Why Chiang Mai's temples do not look alike: a reading guide to Lanna architecture

Because a Lanna temple is not a style, it is a stack. Lanna here means the old northern kingdom centred on Chiang Mai from 1296, and the building tradition that grew up with it. Chiang Mai has been building temples for seven centuries: on top of a Mon kingdom that Mangrai took in 1281, through two centuries of Burmese rule, alongside a Shan community brought in by the teak trade, and then for more than a century under Bangkok's administration. Every one of those left buildings standing, often in the same courtyard. Add the fact that a wat is not a building but a walled compound of four or five buildings of different dates, and nothing anywhere obliges them to match.

The good news is that the differences are legible, and three of them do most of the work: the shape of the roof, the shape of the chedi, and what the surfaces are made of. What follows is a reading guide rather than a ranking: the order to look in, the words used on the signs, the four layers that explain what you are looking at, the mistakes worth unlearning first, and where in Chiang Mai the subject is actually taught.

The thirty-second answer: roof, chedi, surfaces

Three things carry almost all the information, and all three can be read from the courtyard before you take your shoes off.

The roof first, though a Lanna assembly hall (a wihan) gives itself away by its proportions more than by its pitch. It is wider than it is tall, its walls are low, its roof falls away on each side in two or three tiers, and the eaves reach a long way down, sometimes almost to head height. Stand back and the building looks like it is crouching. High walls, tall windows and a roof that starts well above your head usually mean the central Thai manner instead, the one that came up from Bangkok. That influence was already arriving in the nineteenth century and grew stronger afterwards, not least through rebuilding; 1899, when the North was folded into Siam's administration, marks a step in that story rather than the moment the architecture changed.

The chedi second: the brick or gilded tower that holds a relic. Its shape is the closest thing a wat has to a date stamp, because a chedi is almost never re-planned. It gets repaired, sheathed and regilded, but its geometry is fixed by what is buried inside it. Five shapes cover most of the North, and each belongs to a period and a source.

The surfaces last. Carved teak, red or black lacquer and gold stencil is northern workmanship. Mirror mosaic flashing in the sun, sharp white stucco with gold trim, a moulded concrete naga (the mythic serpent that guards the stairs) with a seam down its back: twentieth century, often the last thirty years. None of that makes a temple fake. It dates the money, not the faith.

A wat is not a building: what the signs are naming

Half the confusion in a Chiang Mai temple comes from the word temple. A wat is a walled compound and a working institution: monastery, school, cremation ground, village hall, and sometimes a car park. The buildings inside were put up at different dates by different donors, each doing their own merit, and nothing ever required them to agree with each other.

That is the first reason the temples do not look alike, and the second reason a single temple does not look like itself. Wat Phra Singh has a fourteenth-century foundation, a small side hall that is the finest piece of Lanna carpentry inside the walls, and a large front wihan whose roof would not be out of place in Bangkok. All three statements are true at once, and the ticket does not explain any of it.

The signs use Thai words, transliterated inconsistently from one temple to the next: wihan, viharn and vihara are the same building. These are the ones worth knowing before the first visit; the rest can wait.

The roof is the signature

If you learn to read one element, read the roof. Everything northern carpentry knows is in it, and it is the first thing a later renovation changes.

Its shape comes from what happens underneath. A northern wihan is a single hall with a floor people sit on: no chairs, no upper storey, columns carrying everything and walls carrying almost nothing. A hall like that can afford low walls and a wide roof, and in a climate of heavy warm rain it wants them: the eaves throw water clear of the base and keep the sun off the wall all day. The tiers answer a simple constraint. Across a span that wide, a single slope pitched steeply enough to shed a monsoon would carry the ridge very high if you also wanted the eaves down near the ground. Breaking the roof into two or three steps keeps a useful pitch and brings the eaves down anyway, and every break gets its own set of finials. The line you will hear, that the roof looks like a bird sheltering the congregation, explains the vocabulary (the beaks, the swan tails, the eyebrow over the door) while the carpentry explains the shape. Both readings are doing work.

The parts have names, and they are the same names on the temple sign, in the restoration report and in the university syllabus. Knowing a handful of them changes a wat from a pretty blur into a set of decisions.

The quickest field test is the wall, not the roof. Lanna keeps walls low and openings narrow, so the interior is dim and the gold reads by shafts of window light. From the nineteenth century onwards, Bangkok's influence raises the wall, widens the windows and lifts the roof to match. Walk into a bright, tall, airy northern hall and you are almost always standing inside a late rebuild, nineteenth or twentieth century, whatever founding date the plaque gives.

Four layers, not one style

No single description fits because four traditions built here, in sequence, and all four left work standing.

The Mon layer is the oldest and the least visible from inside Chiang Mai. Before Mangrai took it in 1281 the plain belonged to Hariphunchai, a Mon kingdom centred on today's Lamphun with five centuries of brick building behind it. Its signature is a chedi shaped like a stepped pyramid, Buddha images standing in niches on every tier, nothing like the bell that came later. Lanna absorbed the kingdom, and with it the masons and their habits.

Classical Lanna is the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries, the period the word usually means: the bell-shaped chedi on a base with its corners cut back (redented, in the technical word), arriving via Sukhothai and behind it Sri Lanka; the low tiered wihan in teak; lai kham interiors; and under Tilokarat in the fifteenth century the ambition to build the tallest thing in the region. Almost none of the woodwork of that period survives. The masonry does, which is why the chedi is the honest witness.

Then Burma, twice over and in two very different ways. Political rule from 1558 to the 1770s, which built little and destroyed a good deal. Then the teak boom of the late nineteenth century, which brought Shan and Burmese labourers, merchants and craftsmen to Chiang Mai and Lampang with money to endow temples of their own. Wat Pa Pao, at the northeastern corner of the old city, was founded for that community in 1883 by the seventh ruler of Chiang Mai and his Shan consort. The tiered pyatthat roofs, the fat stucco lions and the metal umbrellas around town are theirs, not Lanna's.

The fourth layer is Bangkok, and it is the one visitors misread most often. Siam absorbed Lanna administratively at the end of the nineteenth century, and central-Thai forms followed, then reinforced concrete, then mirror mosaic. The age of a wat is not the age of each of its buildings: many of the large halls belong to the rebuilding that followed the repopulation of 1796, and others were redone later still. Since the 1980s a fifth thing has been happening on top: a deliberate Lanna revival, in temples, hotels and civic buildings alike, quoting the old vocabulary at new scale and in new materials.

The chedi is the date stamp: five shapes

A hall gets rebuilt; a chedi gets repaired. That asymmetry is what makes the tower the most reliable object in the courtyard: you can sheath it, regild it or fence it, but its geometry is fixed by what is buried in it. Learn five shapes and most northern chedis will place themselves.

Two cautions before the list. Gilding is maintenance, not date: a copper-plated chedi flashing this morning may be six centuries old underneath. And a truncated chedi is not a neglected one. A relic monument stays sacred in ruin, which is exactly why nobody has finished Chedi Luang's missing spire.

Five mistakes worth unlearning first

These are the readings that cost us the most time on the ground, roughly in the order we made them. In the table below, the left column is the misreading and the right column is what to read instead.

Chiang Mai is not the whole of Lanna

Chiang Mai was the capital, not the kingdom, and it is not where Lanna architecture is best preserved. Two hours in the right direction teaches more than a third day inside the moat.

The reason is unromantic. Chiang Mai has been rich and busy for most of its history, the exception being the two decades of abandonment before Kawila's repopulation of 1796, and rich, busy temples get renovated: new roof, new floor, new concrete naga. The places that stalled economically are the ones that kept their woodwork, which is why the single most complete Lanna ensemble is in a village outside Lampang rather than anywhere in the provincial capital.

What Lanna was: a kingdom wider than its capital

A field test: three centuries in one morning

This is the exercise we would actually do, on foot, in half a day inside the walls. It is ordered to show the layers rather than the highlights, which means it does not start with the most famous building.

At each stop, look in the same order: roof, then chedi, then surfaces. Say out loud which century each element belongs to. You will be wrong, then corrected by the next building, then right. That is the method, and there is no faster one.

Which temples to actually spend your time on

The first three stops, with a guide: the old city temple walk

Where it is actually taught: CMU's Lanna Architecture Center

The subject is not folklore in Chiang Mai, it is a university discipline. Chiang Mai University's Faculty of Architecture, set up in 1995 and granted full faculty status in 2000, teaches Lanna architectural history, conservation and applied Lanna design alongside contemporary practice: the evolution of the tradition from its origins to what gets built today, rather than a frozen catalogue of temples.

The faculty also runs the part of it a visitor can walk into. The Lanna Architecture Center occupies Khum Chao Burirat Maha In on Ratchadamnoen Road, a mansion built between 1889 and 1893 for a grandson of Chiang Mai's third ruler and handed to the university on 9 March 2001. It exists to collect, keep and display Lanna architecture from the past to the present, and it does something better than exhibit it: the building is itself the case study. Brick and stucco below, teak above, a western two-storey plan grafted onto a northern household: the exact hybridisation the temples went through, at domestic scale, at the moment it was happening.

Half an hour there, before or after the walk in the previous section, is the most efficient half-hour of architectural education available in the city, and it is five minutes from Wat Chedi Luang. Go in expecting a study centre rather than a museum: labels are uneven in English, and the place is used by students.

Practical details drift, and this is the one place in this article where we would not trust a printed source over a phone call: opening hours are given as Tuesday to Sunday, roughly 9:00 to 16:00, and the entrance charge is reported both as free and as a token sum depending on the source and the year. It also closes without notice for teaching and group visits.

Sources, and what is still argued about

This article rests on three kinds of source, and they disagree in useful ways. The northern chronicles, which give foundations, kings and dates and were written to establish legitimacy rather than architecture. The Fine Arts Department's registrations and restoration records, which give fabric and interventions. And the scholarship (Sarassawadee Ongsakul's history of Lanna, Michael Freeman's survey of northern art and architecture, the Faculty of Architecture's own publications at Chiang Mai University), which reconciles the two, imperfectly. Everything in the reading guide above can also be checked by standing in front of the building, which is the point of writing it that way.

The largest limit is material. Almost no wooden building in the North predates the eighteenth century: teak burns, termites eat, monsoons rot, and rebuilding a hall is itself an act of merit, so a hall gets replaced rather than preserved. Wihan Luang at Lampang, dated 1476, is the exception everybody cites, and even it has been repaired continuously for five hundred years. When a sign says fourteenth century, it nearly always means a fourteenth-century foundation under later fabric.

The second limit is that restoration erases evidence. Kawila's repopulation from 1796 rebuilt much of the city's religious fabric in one generation; the twentieth century added concrete and mirror; the tourism era added gold. What we confidently read as style is often the taste of the last renovation, and dating a chedi by its skin is a beginner's error we have made repeatedly.

The third is that Lanna style is partly a modern category. The label hardened in the twentieth century and has been actively promoted since the 1980s, for temples, hotels and civic buildings alike. It is a useful shorthand, and this article uses it throughout, but it flattens regional variation, and it lends the whole a coherence the chronicles themselves never asserted: on the ground it was a series of borrowings from Sukhothai, Sri Lanka, Burma, the Tai Lue and Bangkok.

Specific things remain genuinely contested: exact dates for chedis rebuilt after earthquakes, the attribution of individual halls, and which Burmese ruler's ashes are actually under Wat Ku Tao. Where the sources conflict we have said so rather than picking the tidier version.

Read nextWhy Chiang Mai was founded here: a city planned between mountain, river and plain ▸