Pagan's Cultural Formation Revealed

Pagan is Burmas foremost sacred and historical site, yet it remains enveloped in unanswered
questions. The most vexing and controversial question centers on the role of the Mon and the
Pyu in the formation of Pagans culture. While some have erred in attributing too much
influence to the Mon, a new book has tilted the argument too much in favor of the Pyu. A
balanced examination however reveals that Pagan drew its inspiration from many sources.
2
Demystifying Mists:
The Case for the Mon
Donald M. Stadtner 1
Introduction
Evidence from Lower Burma suggests that Mon civilization arose during the first
millennium. Large walled enclosures, brick monasteries, laterite stupa bases, terracotta
roundels, votive tablets, a distinctive coin series, Hindu and Buddhist stone sculpture,
Buddhist bronzes, and Mon inscriptions have long been recognized as the solid
building blocks for establishing an early Mon presence in Lower Burma. However, a
recent study has argued that Lower Burma in the first millennium was in reality not in
the hands of the Mon but rather the Pyu (Michael A. Aung-Thwin, Mists of Ramanna:
The Legend that was Lower Burma). That an opening chapter of this book is entitled
The Pyu Millennium conveys the degree to which the Mon have been shunted into
the shadows and replaced by the Pyu.
Whether the Mon inhabited Burma during the first millennium is pivotal for AungThwins thesis, since a major focus of the book is determining the cultural forces that
shaped Pagans civilization as it arose in the 11th century. If the Mon were not present
1
An abridged version of the original conference paper appeared as The Mon of Lower Burma, Journal
of Siam Society, 96 (2008), pp. 193215. Portions of this journal article were subsequently adopted in this
present essay, revised for publication in 2011. All photographs are by the author, unless otherwise stated.
Donald M. Stadtner
in early Burma, as Aung-Thwin argues, then this group could scarcely have influenced
Pagan. Rather, Aung-Thwin has maintained that the Pyu inhabited Upper and Lower
Burma during the first millennium.
This new thesis requires us to exchange a discredited Mon Paradigm for a fresh
Pyu Paradigm, as one reviewer, Pierre Pichard (2006), poignantly phrased his objections. Aung-Thwins Pyu Paradigm is appealing at first glance, since some historians
gave the Mon too much credit in the formation of Pagans culture and interpreted the
chronicles too literally. Older interpretations were also biased, Aung-Thwin claims, in
as much as they were promoted by a generation of ethno-centric colonial scholars and
officials who for assorted reasons slanted evidence in favor of the Mon. The attack on
older scholarship is couched in the all too familiar verbiage targeted against
Orientalism, the overarching bogeyman of paradigms fashioned by misguided
Western academics. Aung-Thwins thesis therefore comes attractively packaged for
modern readers who are more comfortable with jargon and untested abstractions than
with a rigorous consideration of the facts. However, an altogether different picture of
Lower Burma emerges after an examination of the physical evidence. To purge the
Mon from early Burma may serve the interests of some, but the new Pyu Paradigm
does little justice to the history of the Burma. As this present study argues, however,
there is room for more than one paradigm in discussing first-millennium Burma and
the formation of Pagan. Pagan drew upon multiple sources, some from far outside
Burmas borders, to forge a unique civilization. However, compared to the role the
Mon played at Pagan, the Pyu contributed very little to this deep and wide cauldron.
Mists and the Chronicles: A Muddled Mix

Aung-Thwins starting point are 20th-century interpretations of the chronicle
traditions, notably the episode centered on the conquest of Thaton in 1057 by King
Aniruddha (c. 1044 c. 1077), or Anawrahta, as he is named in the chronicles, and his
single-handed introduction of Theravada Buddhism to Pagan. For the chronicles this
conquest and the appearance of pure Buddhism at Pagan is a turning point in
Burmese history.
Aung-Thwin is bent on disputing the very nature of the Thaton conquest by
arguing that since no Mon were in Lower Burma before or during the early Pagan
period, then how could this defeat of the Mon occur, and concomitantly how then
were Mon able to shape Pagans culture ?
Certain Chinese chronicles recorded that the Pyu were defeated by invading forces
from Yunnan in the 9th century, but no firm evidence for this exists (luce, 1985: 86).
The fate of the Pyu is therefore difficult to reconstruct, but their presence in Upper
Burma was likely negligible by the end of the first millennium (see below). The Mon,
however, continued to inhabit Lower Burma into the second millennium, although
their numbers dwindled drastically, starting in the 16th century and accelerating by the
end of the 18th century.
Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon
Burmese chronicles can be remarkably accurate for later Burmese history, but their
veracity dwindles by the Pagan period and especially for events prior to c. 1175
(Lieberman, 1986: 236). Indeed, relying too heavily upon later Burmese chronicles to
reconstruct Burmas early history has only tangled our perceptions.
Aung-Thwins study should have been divided into two distinct sections, by
something like a firewall, to disentangle two unrelated research topics. The first would
be devoted solely to recording the hard archaeological and epigraphic evidence in
Lower Burma, from the beginning of the first millennium to c. 1200, with no reference
to the chronicles. Such an examination would be free from claims made in the
chronicles and the later convoluted interpretations of the chronicles. The second
section would explore how the chroniclers understood early Burma and how modern
historians have interpreted and often misused the chronicle traditions. Instead, the
book conflated these two distinct lines of enquiry, resulting in a study that by its very
nature and method was flawed. Since important facts needed to be twisted in order to
counter the chronicles and many of their later faulty interpretations, the author has
stretched, and even ignored and distorted key evidence.
By refuting the chronicles and their modern interpretations, Aung-Thwin
unwittingly stumbled into the same quicksand that has swallowed many others before
him. His endeavor can be likened to re-writing a version of British history based on
the Arthurian legends, combined with refuting historians who understood the same
legends too literally. That Aung-Thwin therefore stumbled into a dark labyrinth is
hardly any wonder. The end result is an unnecessary muddle.
The Pyu or Mon Millennium
The Pyu Millennium (the title of Chapter 2) hinges on the presence of Pyu
peoples in Lower Burma and the absence of the Mon. Indeed, without populating this
vast area with the Pyu, the Pyu Paradigm goes nowhere, like a cart without a horse.
Aung-Thwin invokes the work of a single archaeologist to bolster the Pyu presence in
Lower Burma. This is put forth in the Introduction, flavoring the tone for the
narrativeand setting the first trap for the reader unfamiliar with the basic literature.
The Mon Paradigm continued unabated despite the fact that throughout the same
years archaeological data suggested that another culture, an ethnolinguistic group of
Tibeto-Burman speakers popularly known as the Pyu, had been present earlier and
found throughout most of the country for an entire millennium. They had been
centered in Upper Burma, with settlements also in Lower Burma.15 But the
influence of the Mon Paradigm was so pervasive and dominant that scholars
acknowledged the information in the most perfunctory manner and continued as the
Pyu evidence had little or no bearing on their concerns. (Mists: 4; italics mine)
The single source cited for this critical assertion, that is, that the Pyu had
settlements also in Lower Burma, is a well-known monograph by Janice Stargardt,
The Ancient Pyu of Burma, Vol. 1, Early Pyu Cities in a Man-made Landscape (1991).
Donald M. Stadtner
However, there is not a single suggestion in Stargardts book that Pyu settlements
were found south of Sri Ksetra, or in Lower Burma. In fact, Stargardt maintained that
the ancient Mon and Arakanese formed urbanized communities on a par with the
contemporaneous Pyu, completely contradicting Aung-Thwins basic thesis
(Stargardt, 1991: 147).
This example of misrepresenting a source to underpin an assertion may appear
trivial to some readers, but such manipulation of key evidence does little to enhance
the studys credibility. Unfortunately, this type of bald distortion, whether by accident
or design, is emblematic of much of Aung-Thwins modus operandi and shows why
the book needs to be read with great caution. A small number of similar examples are
cited below, but knowledgeable readers will surely uncover many more examples
when carefully reading Mists and checking Aung-Thwins references to secondary and
primary sources.
No Pyu Inscriptions in Lower Burma
We can comfortably conclude that the Pyu inhabited Sri Ksetra on the basis of a
number of stone inscriptions incised in the Pyu language that can be dated
conclusively to the first millennium. However, it is highly probative that not a single
Pyu inscription has been located in Lower Burma, that is, the Irrawaddy delta and
southeastern Burma; this striking omission is nowhere mentioned by Aung-Thwin.
The absence of Pyu inscriptions in Lower Burma does not by itself of course prove
that the Pyu never populated Lower Burma. However, that no Pyu inscriptions have
been found in Lower Burma is cause for pause, since if the Pyu did in fact inhabit
Lower Burma for so many centuries then there was ample opportunity for the Pyu to
leave at least one or two surviving records. On the other hand, a handful of Mon
inscriptions are known in Lower Burma, in the vicinity of Thaton, dating to c. 500
600, and other Mon epigraphs are known at Thaton itself from c. 11th century (see
below).
A Swampy, Frontier Area, Sparsely Inhabited
Prior to the conquest, pacification and settlement of Lower Burma by the kingdom
of Pagan much of it was probably a swampy, frontier area, sparsely inhabited, with
only a few coastal towns and villages, remnants of the early Pyu state. Lower
Burma, in other words, did not yet posses the geographic, demographic, economic,
political, and cultural wherewithal to have supported any kingdom or polity, much
less to have been the source of civilization for another in Upper Burma, the size and
scope, and scale of Pagan (Mists: 6667; italics mine).
According to Aung-Thwin then, civilization in Lower Burma was somehow
stunted, despite the assertion that a Pyu state once controlled this huge region
(Mists: 67). We are not told precisely why Pyu culture never flourished in Lower
Burma, but we are left to speculate that the culprits were too few Pyu and too many
swamps (probably a swampy, frontier area, sparsely inhabited; Mists: 67). Pyu
culture failed to flower for whatever reasons and that by the time of Pagans expansion
into Lower Burma in the eleventh century there was simply the remnants of the early
Pyu state (Mists: 67).
In this view, very little took place in Lower Burma in the first millennium, both
quantitatively and qualitatively, compared to Upper Burma. Indeed, the proposed
paucity of archaeological remains from Lower Burma is a leitmotif running through
Mists. This mistaken notion underpins Aung-Thwins Pyu Millennium, since if he can
show that Lower Burma was a backwater then how could this region ever possibly
influence the course of Pagans great civilization? Such an assertion, without mincing,
is made directly in the passage quoted above. For parallels, we might say that if
Greece could be shown to never have enjoyed the geographic, demographic,
economic, political and cultural wherewithal, then how could Greek culture influence
the later Roman world? This example from the classical world, however inexact, is
meant to clarify Aung-Thwins basic argument and its fundamental weakness.
The authors reasoning is seductive at first glance but falls flat upon a cursory
examination of the facts. A useful tonic to this thesis is to page through Elizabeth
Moores book, Early Landscapes of Myanmar (2007), which presents material from
both Upper and Lower Burma in nearly equal measure. Much in Moores book are
newly discovered finds, but the most impressive remains and sites in Lower Burma
were published during the first half of the twentieth century and are therefore wellknown. Another source treating Lower Burma is an old but reliable classic, Aung
Thaws Historical Sites of Burma, first published in 1972.
These publications and others reveal that Lower Burma was no backwater. This
large area was home to large walled cities, Buddhist monasteries, monumental
architecture, coinage, and stone sculpture, all squarely datable to the first millennium.
Aung-Thwins thesis, however, rests on convincing the reader that nothing of note
occurred in Lower Burma during this long epoch.
To explain the purported absence of high civilization in Lower Burma, AungThwin resorted to proposing that Lower Burma was probably a swampy, frontier
area, sparsely inhabited, with only a few coastal towns and villages, remnants of the
early Pyu state (Mists: 67; italics mine). Aung-Thwins failure to include a
tremendous amount of well-published archaeological data is difficult to explain. These
omissions (and distortions) will likely go unnoticed by general readers unfamiliar with
the archaeological evidence.
Southeast Asia during the First Millennium
Also, a fundamental theoretical issue missing from Aung-Thwins dismissal of
Lower Burma as a backwater is this: civilization emerged and developed during the
first millennium along the entire coastline of mainland Southeast Asia from Arakan in
Burma to Vietnam. Its nature and pace differed from place to place of course but this
Donald M. Stadtner
entire coastline by 1000 CE was altogether different from the beginning of the
millennium. In this long period even backwoods Arakan managed to create large
walled habitations and to fashion impressive bronze and stone sculpture. Indeed,
among the six largest first-millennium walled cities in Burma, two (Vesali and
Dhannavati) are in Arakan (Hudson, 2004: Fig. 81). In neighboring Thailand and
Cambodia similar civilizations arose along the coast, also using Indic scripts, either for
Pali and/or Sanskrit, or for transcribing indigenous languages, such as Pyu and Mon in
Burma (Skilling, 1997, 2003). A vast literature on coastal Southeast Asia in the first
millennium has arisen over the past two decades (see, for example, the bibliography in
Jacq-Hergoualch, 2002).
Similar cultural and economic transformations of course took place inland also
throughout Southeast Asia during the first millennium, and indeed inland groups, such
as the Pyu, rivaled those bordering the coast.
The aforementioned observations prompt a critical question that Aung-Thwin
failed to raise: If the entire coastline of mainland Southeast Asia engaged in a
sophisticated material and Buddhist-Hindu culture during the first millennium,
especially after c. 500, why then was Lower Burma so excluded from this broad
historical phenomenon? This issue may seem inconsequential to some readers, but it
is a compelling question that requires compelling answers. Indeed, to think that the
coastline of Burma was excluded from the major cultural and social movements that
swept up the entire coastal portions of Southeast Asia is unreasonable.
These introductory remarks highlight the major pitfalls of Aung-Thwins core
thesis, that the Pyu inhabited Lower Burma during the first millennium and not the
Mon. To understand Lower Burma correctly, the archaeological and epigraphic
evidence must now be examined. This enquiry is open-ended to the degree that this is
an enormous subject and new archaeological material is forever coming up. My
intention, in merely summarizing the research of others, is to demonstrate not only the
wealth and breadth of civilization in early Lower Burma but also to attribute this
culture to the Mon. Specialists will certainly identify other important pieces of
evidence that are not included here and that are unknown to me.
Coinage: The Gulf of Martaban Type
Coinage in Lower Burma plays a decisive role in this enquiry, but it was omitted
entirely in Aung-Thwins study. One researcher, Dietrich Mahlo, designated five major
coin types in first-millennium Burma, each differing by their distribution and their
symbols, such as conch, srivatsa, bhadrapitha, and so on (Mahlo, 1998; Map 2.1).
Mahlo labeled one class of coins as the Gulf of Martaban type. This is the fifth in
his series, and is comprised of five varieties. He dated the coins to c. 9th10th century,
although some in this series, those specifically excavated at Kyaikkatha (between
Pegu and Thaton), were thought by Robert Wicks to belong to the first half of the first
millennium (Wicks, 1992: 11112; Figs. 2.1, 2.2).
Map 2.1: Distribution of Coin Groups, based on Mahlos classification (from Hudson, 2004:
Fig. 118)
Bob Hudson (2002: Fig. 118) has furnished a handy color-coded map of Burma
which indicated the distribution of Mahlos five types. A detail from this complete
Donald M. Stadtner
map is reproduced here (Map 2.2). Significantly, the Gulf of Martaban type extended
from Pegu around the coast to Martaban or Mottama, drawing a dramatic arc in
Hudsons map. This region forms of course the heart of former Ramannadesa, with
Thaton in the center of this long bend around the gulf.
Map 2.2: Distribution of Gulf of Martaban coin series in Lower Burma (from Hudson, 2004:
Fig. 118, detail)
A clustering of coins in the same basic region has also been noted by Moore who
labeled this distinctive group the Bago-type and commented: This Bago-type of
conch coins is not found at Pyu sites but seen at other sites near Kyontu [near Pegu]
and Kyaikkatha [mouth of Sittaung] and also Dvaravati sites in Thailand (Moore,
2007: 144). In addition, Pamela Gutman highlighted a series which she called a Mon
type, from the same general area, and compared them to examples excavated at
Nakhon Pathom (Gutman, 1978: 16, Fig. 2). That these coins relate to those in
neighboring Mon Thailand is scarcely accidental in light of the contiguity between
these regions, despite well-known mountain ranges separating them.
10 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon
Hudson (2004: 125) summarized Mahlos findings, The focused distribution of

these coins around the Gulf of Martaban (Figure 118) suggests that they may not be
directly related to the Upper Burma Pyu system and its coinage. He concluded:
Finally, the concentration of the Group 5 coins around the Gulf of Martaban suggests
that whether they were produced early in the first millennium A.D. by small maritime
polities in contact by sea with India, or as Mahlo suggests, much later, in the 9th or
10th century, they belong in either case to a system separate from the Upper Burma
Pyu/Early Urban system (Hudson, 2004: 126; italics mine).
Fig. 2.1: Two Gulf of Martaban series coins (line drawings, from Hudson, 2004: Fig. 108)
Fig. 2.2: Gulf of Martaban series coin, obverse and reverse (monastery collection, Kyaikkatha)
If Mahlo, Moore, Gutman, and Wicks are correct and this special class of coins is
largely confined to southeastern Burma, then this is highly suggestive of a notable
polity encompassing what is the traditional Mon heartland. Whether the series belongs
to the middle of the millennium (Wicks) or to the end (Mahlo) has little bearing on the
basic issues raised by Aung-Thwin. This coin series was presumably minted and
circulated within this large area in Lower Burma and was not imported into Lower
Burma from the Pyu. In fact, Wicks proposed that the Pyu coinage at Sri Ksetra and in
Upper Burma was inspired by coins in Lower Burma, arguing that the Pyu use of
coins arose after coinage appeared first in Lower Burma (Wicks, 1992: 112).
The minting of a special type of coins and their distribution over such a wide area
conflict with the notion of Lower Burma as a backward area without the
demographic, economic, political and cultural wherewithal to have supported any
kingdom or polity (Mists: 67).
Despite the implications of this numismatic evidence, one searches in vain in Mists
for a discussion of coinage. Perhaps Aung-Thwin felt that coinage shed no light on
Lower Burma. Or perhaps he deliberately ignored the evidence, since it obviously
contradicts the basic thesis upon which the book rests. However, Aung-Thwin needed
to address directly this well-known coinage from Lower Burma if his Pyu Millennium
is to be taken seriously.
Jacques Leider perceptively raised the fact that even Pyu coinage was omitted in
Mists. He was puzzled, since a discussion of coins would have indeed bolstered the
importance of the Pyu (Leider, 2006). However, if Aung-Thwin had raised the subject
of Pyu coins, then perhaps it would be harder to conceal coinage from Lower Burma.
Map 2.3: The location of Winka, Kyaikkatha, and Thaton (from Moore,
2007: 56)
Winka, Kyaikkatha, Zothoke

Winka, Kyaikkatha, and Zothoke (see Map 2.3) are three important firstmillennium sites in southeastern Burma suggesting the range and depth of cultural and
economic development in Lower Burma during the first millennium (for a reliable
overview see Moores Early Landscapes). Hudsons dissertation only briefly touched
on this region, concerned mostly with Upper Burma, but his basic conclusionsthat
these sites are first millenniumare in agreement with Moore (Hudson excluded
Winka for unexplained reasons) (Hudson, 2004: 14647; Gutman and Hudson, 2004:
163). Moore also referred to a host of smaller sites in this area and elsewhere in Lower
Burma that relate to these three major sites and others, reinforcing the view that much
activity took place in Lower Burma.
Walled cities themselves are important, since they presuppose a great deal of labor
and materials that are brought together and coordinated by a local or regional
authority. This is why walled cities go hand-in-hand so often with monumental
architecture that also demands a similar sustained channeling of resources.
The largest walled habitation in Burma is Sri Ksetra, encompassing 1,462 hectares,
while Pagans walled city is relatively small, enclosing only 140 hectares. The
dimensions of these walled cities, Kyaikkatha (375 hectares) and Thaton (266
hectares), are respectable, especially in light of Pagans 140 hectares. (Hudson, 2004:
Fig. 8). No one has doubted that these two walled enclosures belong to the first
millennium, and both have been published; references to these sites are found in
Moores new book and in other sources (Gutman and Hudson, 2004: 163, 165).
Winka
Winka is a village located northwest of Thaton at the base of a long mountain
range containing the sacred peak, Kelasa. Extensive brick mounds at Winka were
excavated in the mid 1970s, with reports issued in 1977 and more fully in 1999 (Myint
Aung, 1977, 1999). No published reports have ever questioned its first-millennium
date, apart from Aung-Thwin (in Mists the site is called Winga) (Moore, 2007: 21012).
Winka yielded over a hundred small Buddhist votive tablets of various types (Figs
2.3, 2.4, 2.5). One type in particular is identical to those noted in Thailand, such as one
found at Chula Pathom Cedi in Nakhon Pathom (Moore, 2007: 198; P. Chirapravati,
1997: fig. 7; Myint Aung, 1999: Pl. VIII; see Fig. 2.4). An identical type of tablet was
noted long ago in the Kawgun Cave, near Paan, which was recently compared to
those found in peninsular Thailand and which has been labeled Mon (Guy, 1999: 23,
Fig. 3.5; see Fig. 2.4). Aung-Thwin is alone in challenging the first-millennium
attribution of these tablets excavated at Winka (see below).
1.
2.
3
4
Mon text
.
pa sarwa
...we ba kyak..
...tha ra we
Translation
.
to make model
two Buddhas
...this
Mon text
.
.
we ba kyak
tha ra we
Translation
.
.
... two Buddhas
... this
Another Mon specialist, Mathias Jenny, University of Zurich, concurred with Nai
Pan Hla by affirming that the inscriptions were based on the Mon language (personal
communication, Mathias Jenny; Stadtner, 2008: 198).
Fig 2.3 (top left): Excavated tablets from Winka

(courtesy: Department of Archaeology)
Fig. 2.4 (top right): Buddhist terracotta tablet,
identical to Winka (private collection)
Fig. 2.5 (below): Two terracotta tablets excavated
at Winka (from Nai Pan Hla, 1986: 7)
Aung-Thwin acknowledged the existence of these important tablets and concluded:

But the tablet [one from Winka that Nai Pan Hla shared with Diffloth] is not dated;
nor has it been shown to have been unearthed in a scientific excavation process that
stratigraphically placed it in a pre-Pagan level. So its provenance and chronology
are unclear and unknown. In fact, there is some question as to the date of Winga
[sic] itself since the most recent thermoluminescence analysis of two Winga shards
date to the very late fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, which were actually not
coincidentally, the glory days of the late Mon Kingdom of Pegu. (Mists: 198)
This snap dismissal of Winka and the matter of the scientific testing appear without
an endnote, leaving uninformed readers not only doubting the importance and
antiquity of Winka but also at a loss to check the evidence. Only those familiar with
the secondary literature would know where to locate the report that Aung-Thwin
concealed so casually. This is all the more surprising since the report, by Myint Aung,
is listed in Aung-Thwins bibliography.
Also, Mists cleverly dismissed the entire site of Winka as possibly 15th to 17th
centuries (Mists: 198). Had Aung-Thwin provided the citation to the publications
covering Winka, then one could read that these plaques and others were in fact found
during a scientific excavation and enjoy an exact provenanceexcavated in WK 6, a
brick structure at Winka (Myint Aung, 1999: 52). I can scarcely imagine a more
specific provenance. Two of the ceramic finds indeed tested to the medieval period,
but the report concluded that these fragments were definitely posterior to the
structural complex at Winka village (Myint Aung, 1999: 53). Such later glazed
pottery is routinely found throughout Lower Burma.
Archaeologists who have discussed Winka consider the site to be solidly first
millennium, c. 6th century (Moore, 2007: 209ff; Myint Aung, 1999). No one reading
Myint Aungs report or the secondary literature cited above would come to the same
conclusions. Such a clever concealment of the evidence reinforces my fear that AungThwins book should never get into the hands of undergraduates, since they generally
lack the background to evaluate the critical primary and secondary sources.
Fig. 2.6 (left): Terracotta roundel from Kyontu, near Pegu

Fig. 2.7 (right): Terracotta roundel, excavated at Winka, in Mon Cultural Museum, Moulmein
(from Moore, 2007: 197)
Also excavated at Winka were large terracotta plaques. One illustrated in Moore
features two rampant lions reminiscent of lions depicted in terracotta roundels from
Kyontu, only 30 km northeast of Pegu and widely published for many decades (Luce,
1985: I, 16668: Guy, 1999: fig. 15; Moore, 2007: 197; see Figs. 2.6, 2.7). Until the
Winka excavations, the Kyontu terracottas near Pegu appeared in a vacuum, unrelated
to anything, but they can now be tied to the area down the coast which encompassed
Winka and nearby Thaton. The roundels from Winka and Kyontu suggest a broad
based homogenous culture zone linking a major swatch of Burmas coastline, that is,
from the Thaton region (Winka) to Pegu (Kyontu). Significantly, this artistic unity
conforms to the same locations delineated by the coin series discussed above.
Also, in addition to a number of brick monasteries found at Winka, there was at
least one laterite stupa base, octagonal in design (Myint Aung, 1999: 52).
Winka is therefore unequivocally a Buddhist complex belonging to the first
millennium and its terracotta seals, incised with short Mon inscriptions, indicate the
presence of Mon Buddhist culture in the Thaton area during the first millennium. That
this published evidence was not presented by Aung-Thwin is curious.
Kyaikkatha
Kyaikkatha is the largest walled site in Lower Burma, located near the mouth of
the Sittaung. It was excavated between 1986 and 1998 and has yielded a cache of
coins belonging to the Gulf of Martaban type (Wicks, 1992). This site is also
considered to belong to the first millennium (Moore, 2007: 2035; Gutman and
Hudson, 2004: 163).
However, this major first-millennium site in Lower Burma merits only a single
mention by Aung-Thwin who lumps it together with a string of other sites which are
erroneously considered Pyu (Mists: 81). There is no reference to the fact that
Kyaikkatha is an enormous walled habitation, indicating a polity of some
consequence, nor is there reference to the sites coinage that belongs to the regional
series discussed above. Why was this evidence ignored? That the largest walled
habitation in Lower Burma appears bundled together with other Pyu sites lulls the
reader into accepting the assertion that Lower Burma was a poorly populated swamp,
with few accomplishments to its credit.
Zothoke
Zothoke is close to Winka, also near Thaton. Its enormous square stupa base faced
with large laterite slabs is universally considered to be first-millennium, as is a nearby
large laterite wall (2.5 m high, 100 m long), sculpted with elephants and lions (Moore,
2007: 21214; see Fig. 2.8). The site is well-known and amply published, beginning in
the 1930s by the Archaeological Survey of India. This well-published evidence of
first-millennium monumental architecture in Lower Burma was also omitted in Mists.
Thaton
Thatons surviving artifacts and inscriptions suggest that this walled city was an
important center in southeastern Burma during the first millennium and during the
opening of the second millennium in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The citys
well-known first-millennium city walls presented Aung-Thwin with a major hurdle,

since the accepted date for the city suggests a degree of urbanization and polity much
earlier than the time of Anawrahta and the rise of Pagan. The citys enclosed area,
while small compared to Sri Ksetra, should not be dismissed since it measured 286
hectares, or roughly twice the size of Pagans walled city (Moore, 2007: 21518).
Fig. 2.8: Large stupa base, faced in laterite blocks, c. 6th7th centuries, Zothoke, near Thaton
To wiggle out of this long-established conclusion about the first-millennium date

of Thatons walls, Aung-Thwin resorted to a novel solution: that since the city walls
are rectangular in design, and not circular or with more or less rounded corners, then
the largely rectangular plan [of Thaton] resembles the cities that arose after Pagan
(Mists: 81; italics mine). In sum, rectangular walls belonged to cities that arose after
Pagan. An impressive list of ancient cities with rectangular walled habitations, from
Sukhothai to Angkor, appears in an endnote.
This attractive theory comes tumbling down when we discover the well-published
rectangular plan of Halin in Upper Burma, a major first-millennium Pyu site (Moore,
2007: 182; Gutman and Hudson, 2004: fig. 7.7; see Fig 2.11). While Aung-Thwin went
to the trouble of researching the city walls of Sukhothai and Angkor to fashion an
argument, it is odd that he overlooked the rectangular plan of Halin, a major site
belonging to the Pyu.
Bolstered by this false and misleading observation about rectangular plans and the
date of Thatons walls, Aung-Thwin goes one further step:
No archaeological, epigraphic, or other scientific evidence demonstrates that the
excavated site called Thaton is the Thaton of legend, that it is older than Pagan, or
that it was inhabited by Mon speakers during the first millennium. (Mists: 82, italics
mine)
In sum, Aung-Thwin concluded: since Thatons walls came into existence after the
Pagan period, then how was Anawrahta able to conquer Thaton, as the chronicles
maintained? In a similar way, if Rome did not exist before the attack of the Visigoths,
then how could the latter have sacked it? This is a tight logical argument, but the
rectangular plan of Halin and many other considerations turn the theory on its head.
Again, the reader must ask why so much evidence was overlooked or so completely
distorted.
Pyu Finger-marked Brick
Aung-Thwin raised the issue of so-called Pyu fingermarked bricks ... [at] ...
Thaton and nearby sites such as Kyaikkatha, Sanpannoagon, and Tavoy (Mists: 81).
If Pyu fingermarked bricks are found at Thaton and nearby sites, then of course
these sites must be Pyu. This also sounds reasonable. However, archaeologists have
maintained for many years that finger-marked bricks per se have little predictive
value, since they are found over such a wide area, notably in Northeastern India and
Central and Northeast Thailand (Moore, 2007: 134). As Moore observed: Fingermarking can be used as a rough guide only, but provides valuable evidence of first
millennium AD habitation (Moore, 2007: 13536). Hudson concurred:
Fingermarked bricks as such are not, therefore, definitive [sic] exclusively of Pyu or
early urban sites, and need to be read carefully (Hudson, 2004: 123). It is therefore
incorrect to label finger-marked bricks as Pyu brick. The presence of Pyu fingermarked brick in Lower Burma is then meaningless, since so many diverse cultures in
the first millennium adopted finger-marking. Thatons walls are comprised of earth
and brick with finger-marked bricks found throughout their lowest levels, providing
further evidence for a first-millennium date for this large walled city (Moore and San
Win, 2007: 222).
Thagya Pagoda, Ordination Chamber, and Hindu Sculptures
The square-based stupa now known as the Thagya pagoda within Thatons walled
city is comprised of three concentric terraces faced in laterite, like Zothokes single
terrace. The original laterite is now completely concealed in plaster and whitewash
(see Fig 2.9; for a photo revealing the laterite, see OConnor, 1996: 337). Some 60
large terracotta plaques featuring the last ten jatakas, or the Mahanipata were placed
in niches in the middle terrace (Fig. 2.10). The precise date of the stupa is unknown,
but it is important since it represents yet one more example of monumental
architecture in southeastern Burma, probably dating to c. 11th century. Since a number
of the original plaques remain embedded in the deep niches, for this reason and others
it is probable that the shape of three terraces represents the original design. The stupa
dome, like Zothoke, probably reflects many restorations (Stadtner, 2011: 172).
Fig. 2.9: Thagya Pagoda, c. 1lth century, Shwesayan Pagoda compound, Thaton
Also, at Thaton were discovered three Hindu images, a seated Siva and Parvati and
two Visnus recumbent on the serpent Sesa (Fig. 2.11). All three were destroyed in
Rangoon during the Second World War, but a fourth image, a Visnu on Sesa, is still in
existence, now preserved in the famous Kawgun cave south of Thaton (Luce, 1985: II,
Figs. 8890; Gutman, 2002: Fig. 4.4). These images have been variously dated, from
the ninth-tenth century (Ray, 1932: 55) to the 11th century (Gutman, 2007: 5). The
Hindu objects not only reveal the eclectic nature of worship in the region but also the
sophisticated nature of sculpture (Stadtner, 2008: 204). Moreover, the Visnu images
exhibit an iconographical feature that appears later at Pagan, as another example of
influence from Lower Burma (Stadtner, 2008: 204).
The ordering of the last ten jatakas at Thaton matches precisely the order found at
Pagan, in both early and later series. (There are few exceptions at Pagan, which adopt
the so-called Sinhalese ordering, such as the Loka-hteikpan temple.) That Pagan
adopted the order found in Thaton is another indication that the Mon contributed to
Pagans nascent culture. The order is also repeated in one inscription (the pandit) at
Thaton (for the order of the jatakas at Thaton, see Krairiksh, 1974). This important
point is taken up more fully below.
The pandit inscription at Thaton also listed the names of the 28 Buddhas of the past
(Luce, 1974: 133). This appears to be the earliest documented reference to this
concept in Burma. Depictions of the 28 Buddhas in stone and in mural painting are
ubiquitous at Pagan and later throughout all of Burma; and this is yet another
indication of probable Mon influence. It is unlikely that Sri Lanka was responsible for
the theme of the 28 Buddhas at Thaton or Pagan, since Sinhalese traditions
enumerated only 24 Buddhas.
Also, at Thaton are sima stones belonging to an early ordination hall. The stones
are sculpted with six of the last ten jatakas (Luce, 1985: 17273; Krairiksh, 1974; see
Fig. 2.12). A separate Mon inscription associated with these boundary stones speaks
about the dedication of the ordination hall. These are the earliest surviving sculpted
boundary stones in Burma and differ completely from the few surviving examples at
Pagan, which are not embellished with jatakas.
Fig. 2.10 (left): Terracotta tile, Mahosadha Jataka, c. 11th century, Shwesayan Pagoda godown
Fig. 2.11 (right): Visnu on the serpent Sesa, from Thaton; destroyed in Rangoon during World
War Two (from Temple, 1893: Pl. XIV)
The inscription dedicating the ordination hall, the aforementioned panditinscription, and another inscription at Thaton (the trap), were all dated
paleographically by Luce to c. 1050 (Luce, 1956: 295; Luce, 1985: 172). An 11thcentury date is also accepted by Shorto, for a group from the Lower Burma state of
Thaton, the same group discussed by Luce (Shorto, 1970: ix). These also relate
paleographically to an inscription on a standing figure in the Kawgun Cave published
by Gutman who has accepted the eleventh-century dates for Thatons inscriptions
proposed by Shorto and Luce (Gutman, 2002: 37).
Fixing the approximate date of these Mon epigraphs in Thaton is critical for
understanding the chronology of Lower Burma. If they can be shown to be of the 11th
century, then it indicates that Mon were in Thaton at that time and participated in the
sophisticated Buddhist culture that enveloped neighboring Thailand. Read carefully
how Aung-Thwin interpreted this important evidence:
The stones [trap and pandit epigraphs at Thaton] were written partly in Old Mon
and partly in Pali, but since the old Mon language in Burma remained basically
unchanged from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries, while its script remained the
same for an even longer period of time,9 there is no certainty that the language and
script on the stones are necessarily eleventh-century Old Mon rather than, say,
fifteenth-century Old Mon. (Mists: 106; italic mine)
Fig. 2.12: Three boundary stones with Jataka carvings, Kalyana Sima, Thaton, c. 11th
century (from Luce, 1985: Pl. 94)
According to Aung-Thwin, these Thaton inscriptions can therefore be 11th century,

as Luce and Shorto argued, or as late as the 15th century, as no one has argued.
Fifteenth-century Mon is considered by Shorto to be Middle Mon, but Aung-Thwin
has curiously called it Old Mon, I suspect to minimize the difference between the 11th
century (Old Mon) and the 15th century (Middle Mon). Puzzled that any script did not
change significantly during four or five centuries (between the 11th and 15th
centuries), I was certain that an endnote would enlighten me on this crucial point.
9. Shorto, Dictionary of Mon Inscriptions, x. Shorto does not explain this linguistic
continuity, but I guess that early written Old Mon was relatively isolated, and that
only later in the sixteenth century, when Pegu became the capital of the Upper
Burma Toungoo Dynasty, did Old Mon make the kinds of contact with the
dominant language in the country, Burmese, which may have produced the first
noticeable changes [in language]. (Mists: 354)
Aung-Thwin inferred that since the Mon language remained basically unchanged
from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries, then there were also no changes in the
Mon script during the same long period (Mists: 106).

However, having consulted Shortos Dictionary of Mon Inscriptions, I discovered
that Aung-Thwin misinterpreted Shortos conclusions. Shorto maintained that from
1462 down to the first quarter of the succeeding century [c. 1500c. 1525], the
inscriptions differ very little from Dhammacetis in language (Shorto, 1971: x).
Perhaps Aung-Thwin skimmed this section too quickly and confused this short period,
14621525, with the much longer one of his own making (11th to 15th centuries).
Moreover, there is nothing on that cited page from Shorto (or his entire
introduction) that suggested that the Mon language remained basically unchanged
from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries (Mists: 106). In fact, great changes were
noted between Old Mon and Middle Mon in terms of language. Shorto concluded:
Nevertheless, we can now see Middle Mon [c. 15th century] to be a more transitional
stage than it seemed when the first six inscriptions were published in Epigraphia
Birmanica [Old Mon, or Pagan era inscriptions] (Shorto, 1971: x). Also, that Shortos
classic article on Mon epigraphy was not cited in Mists, when epigraphy looms so
large in this discussion, is probative (Shorto, 1965). It is also clear that Aung-Thwin
did not consult an important article treating the periodization of Mon (Bauer, 1987
88; 198990; see also Bauer 2011; Christian Bauer, personal communication, 2011).
This unsophisticated and naive approach to epigraphy is important, since much
hinges on the approximate date of the Thaton inscriptions. Why Aung-Thwin sought
to blur distinctions between 11th-century and 15th-century epigraphs is easy to
understand if his purpose was to expunge the Mon from Lower Burma during the 11th
century. But one faulty assumption begets another, with disastrous results. The misuse
of Shortos work is yet another sleight of hand on the part of Aung-Thwin. That he
can so glibly attribute 11th-century inscriptions to possibly the 15th century requires
more justification than simply misrepresenting Shortos conclusions in an endnote.
Luce, who was no slouch in the world of epigraphy, made a claim based on
paleography, and it must be intelligently refuted. Until I see a real epigraphic
argument for rejecting Luces dating, then Luce and Shortos dating of these
inscriptions must stand. I am happy to accept another interpretation, but it must be
supported by concrete evidence and sharp analysis, not innuendo and endnotes that
when carefully pursued contradict the contention expressed in the text.
More importantly, even if the inscriptions can be shown to be late 11th century, or
12th century, the fact that they are inscribed in Mon underscores the presence of the
Mon in this region.
Kyanzitthas Mon Inscriptions in Thaton and its Environs

We know that Kyanzittha or his representatives were in the Thaton area from no
less than four inscriptions, two of which are dated to 1098. Two of the inscriptions
were located in the vicinity of Mt. Kelasa, about 30 miles north of Thaton. Both record
repairs, one to a ceti and the other to a temple (the prasada of the great relic, or
mahadhat). Duplicates of these inscriptions were found in Thaton itself, one on the
hill overlooking the town and the other two furlongs south of the foot of the hill.
The Mon inscriptions have been summarized by Luce, with citations to the primary
literature (Luce, 196970: I, 56).
These inscriptions suggest the presence of Mon-speakers in the regionotherwise,
why else employ Mon? If the remnants of the Pyu state (Mists: 67) were still
hanging about in Lower Burma, why did Kyanzittha not bring down from Pagan the
savant who prepared the Pyu side of the Myazedi inscription or employ members of
the remnants of the Pyu state in Lower Burma to incise his inscriptions for the local
population speaking Pyu? (Mists: 67) This is a facetious question, but this issue goes
right to the heart of the problem. These four inscriptions were in Mon because Lower
Burma was inhabited by Mon speakers, although of course only a fraction was literate.
Even if the trap and pandit inscriptions were incised in Kyanzitthas reign, it
would still suggest that Mon were in evidence in Thaton during Kyanzitthas reign.
Also, the Mon inscriptions refer to repairs of monuments. True, the monuments
may have been damaged in the year before the inscription was incised, but probably
not. In reality, these epigraphs probably refer to structures in existence earlier in the
century or the preceding century and were created by the Mon prior to the Pagan
presence in southeastern Burma, beginning at the time of Anawrahta.
Also, why establish two duplicate Kyanzittha-inscriptions in Thaton (both
comment on the repairs to monuments about 30 miles distant), if Thaton was not
important until after the Pagan period? Thaton was certainly a key city in Lower
Burma before the rise of Mottama in the 13th century.
Aramana
In addition, at least one or two centers in Lower Burma were esteemed in the
Theravada Buddhist world in the 12th century, if not much earlier. For example, an
inscription datable to c. 11371153 at Polonnaruva recorded that the local king invited
Buddhist monks from Aramana [to Ceylon], and [with their aid] effected the
purification of the Buddhist Order of the three Nikayas (fraternities)
(Wickremasinghe, 1928: 253254). The inscriptions editor took Aramana to mean
Ramannadesa, known in the Kalyani Inscription for Lower Burma. The monks sent to
Sri Lanka from Aramana probably came from Thaton itself, since it was only later that
Mottama (Martaban) and Pegu (Hamsavati) became Buddhist centers.
To wiggle out of the implications of this stone inscription, Aung-Thwin claims that
Aramana referred to a place in South India, citing two near-duplicate epigraphs from
Polonnaruva during the same period (Wickremasinghe, 1928: 14856). According to
Aung-Thwin, this Aramana was included within the context of a raid on the Pandyan
Country in South India (Mists: 49). However, the two Sri Lankan inscriptions cited
by Aung-Thwin include Aramana in a list of countries with which the Sri Lankan king
forged alliances, not within the context of a raid. Some of these countries were far
distant from South India, such as Gurjara, Kalinga, and Kamboja. Although professed
alliances with far-off kingdoms reflect the hyperbole common to inscriptions, the
point is that Aramana occurs in these 12th century records among other distant realms
and that Buddhist monks were invited from Aramana to Sri Lanka. Readers are invited
to first examine Aung-Thwins analysis of this inscriptional evidence and then to
check the epigraphs for themselves.
After misunderstanding and dismissing the Sri Lankan evidence, Aung-Thwin
concluded: They [the inscriptions] are too late to support the claim that Ramannadesa
was a Theravada Mon state in Lower Burma earlier than Pagan that contributed to its
civilizing process (Mists: 49). This statement reveals how important it is for AungThwins to demonstrate that very little took place in Lower Burma in the 11th and
12th centuries.
Gazing Toward South Asia
Aung-Thwin concluded Chapter 4 by claiming that,
. none of the Burma Mon texts looked east to what many colonial and other
modern scholars have considered to the homeland of the Mon: Dvaravati. Rather,
their gaze was west to South Asia: Sri Lanka earlier, and later, South Indias empire
of Vijayanagara and the Talingas. Thus while modern western officials and scholars
were nostalgically looking towards Dvaravati on behalf of the Burma Mon; the
Burma Mon themselves were gazing in the opposite direction, towards South Asia.
(Mists: 102; italics in original)
This assertion claims that the Mon in Burma looked to South Asia nostalgically
and not eastward to the Dvaravati Mon in Thailand, the latter relationship supposedly
fostered in foreign scholarship. Characteristically, no endnotes accompany this section
in Mists and therefore these assertions cannot be verified; therefore one must
conjecture the references. Here I am assuming Aung-Thwin is referring to the
Vijayanagara kingdom in India mentioned in later Mon works, such as Lik Smin Asah,
translated by Halliday in 1923 (Halliday, 2000: II). In this example Aung-Thwin has
either completely misunderstood the primary source or deliberately distorted the
evidence, since in this late text, the Mon cast themselves as mortal enemies of the
kingdom of Vijayanagara (or Vijjhanagara as it appears in the text), which is
designated as Indian (Halliday, 2000: II, 148). In other Mon foundation myths, no
reference occurs to Vijayanagara or South India (Tun Aung Chain, 2010: 710). The
Mon were also pitted against the Burmese of Ava in the same bitter struggle over
the right to claim Hamsavati (Halliday, 2000: II, 167, 223). Therefore, to suggest that
the Mon gazed toward South Asia, by way of fondly envisioning their homeland or
roots, is flatly contradicted in Mon sources.
Moreover, Aung-Thwin claimed that the Thaton tradition, once of little
importance to the Mon had now [19th and 20th century] become a cause clbre of
their nationalism, endorsed and encouraged by their colonial masters (Mists: 103).
Primary sources again indicate an altogether different picture. Thaton was eclipsed in
political and economic importance by Mottama and Pegu by the 14th century, but
Thaton itself was celebrated in the 15th century as the spot where Buddhism was
introduced into the legendary first Mon kingdom of Lower Burma (Chit Thein, 1965;
Stadtner, 2011: 24). Thatons stature among the Mon continued as late as the 19th
century, evinced by the belief that the first legendary kings of Pegu, two brothers,
descended from Thaton, as revealed in the Lik Smin Asah. So Thaton was never of
little importance to the Mon, as Aung-Thwin asserted.
The Delta
No Pyu inscriptions have been found in the delta below Sri Ksetra, a fact that
merits reiteration. The delta was perhaps as rich in culture as the southeast, but more
fieldwork needs to be done. It is clear that the Yangon region and Twante saw
significant first-millennium developments that have been known for decades. Also, the
distance between Yangon and Kyontu, the site of the large terracotta plaques, is no
more than 120 km, suggesting that the entire area now surrounding the Yangon and
Pegu rivers participated in this sophisticated coastal culture (as did the interior at Sri
Ksetra). In Yangon, for example, is Tadgale, a site that has yielded a votive tablet
inscribed in Pali on its reverse and dated paleographically to the 10th century (Luce,
1985: I, 16364). Roughly seven hundred objects were recovered from the exposed
relic chamber of the Botataung Pagoda following the Second World War. The
chamber revealed votive tablets which relate to both Pyu (73e) and Mon types (73a),
together with others (73c) that are probably of the 14th or 15th century or later (Luce,
1985: 16263; Stadtner, 2011: 114). Bronze Buddha figures have also been recovered
near Twante, some in connection with brick stupas in the vicinity (Moore, 2007: 201
2; Luce, 1985: 165). These compare favorably to a standing bronze Buddha from the
Thaton area published long ago (Luce, 1985: 173).
Maung Di Stupa
One enormous stupa near Twante indicates the sophisticated nature of the delta by
the end of the first millennium or at least at the beginning of the second. This is the
Maung Di Pagoda, seven miles east of Twante (Luce, 196970: Pl. 79b; Stadtner,
2011: 43; see (Fig. 2.13). The pagoda has a wide square base and two octagonal lower
terraces, both faced with laterite blocks, all supporting a brick dome-shaped stupa
comprised of early brick. Placed loosely against the outer surface of the two top
terraces were large terracotta plaques, each incised (not stamped) with the name of
Aniruddha at the bottom of the tiles obverse side. These plaques, the largest in
Burma, are still preserved at the site (Luce, 196970: III, Pl. 4; Duroiselle, 1915: 14
15). If these plaques were part of the original construction, then the stupa belongs to
the reign of Aniruddha. However, since the dimensions of the plaques do not match
exactly the height of the two terraces, it is more likely that Aniruddha placed the
plaques on a pre-existing structure. Fragments of identical plaques were recently

found at Pagan (Stadtner, 2005: 201), perhaps suggesting that the large molds were
made in Pagan and taken to the delta in the time of Aniruddha. These plaques are so
large that they were unlikely to have been taken from Pagan but were probably made
locally for the stupa from molds brought from Pagan. The exact date of the Maung Di
stupa is unimportant, since it must belong to Aniruddhas reign or more likely during
the period of Mon rule in the Yangon area.
Fig. 2.13: Maung Di Pagoda, near Twante, c. 11th century or earlier; stupa drum restored
This enormous pagoda also proves the existence of monumental architecture in the
11th century, or earlier, in this part of the delta. That this important piece of wellpublished evidence finds no mention in Mists is hardly surprising, since it counters the
argument that little took place in Lower Burma.
The Kunzeik Inscription
A Pali stone inscription from Lower Burma is another significant document in the
history of Lower Burma. Kunzeik is found on the east bank of the Sittaung, northeast
of Pegu. The inscription has been published (Aung Thaw, 1972: 111; Skilling, 1997:
94), but the evidence is again omitted in Mists. The incised Pali text is the Paticcasamuppada, found in different versions among the Pyu and the Dvaravati Mon in the
Chao Phraya basin (for a discussion of this epigraph and others, see Skilling, 1997).
In as much as the location of Kunzeik is near Kyaikkatha, the largest walled city of
lower Burma, this inscription is further evidence of sophisticated communities in this
region, also dovetailing with the evidence from the Buddhist site of Winka further
down the coast. The text continues on the obverse, indicating that the slab was
displayed free-standing.
Pagan
The notion that certain simple brick temples at Sri Ksetra associated with the Pyu
gave rise to the leviathans at Pagan is an old idea and virtually uncontested in nearly
all of the literature on Pagan (Strachan, 1990; Aung Thaw, 1972: 42). Indeed, this very
same idea that Mists has promoted was surprisingly also propounded by the staunch
advocate of the Mon, G. H. Luce (196970, I: 301) As a measure of how widely this
belief is now part of popular wisdom, we need go no further than the Lonely Planet
guide for Burma (2005 edition: 297, 299).
Pichard and others have pointed out, however, that the very same temples at Sri
Ksetra said to be prototypes for Pagans shrines, namely the Bebe and Lemyathna,
cannot be proved to be of Pyu date. In fact, these temple at Sri Ksetra are likely of
Pagan date or later (Pichard, 2007; Stadtner, 1998: 4347; Guy, 1999: 17). I believe
that the only major standing structure from the Pyu period is the Bawbawgyi Pagoda,
as proved by thin silver and gold sheets incised in early characters that were
discovered in situ within the stupa inside a small earthen vase (Luce, 1985: 128). The
original inner cavity of the Bawbawgyi is domed internally, but this represents simple
corbelling and is fundamentally different from the complex radial vaults spanning
square or rectangular spaces that we find at Pagan (Pichard, personal communication,
September 2007). Pichard voiced a number of other objections in positing Pyu
influence at Pagan and readers are invited to examine his comments (Pichard, 2006).
Also, the 8th or 9th century dates for the Pyu shrines at Sri Ksetra proposed in
Mists create a significant and unexplained time gap before the rise of Pagans temple
architecture in the 11th century. Our earliest dated temple at Pagan is the Kubyauk-gyi
(Myinkaba), dated to c. 1113, but this of course represents an evolution that began in
the preceding century, but still too early in my opinion to reflect a debt to the temples
at Sri Ksetra, even if they should be considered ca. 8th or 9th century. There was
indeed an extensive Pyu presence at Pagan during the first millennium, recognized for
decades, but the transition between the few simple structural remains at Pagan and the
temples of the 11th or 12th century cannot be charted (for the Pyu presence at Pagan
in the first millennium see Hudson et al., 2001: 4874).
The Jatakas at Pagan
The facts at Pagan reveal the following, as Luce and others noted long ago: there
were two series of jatakas adopted at Pagan. One was comprised of 550 tales, while
the second and far more common series numbered 547 and corresponded to the
standard Pali collection normally associated with Sri Lanka. This series of 547 is
commonly used today in Theravada countries, such as Sri Lanka, Burma, and
Thailand. However, in this series of 547 there are two major different sequences for
the last ten jatakas, or the Mahanipata. In Thailand and Burma, for example, the
penultimate jataka is the Vidhura whereas in Sri Lanka the Vidhura tale is number
eight and not number nine. In Burma this sequence probably began at Thaton and later
appeared at Pagan (more below). Indeed, that this order is used today in Burma and in
Thailand is likely a vestige of this early Mon ordering
Mists recognized the existence of these two series at Pagan but spills much ink
debunking Luces dichotomy between the orthodox-minded Kyanzittha who Luce
thought adopted the set of 547, and the preference for the set of 550 adopted by his
less orthodox predecessor Anawrahta. However, Aung-Thwin is so engaged in a most
complex and convoluted argument to refute Luce that the central point gets lost, that
is, the exploration of Mon influence at Pagan. Moreover, since none of the relevant
temples at Pagan bear secure dates, as Mists rightly points out, so much of this
discussion is conjecture.
However, the point that needs to be raised is the order of the last ten jatakas, found
in virtually all of the jatakas at Pagan (the Loka-hteikpan, a notable exception, follows
the Sinhalese order). That this same order, by far the most common at Pagan, is found
in Thaton, in the large tiles of the Thagya Pagoda, and also in the Mon pandit inscription raises fundamental questions that are skirted by Aung-Thwin. Luce has suggested
that the pandit inscription dates to ca. 1050, making the Thaton set earlier than any
Pagan series. This is yet another reason why Aung-Thwin was so keen to suggest a
possible 15th century date for the Thaton inscriptions (see above discussion).
Mists argues in the most tangled way that Luces thesis [about Anawrahta versus
Kyanzittha] rests on evidence from a single temple [the West Hpetleik] (Mists: 252).
To weaken Luces arguments Aung-Thwin desperately attempted to show that there
were not 550 jatakas at the West Hpetleik by proposing that the hundreds of
identifying inscriptions on the West Hpetleik tiles were perhaps incised in the 19th
century. Read his statement carefully:
the legends inscribed on each plaque [at the West Hpetleik] were written on top
of, not below the scene represented, as is the case with the rest of the Jataka series
at Pagan. This unique placement [captions at the top] is found in only one other
temple, the late nineteenth-century Pathodawgyi [at Amarapura], which suggest the
Hpetleik temple may have been repaired much later and had their legends placed on
top at that time.... We cannot know, therefore, if the Hpetleik Jataka plaques, their
total number, or their sequence (if that is even a significant issue) were original to
the temple. (Mists: 252; italics in original)
Aung-Thwin therefore suggests that there is no firm proof for associating the
jataka plaques at the West Hpetleik with the temples original construction. He
suggests also that these unglazed terracotta tiles may have been repaired much later
and had their legends placed on top at that time (Mists: 252).
We are therefore asked to believe that the paleography and orthography of the
captions incised on the hundreds of plaques at West Hpetleik stupa may belong to the
19th century. That decades of scholarship cannot distinguish between 19th-century
orthography and characters and inscriptions from the Pagan period is simply fantasy.
Are there other examples at Pagan
of 19th-century copies of Paganera inscriptions? For the intelligent
reader, this outlandish contention
raises only more alarm bells.
Moreover,
even
if
the
inscriptions were incised in the 19th
century, we must remember that
Burma no longer used the set of 550
following the Pagan period. Also, we
in fact do know the exact number of
original jatakas at the West Hpetleik,
since Luce (196970: I, 265)
recorded tiles at this stupa inscribed
with the numbers 549 and 550.
Also, the Pathodawgyi, in
Amarapura, is not late 19th century,
as Mists incorrectly stated, but
belongs to the first half of the 19th
century (Stadtner, 2011: 243).
Moreover,
late
19th-century
photographs reveal that the Hpetleik
temples, the sections containing the
tiles around the base, were
completely concealed in earth in the
19th century (OConnor, 1987: 295).
But Aung-Thwins complex
discussion about which series of
jatakas Kyanzittha or Anawrahta
employed participates in the same
faulty discourse earlier scholarship
adopted by trying to attach this or
that issue to various reigns based on
Fig. 2.14: Terracotta jataka tiles, Mon inscription
much later chronicles. Most of these
incised in stucco cover the brick separating the
questions are inherently unsolvable
upper and lower jatakas
since so much evidence is missing.
Also, Aung-Thwin overlooked the fact that fourteen long Mon-language captions
were incised in the original plaster placed over the brick separating the two horizontal
registers of jatakas in the West Hpetleik (Luce, 196970: I, 266; Stadtner, 2005: 200
1; see Fig. 2.14). These Mon inscriptions incised into the plaster are overlooked by
most visitors but furnish further evidence that both Hpetleik stupas belonged to the
early period of Pagan, when Mon was
used, and that the order of the last ten
jatakas echoed the same order as at
Thaton, noted above.
Finally, desperate to drag the Pyu into
the transmission of jatakas to Pagan,
Aung-Thwin resorted to Sri Ksetra: The
Jatakas probably arrived [to Pagan] well
before the Pagan period (Mists: 254).
Aung-Thwin cited Duroiselles old
identification of a terracotta panel at Sri
Ksetra featuring a seated male figure
flanked by two standing male figures as a
scene from the Mughapakkah Jataka,
known as the Temi Jataka in Burma (see
Fig 2.15). Luce pointed out, however,
that this generalized scene hardly fits
the text [of the jataka]; and no other
Jataka story has yet been found clearly
illustrated in Pyu art (Luce, 1985: II,
Fig. 2.15: Terracotta panel, Sri Ksetra
142). Luces appraisal has not been
Museum (from Guy, 1999: Fig. 6)
changed in decades of exploration and
research, apart from Aung-Thwin who accepted Duroiselles incorrect attribution.
Even if this single example in Pyu artfrom the first millenniumcould be
identified as a jataka, then we are asked to imagine that the Pyu once enjoyed a full set
of jatakas which somehow resurfaced from centuries of dormancy to inspire the
jatakas at Pagan. The likely source is in Thaton, revealed by the pandit inscription and
the jatakas on the tiles and sima stones. Also, Pagans jataka series did not derive
from Pala India, for well-known reasons.
The Mon and Pyu at Pagan

In assessing the role of the Mon and Pyu in the formation of Pagan, it must be
recognized that numerous diverse influences were at play simultaneously and in ways
that have yet to be understood completely. In this view, Pagans rise and its
flourishing culture were neither exclusively influenced by the Pyu or Mon. Rather,
Pagan resembled a mighty river fed by innumerable tributaries, some large, some
small. To parse Pagan into either Pyu or Mon compartments is therefore facile and
misleading when in fact there is room for many paradigms in a balanced exploration.
The citys thousands of temples, stupas, monasteries, and its sculpture and
extensive murals illustrate how influences from outside Burma were absorbed in
complex ways and then of course transformed into a unique expression. For example,
Pagans art and architecture is indisputably dominated by artistic traditions derived
from eastern India and present-day Bangladesh, specifically the Pala dynastys realm.
Yet Pagans traditions, such as its complex brick vaulting, were distinct from those of
eastern India. In addition, Pala art is clearly Mahayana in nature, while Pagans art
stems from Theravada traditions, evinced by the thousands of ink inscriptions at Pagan
drawn from Pali sources (the terms Mahayana and Theravada are tricky and
controversial but are used here as convenient well-known markers). Also, despite
Pagans overwhelming debt to the art of eastern India, little firm evidence exists for
extensive political and cultural exchanges.
Sri Lankas association with Pagan also reveals the difficulty in attributing
influences (Frasch, 2001). We know, for example, that relics and Buddhist missions
were exchanged between the kings of Pagan and Sri Lanka, but Sri Lankan artistic
influences at Pagan are unexpectedly meager in comparison with those from eastern
India. These examples suggest how the forces influencing Pagan were complex, fluid,
and often unexpected.
Kyanzitthas lengthy Mon inscription describing the consecration of his palace is
an outstanding example of the eclectic and cosmopolitan nature of the city. The ceremony was in the hands of Hindu Brahmin ritualists, Brahmin astrologers, and Buddhist
clerics. Burmese Brahmins and probably Mon Brahmins, versed in traditional housebuilding, were active participants in elaborate rituals governing the establishment of
the palaces pillars, invoking the chief deity Visnu, or Nar (Narayana) as he is known
in the epigraph (Blagden, 1923). However, these elaborate rituals appear to owe nothing
to Pyu or Mon culture but rather can be connected to the scholastic world of medieval
Indian architectural manuals. Moreover, descriptions of the palace include a prominent
motif forming an archway that was almost certainly borrowed from eastern India.
Burmese, Mon and Pyu (called tricul in the inscription) began singing once the
Brahmins had bathed the pillars. The Pyu were restricted to singing, while the Mon
played a far more important role during the entire ceremony. There were, for example,
126 Mon officiants who carried water vessels in procession. There were also in
attendance Mon chiefs, or their children, who resided in Pagans Jetavana monastery,
presumably the most prestigious in the land (Blagden, 1923). This evidence suggests
that while the Mon played a far greater role in early Pagan than the Pyu, it is no less
clear that the Mon also shared the stage at Pagan with many other groups and cultural
influences. Pagans culture cast its net widely.
The famous four-sided Myazedi pillars, dated to c. 1113, incised with Mon,
Burmese, Pali, and Pyu, is well-known. But the fact that no Pyu inscriptions of note
succeeded this single record strongly indicates that the Pyu became increasingly
marginalized. Had the Pyu been in Pagan in huge numbers, or even if a small number
of Pyu enjoyed high status, there would have been ample opportunities for the Pyu to
express themselves in epigraphs during the twelfth century. Rather, it was the Mon
that dominated the corpus of stone inscriptions during the important reign of
Kyanzittha. In addition, thousands, of Mon captions appear among Pagans earliest
wall art, in addition to the incised glazed tiles at Ananda Temple.
Burmese overtook Mon as the preferred language for inscriptions and captions by
the end of the twelfth century. Reasons for the decline of the Mon language at Pagan
cannot be yet identified, but its rise and demise raise many issues. Were the Mon a
small but highly influential group in early Pagan, respected because of their cultural
and religious heritage? Or did the Mon constitute a high percentage of the population
that later intermarried with Burmese and assimilated to the dominant culture? Did the
early kings at Pagan compel the Mon to migrate to Pagan or did they cajole or entice
key Mon clerics and craftsmen to Upper Burma? Were Mon Buddhist traditions more
important than those from Sri Lanka? These important questions cannot yet be
answered, but the ubiquitous use of Mon during the formation of Pagans culture
implies that the Mon enjoyed far greater influence than the Pyu.
In the final analysis, Aung-Thwin was unable to explain the use of Mon by
Kyanzittha:
The short answer is that we do not know for certain [why Kyanzitthas inscriptions
are in Mon]. But that should not be construed to imply that the period therefore
deserves the label Mon. .... I do not expect to resolve the problem, but it should
still be addressed as far as the evidence will allow. (Mists: 245)
Aung-Thwin, however, formulated a simple, practical reason for him [Kyanzittha]

to have used Old Mon. I think it had do with the political realities of his reign, which
emerged in consequence of his predecessors [Anawrahta] accomplishments and
policies (Mists: 245). Here the author is referring to Anawrahtas conquest of Lower
Burma which had recently been inhabited by an influx of Mon speakers, perhaps
fleeing the so-called cholera epidemic or the advance of Khmers into the Lower
Burma region (Mists: 246).
So to understand Kyanzitthas Mon inscriptions, we are asked to accept that
Anawrahtas triumphed in Lower Burma over an influx of Mon speakers who had
either been pushed out of Thailand by cholera or by the Khmer and then transported to
Upper Burma during the time of Kyanzittha (Mists: 246).
We are then asked to accept that these hapless residents of Haripunjaya, stricken by
cholera, crossed mountains to Lower Burma and then filtered up to Pagan where, as
refugees, they introduced their Mon culture (Mists: 436). Such a scenario is no more
likely than Anawrahta inaugurating pure Buddhism in Pagan with his chest of
tipitakas seized from Thaton. In any case, the Mon returned to Haripunjaya, as the
16th-century northern Thai chronicle, the Jinakamalipakaranam, claimed (Jaya-
wickrama, 1968: 104). Perhaps the Mon went back to Haripunjaya because
Kyanzitthas reign ended, and the Mon felt remiss that their tongue was no longer used?
This is poking fun of course but it underscores the absurdity of invoking much later
Burmese and Thai chronicles to help us unravel events that occurred centuries earlier.
It is also a cautionary tale about extrapolating too much from too little reliable
evidence. As Swearer and Premchit have suggested, it seems prudent to withhold
judgment on this historicity of the cholera epidemic episode, suggesting that the
exodus from cholera fits in the etiological nature of the text, the story of Queen Cama
(Swearer and Premchit, 1998: 20). Also, if Aung-Thwin so mistrusts the chronicles,
why then are we asked to accept them in the next breath.
Who then made such translations from Pali texts to Mon, which resulted in
thousands of ink inscriptions on the murals at Pagan? (Fig. 2.16) Why and when were
these translations made? Were they made at Pagan for the first time, or in Lower
Burma, or in both places simultaneously? A group of savants, probably learned Mon
monks, must have done it at some stage, somewhere, and for some reason. Whatever
the answers to these questions, the fact that these extensive translations from Pali to
Mon occurred at all is the key issue. The Kubyauk-gyi temple, Myinkaba, c. 1113,
provides us with a firm date to appreciate the sophisticated nature of this culture.
Fig. 2.16: Mon, top, and Burmese, bottom, ink captions in separate rows of jataka
murals, c. 12th century, Loka-theikpan Temple, Pagan.
Even if Kyanzittha was an usurper whose ancestry was not Burmese, we would
need to ask from where did this Mon culture at Pagan originate. In this analysis it is of
no consequence if Anawrahta did or did not march into Thaton and then launch a
Theravada crusade at Pagan with his chests of tipitaka.
Aung-Thwin has cast the Mon, or Rmen, as a small group of people arriving in
Upper Burma in the twelfth century, and mentioned only in Kyanzitthas Old Mon
language inscriptions (Mists: 244). In the same vein he remarks, the role of the Mon
in Upper Burmas history, especially during the Pagan and even Ava periods, is
negligible and has been much exaggerated (Mists: 244). The tone in Mists makes it
appear that the short-lived Mon residents at Pagan were like moles that burrowed
beneath Pagans walls while Burmese defenses were down but which were quickly
exorcised by the dominant Burmese culture upon the demise of their patron,
Kyanzittha. Even if this scenario were true, the question of Kyanzitthas adoption of
Mon epigraphs must be answered. We must explain where this body of culture derived
from, especially in light of the virtual eclipse of the Pyu by the end of the first
millennium.
The Pyu were of course accorded a side on the four-sided Myazedi inscriptions, but
had it truly been the Pyu Millennium then we would surely expect more Pyu influence
at Pagan and throughout Burma in the 11th and 12th centuries. The alleged
architectural input from the Pyu at Pagan, explored in Chapter 9, has been successfully
rebutted by Pichard (2006).
The degree to which the Mon from Lower Burma influenced the artistic direction
of Pagan is difficult to discern, despite the obvious important role that the Mon played
in the formative phase of the citys culture. For example, no sima-stones at Pagan
resemble those at Thaton and the composition of the jataka tiles at Pagan are not
directly derived from those found at Thaton. These distinctive artistic traditions at
Thaton are nonetheless compatible with the notion of an influential Mon presence in
early Pagan.
Also, it does little service to reality to contrast Kyanzitthas esoteric .
redundant inscriptions with the later Burmese inscriptions which are anything but
elite or esoteric, containing information about the ultimate desire for nibbana, or a
better rebirth on the path to it, of elite or commoner (Mists: 243). Here, Aung-Thwin
engaged in the same ethnic typecasting for which he condemned Luce. In AungThwins words the Burmese at Pagan are anything but elite or esoteric (Mists: 243).
We all would like to think of Pagan as a nibbanic, elite-free paradise, but a quick
glance at many Burmese inscriptions reveals long lists of slaves, an unpleasant
reminder of strict social ranking, obviously dominated by elites.
The Myth that Was Mists

If the central thesis of Miststhe purging of the Mon from early Burmese
civilizationis permitted to creep into the major surveys of Burmese and Southeast
Asian history, then this distorted view of the past will become a fait accompli after
only a few generations. In this era of unbridled Burmese nationalism, in which there is
little room for the Mon, the Pyu slipping into the place once held by the Mon in Lower
Burma will scarcely be noticed within Burma. The simplification or dumbing down of
history and political correctness are a formidable duo, inexorably distorting the past to
fit various fads and whims. Scholars whose task is to reconstruct the past with rigor
and honesty need to be vigilant and outspoken when the historical record is so twisted.
Finally, it is with some irony that while reading Mists I found myself longing for
the meticulous research that marked at least one member of that former generation of
scholars, that is, G. H. Luce. This venerable scholar certainly committed his share of
errors, as do we all, but his erudition, intellectual and moral integrity, and his
magnanimous and cosmopolitan character are enduring virtues.
References
Aung Thaw. 1972. Historical Sites in Burma. Rangoon: Ministry of Union Culture.
Aung-Thwin, Michael A. 2005. The Mists of Ramanna: The Legend that was Lower
Burma. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Bauer, C. 198788. Numismatics, Dialectology, and the Periodization of Old Mon.
Mon-Khmer Studies, 28, pp. 15576.
Bauer, C. 198990. Addenda and Errata. Mon-Khmer Studies, 1617, pp. 35859.
Bauer, C. 2011. When Did Middle Mon Begin? In Nathan Hill, ed. Medieval TibetoBurman Languages. IV. Leiden: Brill (in press).
Blagden, C. O. 1923. Epigraphia Birmanica, III, pt. 1. Rangoon: Government
Printing.
Charney, M. 2006. On Michael Aung-Thwins The Mists of Ramanna: The Legend
that was Lower Burma. H-Net Book Review, February.
Chirapravati, Pattaratorn. 1997. Votive Tablets in Thailand. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford
University Press.
Chit Thein 1965. Shei-haung Mon Kyauksa Paung-khyup. Yangon: Shei-haung
Thudethana Htana-khwe
Frasch, T. 2001. The Buddhist Connection: Sinhalese-Burmese Intercourse in the
Middle Ages. In G. Berkemer, T. Frasch, H. Kulke, and J. Luett, eds, Explorations
in the History of South Asia: Essays in Honour of Dietmar Rothermmund, Delhi:
Manohar, pp. 85-97.
Guillon, E. 1999. The Mons. Bangkok: Siam Society.
Gutman, P. 1978. The Ancient Coinage of Southeast Asia. Journal of the Siam
Society, 66, 1, pp. 821.
Gutman, P. 2007. The Court at Thaton and Its Political and Religious Implications.
Paper at conference on Discovery of Ramanya Desa: History, Identity, Culture,
Language and Performing Arts, Bangkok, 1013 October.

Gutman, P. and B. Hudson. 2004. The Archaeology of Burma (Myanmar) from the
Neolithic to Pagan. In I. Glover and P. Bellwood, eds., Southeast Asia: From
Prehistory to History, London, RoutledgeCurzon.
Guy, J. 1999. The Art of the Pyu and the Mon. In D. Stadtner, ed., The Art of Burma,
Bombay: Marg, pp. 1328.,
Guy, J. 2002. Offering up a Rare Jewel: Buddhist Merit-making and Votive Tablets in
Early Burma. In T. R. Blurton and A. Green, eds, Burma: Art and Archaeology,
London: British Museum Press, pp. 2333.
Halliday, R. 2000. The Mon of Burma and Thailand, Vol. 2. Reprint, Bangkok: White
Lotus.
Hudson, B. 2004. The Origins of Bagan: The Archaeological Landscape of Upper
Burma to AD 1300. PhD diss., University of Sydney.
Hudson, B. et al. 2001. The Origins of Bagan: New Dates and Old Inhabitants.
Asian Perspectives, 40, 1, pp. 4874.
Jacq-Hergoualch. 2002. The Mergui-Tenasserim Region in the Context of the
Maritime Silk Road: from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the End of the
Thirteenth Century. In J. Gommans and J. Leider, eds, The Maritime Frontiers of
Burma, Amsterdam: KNAW and Leiden: KITLV.
Jayawickrama, N. A. 1968. The Sheaf of Garlands of the Epochs of the Conqueror,
Being a Translation of the Jiinakalamalipakaranam. London: Luzac for the Pali
Text Society.
Krairiksh, Piriya. 1974. Semas with Scenes from the Mahanipata-Jatakas in the
National Museum at Khon Kaen. In Art and Archaeology in Thailand, Bangkok:
Fine Arts Department, pp. 3565.
Leider, J. 2006. The Mists of Ramanna, Compte-rendu. Aseanie, 18.
Lieberman, V. 1986. How Reliable is U Kalas Burmese Chronicle ? Some New
Comparisons. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 17, 2, pp. 23655.
Lieberman, V. 2007. Excising the Mon Paradigm from Burmese Historiography.
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 38, 2, pp. 37783.
Luce, G. H. 1956. The 550 Jatakas in Old Burma. Artibus Asiae, XIX, 3/4, pp. 291307.
Luce, G. H. 196970. Old Pagan Early Burma, Vols. 13. New York: Artibus Asiae.
Luce, G. H. 1974. The Advent of Buddhism to Burma.. In L. Cousins, A. Kunst, and
K. R. Norman, eds., Buddhist Studies in Honour of I. B. Horner, Boston: Reidel
Publishing, pp. 11938.
Luce, G. H. 1985. Phases of Pre-Pagan Burma, Vols. 12. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Mahlo, D. 1998. Fruhe Munzen aus Birma: Thesen. Indo-Asiatische Zeitschrift, 2,
pp. 8894.
Moore, E. 2007. Early Landscapes of Myanmar. Bangkok: River Books.

Myint Aung. 1977. The Capital of Suvannabhumi Unearthed? Shiroku, 10, pp. 41
53.
Myint Aung. 1999. The Excavations of Ayethama and Winka. In Studies in
Myanmar History, Vol. 1. Yangon: Inwa.
OConnor, V. C. S. 1996. Mandalay and Other Cities of the Past in Burma. Reprint,
Bangkok: White Lotus.
Pichard, P. 2006. Remarques sur le chaptire 9 The Mon Pradigm and the Evolution
of the Pagan Temple. Aseanie, 18.
Shorto, H. L. 1956. Notes on Mon Epigraphy. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies, 18. 2, pp. 34452.
Shorto, H. L. 1971. A Dictionary of the Mon Inscriptions from the Sixth to the
Sixteenth Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skilling, P. 1997. The Advent of Theravada Buddhism to Mainland South-East Asia.
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 20, 1, pp. 93107.
Skilling, P. 2003. Dvaravati: Recent Revelations and Research. In Dedications to
Her Royal Highness Princess Galyani Vadhana Krom Luang Naradhiwas
Rajanagarindra on her 80th birthday. Bangkok: Siam Society, pp. 87112.
Stadtner, D. 2005. Ancient Pagan: Buddhist Plain of Merit. Bangkok: River Books.
Stadtner, D. 2011. The Sacred Sites of Burma: Myth and Folklore in an Evolving
Spiritual Realm. Bangkok: River Books.
Stadtner, D.. 1998. The Art of Burma. In M. Girard-Geslan et al., Art of Southeast
Asia, New York: Abrams.
Stargardt, J. 1990. The Ancient Pyu of Burma: Early Pyu Cities in a Man-made
Landscape, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strachan, P. 1990. Imperial Pagan, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Swearer, D. and S. Premchit. 1998. The Legend of Queen Cama, Albany: SUNY.
Than Tun. 1978. History of Buddhism in Burma A.D. 10001300. Journal of the
Burma Research Society, 61, 12, pp. 1265.
Tun Aung Chain, tr. 2010. A Chronicle of the Mons. Yangon: SEAMEO Regional
Centre for History and Tradition.
Tun Aung Chain. 2002. Pegu and Politics and Trade, Ninth to Seventeenth
Centuries. In S. Chutintaranond and C. Baker, eds., Recalling Local Pasts, Chiang
Mai: Silkworm Books, pp. 952.
Wickremasinghe, D. M. D. Z. 1928. Epigraphia Zeylanica. II. London: Oxford
University Press
Wicks, R. 1992. Money, Markets and Trade in Early Southeast Asia. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.

Pagan's Cultural Formation Revealed

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Pagan's Cultural Formation Revealed

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Pagan is Burmas foremost sacred and historical site, yet it remains enveloped in unanswered

Mists and the Chronicles: A Muddled Mix

Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

10 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

Hudson (2004: 125) summarized Mahlos findings, The focused distribution of

Winka, Kyaikkatha, Zothoke

12 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

Fig 2.3 (top left): Excavated tablets from Winka

Aung-Thwin acknowledged the existence of these important tablets and concluded:

14 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

Fig. 2.6 (left): Terracotta roundel from Kyontu, near Pegu

16 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

well-known first-millennium city walls presented Aung-Thwin with a major hurdle,

To wiggle out of this long-established conclusion about the first-millennium date

18 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

20 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

According to Aung-Thwin, these Thaton inscriptions can therefore be 11th century,

Mon script during the same long period (Mists: 106).

Kyanzitthas Mon Inscriptions in Thaton and its Environs

22 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

24 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

plaques on a pre-existing structure. Fragments of identical plaques were recently

26 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

28 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

The Mon and Pyu at Pagan

30 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

Aung-Thwin, however, formulated a simple, practical reason for him [Kyanzittha]

32 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

The Myth that Was Mists

34 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

Language and Performing Arts, Bangkok, 1013 October.

36 Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon

Moore, E. 2007. Early Landscapes of Myanmar. Bangkok: River Books.

Você também pode gostar