aggressions that galvanized the kingdom to a modern nation-state. Yet, because this massive edifice was inaccessible to ordinary people, the intended audience of its message – which was self-comforting in nature – were mainly confined to high-ranking members of the royal family, nobilities, and courtiers. As a result, even though offering a limited impact, the politics of representations at the Vimanmek aimed to boost the sagging morale of the Siamese ruling elites, since the reconstruction of the building metaphorically reminded them of Siam’s recouperation from the 1893-armed struggle against France.

On the other hand, the stylistic hybridity of the villa and mansion suggested that the localization of Western material culture after 1893 occurred via what might be called as the Siamization process of Western architecture, which was epitomized by the stylistically hybridized structures that required the mastery of artistic skills and technical knowledge on Siamese and Western architecture alike from the indigenous court officials and craftsmen who created them. In this respect, the refined eclecticism in the aesthetics of palatial buildings constructed after Chulalongkorn’s first European grand tour in 1897 seemed to encapsulate his majesty’s new insight on the imperial West. For instance, during his visit to London – which included a couple of excursions to the East End Borough where deprived urban population lived – the Siamese monarch realized that both local customs and socio-economic inequalities still persisted in European life, despite their claim of being modern and civilized. Emboldened by such disillusionment, King Rama V proceeded with making compromises that would perpetuate the values of Siamese culture within the borrowed framework of Westernization and modernization, as exemplified by the more tactful hybridity of the ordination hall at Benchama Bophit Temple and Vimanmek Mansion.

Whereas the said interpretations called for more investigations to verify their validity, Chulalongkorn assertively wrote in 1898 that: “ … there exists no incompatibility between such acquisition [of European (modern) science] and the maintenance of our individuality as an independent Asiatic nation” (Chulalongkorn, King of Siam 1898, as cited in; Wyatt 1984, 211). The changing attitude of the crown toward the Occidental world and modernity could also be witnessed from his shifting preference for architectural styles from Western historicism to contemporary artistic movements that were more forward-looking, as illustrated by: (1) the Art Nouveau designs of Amphon Sathan Residence in Dusit Palace; and (2) Phra Ram Ratchaniwet Palace (a rainy season retreat initially known as Ban Puen Villa) in Phetchaburi Province distancing about 130 kilometers southwest of Bangkok. Overall, the sovereign’s rejuvenated sense of self-assurance and new artistic inclinations in the later years of his rule, in conjunction with his patronage of traditional Siamese architecture as well as hybridized Siamese-European buildings, would provide valuable contextual evidence to perform future critical investigations on Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa and Vimanmek Mansion.

Be that as it may, despite the abovementioned recognitions, the stylistic hybridity of this wooden regal dwelling quintessentially illustrated that the building was a product of a politico-cultural system, which endured external threats by allowing some important changes to happen in an evolutionary instead of evolutionary manner. Even though producing some veneers of resemblance to the prevailing world power of the day by mimicking its way of living as well as mode of cultural consumption, the Siamese never fully espoused the same ontological or ideological view to the global hegemon. As appositely pointed out by Peter Jackson (2008), this understanding was indispensable for untangling the “often-noted paradox of Thai culture as constantly changing yet always remaining Thai” (Jackson 2008, 167). Whereas the definitions of what constituted civility were always shifting, the creations of a civilized identity of the Siamese ruling elites remained constant in terms of a symbol of the internationally recognized prestige that permitted Siamese people to perceived themselves as members of the dominant world order. The acquisitions of such a self-image not only provided the modus operandi for the royal elites to assert, legitimize, and maintain their power over the indigenous populace in the mid-19^th and early-20^th centuries, but had also become one of the most enduring attributes of the political culture in Thailand until today.

4. Conclusion

As elucidated by the preceding discussions, the eclectic designs of Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall, the ordination hall at Niwet Thammaprawat Temple, and Munthatu Rattanaroj Villa – and by extension Vimanmek Mansion – were far from merely an expression of obsession with Western knowledge and modern technology. In contrast, they were an integral part of a historically and culturally rooted system of knowledge and tactical methods conceived and developed by the Siamese via an elusive and reflexive approach in their historical and cultural experiences with modernity and the imperial West (Noobanjong 2013, 105). Accordingly, this triad of hybrid built forms exemplified the: (1) conscious endeavors by the Siamese to reinterpret, reappropriate, and recreate Western cultural artifacts between the mid-19^th and early 20^th centuries; (2) leading roles of King Rama V and his court officials in adopting modernity and Western culture to suit their own political agenda; (3) material embodiment of modern civility acquired by the indigenous elites during the height of European colonial expansions in Southeast Asia; and (4) Siamese’s tradition of mediating power through symbolism and iconography in arts and architecture.

Informed by Bhabha’s concept of hybridity and Canclini’s discourse of mestizaje, these findings collectively indicated that the creations of the three palatial structures indeed fell into a well-established occidentalizing project unfolding since the reign of King Rama IV (see: Kitiarsa 2005b). As the Siamese ruling elites regarded the Western model of modernization as the source of and method for achieving a respectable status among the civilized nations, the occidentalizing project, in return, furnished them with a new and refined identity, aside from framing their worldview about the West and modernity itself. Because the occidentalizing project was anchored in a selective approach to the Westernization and modernization processes – thus rendering Westerners as “suspected Others”–the Siamese royal elites did not embrace all aspects of the West and modernity in the process of their cultural transformation (Wyatt 1984, 275). In a corollary view, a concluding statement might be drawn that the hybridized Siamese-Western aesthetics of the throne hall, ordination hall, and royal residence, signified a discursive strategy of the Siamese in generating, combining, and projecting their versions of contested meanings through the designs of the built environment, which in many times were ambiguous and even self-contradictory.

On the one hand, the stylistic hybridity of the Chakri Maha Prasat, the ubosotha at Wat Niwet Thammaprawat, and Munthatu Rattanaroj testified that the Siamese were not entirely voiceless in dealing with the West. Rather, Western material culture was subverted by the Siamese through a refusal to satisfy the demands of Western colonial narratives. As seen by the eclectic designs of these palatial structures, the concept of subversion became a mode of problematization for anti-colonial discourse in the postulate of hybridization. The devices and contrivances to which the Siamese resorted – which were mutations of the Eurocentric model – offset the hegemony of the colonial powers. By fashioning hybridity, the Siamese were able to rewrite, reinterpret, rearrange, and recreate, rather than mindlessly copy, Western cultural artifacts to suit their ends. While the buildings might seem “kitsch” to trained eyes, they could circumvent, challenge, and simultaneously refuse subjugation to colonial authority by mitating Western models.

On the other hand, the stylistically hybridized Chakri Maha Prasat, ubosotha at Niwet Thammaprawat Temple, and Munthatu Rattanaroj inadvertently displayed a subjugation to an alternative form of Western domination: crypto-colonization in cultural and intellectual terms. When comparing to architecture of the state constructed during the era of King Rama V – of which majority was commissioned mostly in Western style – the hybridity of the three case studies was an exception rather than the norm, implying that the kingdom aspired more to imitate the West than to preserve its own tradition. As shown by the throne Hall and ordination hall – which were conceived predominantly in the neo-Renaissance and neo-Gothic styles respectively – the Siamese architectural elements of both buildings were an afterthought or merely ornamentation, and even then they were modified to suit the imported stylistic appearances, materiality, structural systems, and construction techniques of a palazzo structure or an Anglican church. Because of these peculiarities, Siamese culture became submissive, relegated to a lesser position to the celebrated Western material culture.

As an ending note, in spite of the penetrating analyses provided by discussions throughout this research, additional examinations on the politics of representations through hybrid Siamese-European architecture in Siam during the late-19^th and early-20^th centuries were needed. After ascending to the throne, the current sovereign of Thailand – King Rama X (Vajiralongkorn, r. 2016–present) – had immediately transferred assets of the Crown Property Bureau, including Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall, Niwet Thammaprawat Temple, and Vimanmek Mansion, to his sole possession (see: Chachavalpongpun 2022, 362; Chia and Parpart 2020). As the Grand Palace, Dusit Palace, and Bang Pa-In Palace had become his majesty’s private properties, their primary data – especially illustrative materials like architectural drawings from the Royal Archives – were often inaccessible to the public.⁸ As a result, scholarly investigations on the three case studies had to rely quite substantially on the secondary sources. The said unavailability subsequently complicated the cross-examinations of the information obtained from the secondary sources as well (Figure 1). Accordingly, some reinterpretations presented here, particularly on the Munthatu Rattanaroj and Vimanmek royal residences, were subjected to further inquiries to verify their historical accuracy.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to express a sincere gratitude to Patcharapong Kulkanchanachewin and Pinai Sirikiatikul from Faculty of Architecture, Silpakorn University, Thailand, for their permissions to reproduce the three-dimensional visualization of Chakri Maha Prasat Throne Hall. Special thanks also went to the following KMITL students who helped generating architectural drawings of the case studies: Chetsada Thongkham, Kanokwan Khwamkhunkhoei, Natnicha Thongdee, Piraya Zaeung, Porameat Soponphutthaporn, Sarisa Philaiwan, Watsana Detwongsa, Yaraporn Pianjit, and Yuparase Kamnaseang. Finally, many constructive criticisms and perceptive comments on the manuscript were kindly provided by three anonymous reviewers from Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering. While the insights were theirs, any error remained my own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Koompong Noobanjong

Koompong Noobanjong currently serves as a professor of architecture at KMITL. Holding a PhD in architectural history, theory, and criticism from the University of Colorado, he has authored several works exploring power and politics of representations in architecture and urban space in Thailand, including The Aesthetics of Power: Architecture, Modernity, and Identity from Siam to Thailand (2013, White Lotus Press). While focusing on critical studies of the built environment, his recent scholarly publications also feature a number of ethnographic research on cross-cultural learning in architectural and design education.

Notes

¹ In this research, the term “Siam” referred to the absolutist kingdom whose monarchical rule ended in 1932, whereas “Thailand” indicated the democratic nation after the 1932 revolution, despite the fact that the constitutional government continued to use “Siam” as the name of the country until 1939.

² Likewise, the same vein of criticism serving as a counterargument could be made that the notions of syncretism and hybridity embedded in Nestor Garcia Canclini’s mestizaje discourse, too, could not capture the full complexity of crypto-coloniality in modern Siam that shaped the designs of eclectic cultural artifacts. Although both the mid-19^th century Siam and early-20^th century Latin American countries were semi-autonomous from the imperial West, the Iberoamericana regimes once constituted the trans-Atlantic provinces of either the Spanish or Portuguese (or French) Empire. In contrast, Siam had never been subjected to a direct rule by any Western power, and therefore never been completely integrated into the social, economic, political, and cultural spheres of Occidental world before. So, it could be contended that crypto-colonial experiences in Siam markedly differed from those in the Latin American region, where Western culture – which was assimilated by the mestizaje societies – was institutionalized by the conquistadores themselves as opposed to the modernizing indigenous elites.

³ The evidence could be seen from the Franco-Siamese war in 1893 coupled with Siam’s declaration of war on Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1917.

⁴ According to Bhabha (1990, 211) the third space “puts together the traces of certain other meanings or discourses.” The process of cultural hybridity “gives rise to something different, something new and unrecognisable, a new area of negotiation and representation.”

⁵ Foucault saw the subject in his theory in two interrelating ways. First, one could not communicate outside discourse effectively and therefore was subject of discourse, meaning that he/she was somehow determined by discourse, its meanings, power and regulations. Second, the viewer or reader becames subject to the discourse if he/she puts him-/herself at the position from which discourse made most sense. This processes of becoming subject of or to discourse was called subjectivization (Wikieducator 2008).

⁶ These construction details caused inherent instability to the superstructure of the building that resulted in significant damages to the roof and spires in 1891 and 1896 (for instance, see: NA, R5 MPW, k R5 YTh/19 YTh8.1/16, June 20, 1896).

⁷ The Arts and Crafts philosophy in esthetical value was influenced by John Ruskin’s appreciations of medieval craftsmanship that created ancient buildings in Europe (see: Perry and Livingstone 2005).

⁸ Moreover, the ubosotha at Wat Niwet Thammaprawat was the only royal building among the triple case studies that was open to public visits on a regular basis, owing to its virtue as a religious facility. Whereas the Chakri Maha Prasat had continued to serve the original purpose as a throne hall, the Vimanmek had recently resumed the duty of a regal residence for King Rama X after its major renovation was completed in 2020.