Modern maps portray countries as enclosed territories with clearly defined borders. Every piece of land belongs on one side of a boundary. Each territory falls under the exclusive sovereignty of a single state.
Pre-colonial Southeast Asian kingdoms, however, operated according to a very different logic.
Historians describe this system as the mandala model, a concept introduced by historian O.W. Wolters. Under this model, political authority radiated outward from a central power. Its influence gradually weakened with distance. It did not end abruptly at a fixed border.
According to an article by Claire Sutherland of Durham University, published in the 2016 edition of HumaNetten, an academic journal of Linnaeus University in Sweden, the pre-colonial mandala system can be understood as a form of power centered:
"a sort of central sun king whose gravitational pull weakened with distance and was overlapped by other spheres of power in a complex system of tributary relationships."
In other words, political influence faded gradually as it moved farther from the center. It also overlapped with the spheres of influence of other kingdoms through complex tributary relationships.
This system had important consequences. A territory, or even a local ruler, could acknowledge more than one political center at the same time. It could also send tribute to multiple kingdoms simultaneously. The choice often depended on which kingdom was considered stronger or offered greater political and economic advantages at the time.
Such an arrangement would be impossible under the modern concept of state sovereignty. Today, every territory is expected to belong exclusively to a single nation.
Kingdoms That Operated Under the Mandala System
Several of Southeast Asia's best-known historical kingdoms are widely understood to have followed the mandala model. These include the Khmer Empire centered at Angkor, Srivijaya in Sumatra, Majapahit in Java, and Ayutthaya in present-day Thailand.
These kingdoms did not govern surrounding territories through a centralized administrative system like modern states. Instead, they maintained their influence through personal relationships between rulers. Protection and political recognition were exchanged for tribute and symbolic expressions of loyalty.
A Living Example: The Golden Tree Tribute to the King of Siam
One of the clearest examples of the mandala system is the Bunga Mas, or Golden Tree, tradition. According to the official website of the National Museum of Malaysia (Muzium Negara), the northern Malay sultanates of Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, and Patani sent golden and silver trees to the King of Siam in Bangkok every three years as a symbol of their relationship.
At the same time, these sultanates continued to govern themselves independently. Each had its own sultan, legal system, and domestic administration. Sending Bunga Mas did not automatically make them part of Siam in the modern sense of territorial sovereignty.
Instead, the practice reflected symbolic recognition and an exchange of protection. It was a layered political relationship that closely matched the mandala model. Authority weakened and became more flexible with increasing distance from the political center.
When Fixed Borders Replaced Fluid Authority
This way of understanding power and territory endured for centuries. It eventually came into conflict with a very different concept introduced by European colonial powers: the nation-state, defined by enclosed territory and clearly demarcated borders.
Scholars often refer to this as the Westphalian model. The concept traces its origins to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which laid the foundations for the modern European state system.
As colonial powers began mapping and dividing Southeast Asia into clearly bounded administrative territories, the layered and overlapping relationships of the mandala system gradually disappeared.
Territories that had once maintained loose ties with multiple centers of power were now required to belong exclusively to one side of a colonial boundary. Those colonial borders later became the foundation for many of the national boundaries that still exist across Southeast Asia today.
The same issue of HumaNetten also notes that several contemporary historians, including Claire Sutherland, have revived the mandala framework for reasons beyond historical interest.
They argue that it offers an alternative way to understand Southeast Asian politics today. Rigid concepts of borders and sovereignty derived from the Western nation-state do not always explain the cross-border networks and political relationships that continue to shape the region.
