Mists of Ramanna Book Review(Pre-Modern Mon History)

Any work that claims to bring with it a new "paradigm" in historiography like the "Mon Paradigm" should be subjected to critical scrutiny and that's exactly what the book review below by Dr. Michael Charney of SOAS, University of London does in a very thorough way:

H-NET BOOK REVIEW
H-Asia@h-net.msu.edu (February 2006)

Michael Aung-Thwin. The Mists of Ramanna: The Legend that was Lower Burma_. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. 2005. xi + 433 pp. Maps, photographs, notes, bibliography, index. $59.00 (cloth), ISBN 0-8248-2886-0.
Reviewed for H-ASIA by Michael W. Charney, Department of History, School of Oriental and African Studies

The Study of Myths in Burmese History

Michael Aung-Thwin is Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Hawai'i (Manoa) and has published extensively on Burmese history. The present work is divided into thirteen chapters, including the introduction and the conclusion ("Without the Mon Paradigm"). The main goal of the book is to debunk what Aung-Thwin calls the "Mon paradigm," which, he argues, was the result of the work of colonial historians who combined two indigenous myths into one interpretation of Burmese history. As the author explains:

"In the nineteenth century ... Dhammazedi's fifteenth-century claim that the ancient Suvannabhumi was Ramannadesa and U Kala's eighteenth-century account of the conquest of Thaton--two temporally, causally, and textually unrelated narratives--were combined for the first time by colonial scholarship and synthesized into a new theory that the Mon Theravada Buddhist culture of Lower Burma 'civilized' Burman Upper Burma. This is the thesis that I call the Mon Paradigm.... Because Pagan is considered to have been the 'Golden age' of Burma's culture and therefore also the foundations upon which the country's subsequent culture was built, the Mon Paradigm implies that the Mon people and the culture of Lower Burma were the ultimate origins not only of Pagan civilization, but also of Burma's culture in general" (p. 2).

This paradigm was maintained, Aung-Thwin argues, because specialists on the country did not heed the reservations of non-specialists on Burma, especially of those external specialists not trained in indigenous languages, such as Pierre Dupont. In other words, had scholars on the country not been trapped by their own historiography and been able to view Burmese history without knowledge of it, they might have seen the inconsistencies of the paradigm (pp. 4, 6). This sets up a demanding case for Aung-Thwin to demonstrate, but unfortunately, the present study fails to convince the present reviewer, as discussed below.

The present reviewer has examined Burmese myths, also using a textual approach as well as the same indigenous chronicles used here regarding the Abhiraja myth.[1] Thus, he is in a position to comment on the merits of Michael Aung-Thwin's analysis of the emergence of one of the "myths"--the Thaton conquest story in Burmese history--which was integrated into Aung-Thwin's Mon paradigm. This story or "myth" holds that upon the advice of his teacher, Shin Arahan, the eleventh-century Burmese king, Anawrahta, marched against and took the town of Thaton in Lower Burma. From Thaton, Anawrahta took back to Pagan thirty sets of the Pali Canon (the Pitakas) and they were used to instruct Burmese monks in the correct religious teachings. Aung-Thwin argues that this myth does not appear in its full form until the twentieth century in Mon texts and only in the 1730s in Burmese texts. Thus, he argues, the story's acceptance represents a Mon paradigm used by colonial historians and others later to understand Burmese history in a particular way that allowed them (and the Mons) to view the Burmese as the recipients of culture from the Mons. Aung-Thwin draws attention to the lineage of the story and to the fact that inscriptions do not support it and thus draws the Mon paradigm into question. He makes use of a limited number of indigenous texts, some translated into English and some into Burmese. It is unclear if Aung-Thwin understands Mon, but other than Burmese chronicles, he relies on translated versions of a small sampling of Mon texts and a translated version of a Pali chronicle.

An important problem with this work is that Aung-Thwin, likely unwittingly, selectively presents part of the historical context that would support his claims, but remains silent on changing aspects of this context that would work against them. A good example, one that would call the entire argument of this book into question, was the alternating mood of Bodawhpaya (r. 1782-1819). Certainly, Bodawhpaya did favour the Thaton story--initially. However, when he and the monastic order were at odds concerning his claims regarding the religion, he attempted to undercut their position by making a similar claim as that made by Aung-Thwin in the present book, that Ramannadesa was not an ancient country, in order to challenge the authenticity of the religious texts taken from from Thaton.[2] Bodawhpaya thus had his own special reasons to obstruct the historical record regarding Thaton. This is important, as Bodawhpaya--who spent much of his reign collecting extant copies of chronicles, religious texts, and other works, as well as inscriptions, and then culled them to support his views on the religion and society--presents a serious obstacle to our understanding of what was written (or inscribed) before his time. While Bodawhpaya could not collect and correct everything, it makes it extremely difficult to say--concerning views not shared by Bodawhpaya--what did not exist prior to his time, as asserted in the present study. Thus, while one might be able to confidently trace the Abhiraja myth, a myth supported by the court at this time, one wonders whether the argument can really be made that the Thaton story definitely did not exist. Certainly, this problem should have been discussed. The Twinthin taik-wun is clearly an exception and an understandable one. As one of the men put in charge of collecting and revising, the Twinthin taik-wun wrote his chronicle, which was not officially sanctioned by the court, prior to Bodawhpaya's shift regarding the Thaton story and after much of the text collecting had been completed. This cannot be said of earlier manuscripts.

The discussion of Bimala Churn Law's translation of Shin Pannasammi's _Sasanavamsa_ is also problematic for several reasons.[3] First, the translation is frequently poor. Grammatical errors, contradictions, and the like, pepper the book. For those of us unable to read Pali, understanding what the translation is supposed to say, requires examining Shin Nyanabhivamsa's _Thathanalinkaya-sadan_ (from which the _Sasasanavamsa_ borrows extensively verbatim) for sections on which they share coverage. A re-translation is necessary from the original Pali (which the present reviewer is not able to read). Pending that re-translation, the passage cited does not clearly show a contradiction with a later passage, as argued by Aung-Thwin, regarding the Thaton 'myth.' Admittedly, it is under the heading of Ramanya, but the paragraph in which is included is less geographically circumspect than this heading would suggest:

"the king named Anuruddha of the town of Arimaddana brought an Order of monks from there together with the Pitakas. After that ... the great king Sirisamghabodhi Parakkamabahu purified the religion in the island of [Sri] Lanka. Six years after that ... the Elder named Uttarajiva became famous in the religion" (Pannasammi, p. 44).

No mention is made of the place to which Anuruddha (Anawrahta) brought the pitakas-although Aung-Thwin inserts "Pagan" within brackets to make it so--"from there" could refer to either Pagan or to Thaton (the subject of the previous paragraph), or, given the problematic translation (or of the Pali original, if a new translation demonstrates this), it could refer to any range of places (Aung-Thwin, p. 146).

Pannasammi actually includes two accounts of the "Thaton Conquest" episode. The second is a full elaboration of the story, as rejected by Aung-Thwin. The first, quoted by Aung-Thwin, is a nearly verbatim repetition of the version of the episode found in the Pali section of the Kalyani Inscriptions, probably preserved in an intermediary text. The three versions relevant here can be arranged as follows:

[Kalyani] "King Anuruddha, the Lord of Arimaddanapura, brought a community of priests together with the Tipitika (from Ramannadesa), and established the Religion of Arimaddanapura, otherwise called Pugama" (Kalyani, p. 49).[4]

[Pannasammi A]: "the king named Aniruddha of the town of Arimaddana brought an Order of monks from there together with the Pitakas" (Pannsammi, p. 44).

[Aung-Thwin quotation of Pannasammi A]: "the king named Aniruddha of the town of Arimaddana [Pagan] brought an Order of monks from there [Pagan] together with the Pitakas" (p. 146).

Clearly, Aung-Thwin's adjustment of the sentence has the effect of single-handedly replacing Ramannadesa with Pagan, not presenting new evidence that contradicts the Kalyani Inscription. As demonstrated above, the Pannasammi story [version A] is not an entirely different version of the episode, but the same Mon version of the story datable at least to 1476, and, certainly, it can be read any way that one wishes to, depending on which name they insert into the brackets, even as evidence supporting the Thaton conquest account. What makes this problem important is that Aung-Thwin then makes a jump, by ignoring the more reliable account [Pannasammi B] and then telling his readers that Pannasammi (A) provides a unique third version of events, that Anawrahta "took the scriptures to Thaton" (p. 147), which is only conjecture on the part of Aung-Thwin. In fact, the only precolonial tradition (Aung-Thwin cites three competing traditions) that offers an alternative story is derived from a text that can be reliably dated only to the nineteenth century.

The overall argument of the book is sometimes not supported by the evidence cited. Oddly, Aung-Thwin expends a considerable amount of effort discussing chronicles and other texts that would not logically mention the Thaton story in an effort to demonstrate that their failure to include the Thaton story constitutes some sort of proof that the story did not exist at the time they were written. _Zatatawpon Yazawin_ and _Yazawinkyaw_ are not histories per se, but deal almost exclusively with royal lineage (and the latter, especially with horoscopes), with little discussion of anything but regnal titles, dates, and filial relations. _Razadhirat Ayeidawhpon_ as well was not intended to cover the Pagan era (pp. 133-135). Further, one, the _Zambu Kungya_, cannot be dated to the pre-nineteenth century period, although its contents can be traced in part to U Kala in the early eighteenth century and to the _Maniyadanabon_ in the late eighteenth century, but is nonetheless presented as evidence that the earliest Burmese chronicles had a different version of the Thaton story than that provided in U Kala (p.123).

The author also fails to put his work into the broader range of literature on myths and their emergence in Burmese history. In neglecting related work in the field, _Mists of Ramanna_ remains only important to those concerned with the relevance of the Mons to Burmese history per se, rather than realizing its potential value within the broader context of the study of history writing. Further, in directing readers to other work on specialized topics and regions, Aung-Thwin's suggestions are sometimes unrepresentative of the state of the field (at least for the past decade). Closer attention to more recent decades of Burmese historiography would have helped to prevent this problem.

As Aung-Thwin explains, his study is "not an indictment of evidence but of methodology; of the way data have been assessed and used to conform to a preconceived notion" (p. 3). This criticism was directed at colonial scholars, but might be appropriately redirected at the present study. The case against the Mon paradigm remains unproven. The data is sometimes poorly handled in the present volume; vague references and observations by the author based on equivocal evidence he mobilizes in defense of his thesis represent questionable methodology.

In sum, _Mists of Ramanna_ presents an interesting journey through a particular set of indigenous source materials and is easy reading. An unconvincing analysis of the chronicles and a failure to place the current study into the broader context of research on myths in Burmese history, however, hinder the book's value. Perhaps a revised edition will help the author make _Mists of Ramanna_ a stronger contribution to the body of research on premodern Burmese history.

Notes

[1]. Michael Walter Charney, "Centralizing Historical Tradition in Precolonial Burma: the Abhiraja/Dhajaraja Myth in Early Kon-baung Historical Texts," _South East Asia Research_ 10, no. 2 (2002): pp.185-215.

[2]. Royal Edict, 7 August 1817, in Than Tun, ed., _The Royal Orders of Burma, A.D. 1598-1885_ (Tokyo: Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, 1988), 7: p. 390.

[3]. Shin Pannasammi. _The History of Buddha's Religion (Sasanavamsa)_, trans. Bimala Churn Law (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1952).

[4]. The full citation is _The Kalyani Inscriptions Erected by King Dhammaceti at Pegu in 1476 A.D. Text and Translation_ (Rangoon: Superintendent, Government Printing, Burma, 1892).

The fallacy of negative proof

This logical fallacy is especially dangerous for pre-modern Burmese history, at least for the pre-Konbaung period, not well-endowed with primary sources. Finding shortcomings in these sources and in the ways they've been used by previous generations of historians, even colonial historians, is easy; finding positive evidence that supports indigenous sources is much more difficult. A devotion to fault-finding instead of attempting to write accurate history, no matter how hard this might be to do, is likely to bring the field of pre-modern Burmese history to a grinding halt as everyone lays waste to each other's research projects. The purely negative can easily degenerate into a McCarthy era-like witch-hunt.

Indigenous primary sources have a literary quality that make them difficult to use in traditional factual narrative history. Professor Lieberman has partially vindicated indigenous sources by demonstrating that parts of the Burmese chronicle (U Kala's Mahayazawingyi) for which there are independent European sources are accurate (Lieberman, Victor B. "How Reliable is U Kala’s Burmese Chronicle? Some New Comparisons." Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 17.2 (September, 1986): 236-255).

Independent European or Chinese sources to support indigenous sources are not available for all historical periods. The narrative thread of the Burmese Chronicle begins with the creation of the universe and ends in the early eighteenth century which makes for a historiographical tradition radically different from the western Rankean tradition. Historical interpretations that must be based on this single source are likely to be uncertain and tentative. This is a problem also faced in many non-western historiographies, from American Indian "ethnohistory" to the interpretations of ancient Greece history found in the works of M.I. Finley like "The World of Odysseus" (which I am currently reading).

The problem lies in historical method. Showing that historical facts from the chronicle tradition are only weakly supported by sources does not provide evidence of the exact opposite facts. According to the pulitzer prize winning historian David Hackett Fischer:

"The fallacy of negative proof is an attempt to sustain a factual proposition merely by negative evidence. It occurs whenever a historian declares that "there is no evidence that X is the case," and then proceeds to affirm or assume that not-X is the case. He may have spent all his youth in the Antiquarian Society, feverishly seeking the holy X and never finding it. He may have examined every relevant scrap of evidence in every remote repository, without reward. He and every other reasoning being on this planet may know in their bones that not-X is the case. But a simple statement that "there is no evidence of X" means precisely what it says -- no evidence. The only correct empirical procedure is to find affirmative evidence of not-X -- which is often difficult, but never in my experience impossible...A good many scholars would prefer not to know that some things exist. But not knowing that a thing exists is different from knowing that it does not exist. The former is never sound proof of the latter. Not knowing that something exists is simply not knowing. One thinks of Alice and the White Knight:

"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.
"I only wish I had such eyes,"
the king remarked in a fretful tone.
"To able [sic] to see Nobody! And at that distance too!"

Spending a lot of time looking for negative evidence to disprove interpretation X can distract one from find the positive evidence that is necessary to prove what one really wants to prove, i.e. not-X. The "Fallacist's Fallacy" or "Argumentum ad Logicam" is pertinent here:

"Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning. To say that an argument is fallacious is to claim that there is no sufficiently strong logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. This says nothing about the truth-value of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that a proposition is false simply because some argument for it is fallacious" (Source: The Fallacy Files).

In conclusion, I would argue for a more positive and constructive search for better evidence. This evidence can be used to construct both: 1. fact-based Rankean histories, politico-military and socio-cultural, as well as 2. intellectual history into the historical discourses used in indigenous historical texts. Pre-modern indigenous historical texts are better viewed as speech acts in the sense of Searle, intimately involved in the making of history, often going through radical revisions with this use in mind.

[Note: Recently found an extensive review of Fischer's "Historian's Fallacies".

The "Mon Paradigm" in Burmese History

The archaeologist Dr. Bob Hudson defines the Mon Paradigm as "the widely accepted notion among both indigenous and western scholars that the traditional story of King Anawratha invading and capturing Thaton in the 11th century and a subsequent inflow of Mon culture into Bagan...was a historical fact." (PhD Dissertation, p. 39, rather slow online link, summary of story on page 26 paragraph 4 of the dissertation).

The Mon Paradigm has been gathering momentum for several years as a subject of debate: "The reaction at the 2001 Texts and Contexts conference in Yangon, which saw two highly detailed, prepared rebuttals presented from the floor at the conclusion of Aung-Thwin’s paper, which had been circulated in advance, was a fair indication that the academic community in Myanmar is attracted to the debate." (p. 40)

The Mon Paradigm seems to have several dimensions beyond the Pagan era events in the definition given above. It also includes a criticism of western "Orientalist" historical scholarship: "Western scholars of the 20th century accepted the story of the early Mon kingdom as fact, and attributed many finds in southern Burma of coins, art works and archaeological materials, 'even those with no dates or Mon writing on them' to the Mon ethnic group. The Mon were portrayed as the historical victims of aggressive Thais and Burmans, whose consolation for this injustice was to be credited with civilising their conquerors, a situation with parallels to the Roman adoption of the culture of the conquered Greeks." (p. 40) There are also writing orthography dimensions to the debate.

The Mon Paradigm probably needs a broader formal definition than the series of Pagan era events as well as a more precise statement of sub-claims and support. Toulmin's model of logical argumentation might help some people organize and understand the complex web of arguments in the Mon Paradigm. Some of the criticism might have bearing on post-Pagan historical periods such as the Ava (1365-1527) or the First Toungoo (1486-1599) periods.

The myth supposedly originates during the reign of king Dhammaceti just before the time period (1486-1539) that my paperon the late Ava and early First Toungoo period addresses: "The notion of a first millennium Mon kingdom in southern Burma originated with the 15th century King Dhammaceti of Bago (Pegu) as part of a retrospective claim of Theravada Buddhist orthodoxy for his regime." (p. 40) The discussion of the ethnonym "Talaing" in Dr. Aung-thwin's book is of especial interest to me since this is the term used to refer to the inhabitants of the south in U Kala's Mahayazawingyi which I have used as the foundation of my narrative history.

(Dr. Bob Hudson's dissertation is large, so beware, it took me a long time to download. There is also a separate download page for the dissertation.)

Myths in Burmese History

This weblog is devoted to the study of myths in Burmese history:

1. To the truths they may contain, historical as well as philosophical.

2. To the purposes their fictions may have served their authors in centuries past and more recent times.

Aung-thwin: Regime apologist

1. Regime apologist I

2. Regime apologist II

3. Regime apologist III

4. Pyinmana editorial I - The Nation

Geiger on the Singhalese raid of Lower Burma (1164-5)

In the wake of what was essentially a trade dispute, King Parakkamabahu I, who had unified the island of Lanka (Ceylon) early in his reign, decided to gather together a fleet of ships and launch raids against Lower Burma.

The landing of Singhalese forces from Sri Lanka on the soil of Lower Burma and the events that transpired after that run as follows what Geiger called the Culavamsa chronicle (actually just a continuation of the Mahavamsa). As the Lankan troops disembarked from their boats at Bassein, known then as Cosmi (or Kusumi below), in Lower Burma, Ramanna troops met them in combat. The Lanka troops quickly overwhelmed the feeble resistance and took to a strategy of scorched earth:

"Warriors of great fighting strength who sailed on five vessels landed on the territory of Ramanna in the port called Kusumi. These doughty soldiers with the Nagaragiri Kitti at the head, equipped with armour and weapons slew from their landing place the troops belonging to the Ramanna country, many thousands of them in terrible combat and while they, like to rutting elephants, hewed down around many coco palms and other trees and set fire to the villages, they laid waste a great part of the kingdom." (Geiger, 1953, 69)

Another division disembarked at another place named Papphalama (probably Martaban but have to check hard to find Frasch (1998) first):

"But the ship on which the Damiladhikarin Adicca commanded, landed in the territory (or Ramanna) at the port of Papphalama, and while at once the people with the Damiladhikarin at the head, fought a gruesome, fearful, foe-destroying battle and captured alive many people living in the country, they plunged the Ramanna kingdom into sore confusion. Thereupon the Sihalas with terrible courage, fearful with their swords, burst into the town of Ukkama [north of Yangon] and slew the Monarch of the Ramanas. when they had subdued the Ramanas and brought their country into their power, the great heroes mounted a splendid white elephant. They rode around the town free from all fear turning the right side towards it and thereupon made known by the beat of drum the supremacy of the Sovereign of Lanka." (Geiger, 1953, 69)

Buddhist monks were then sent to negotiate a peace:

"Then overwhelmed by fear the people in the Ramanna land, seeing no other protection, gathered together and held counsel. With the instructions: "Year by year must we from now onwards send elephants to any amount as tribute from our property – in order that the Monarch of Lanka lay on us intolerable (burdens), ye must influence him [1] and thereby at all times full of pity, have mercy on us all" – they sent in haste their messengers with letters in their hand to the bhikku community dwelling in the island of Lanka. Through the friendly words of the community living in the three communities, the Ruler of Lanka was moved to kindness, and while the Ramanas sent him yearly numbers of elephants, they made anew with the Lanka Ruler who kept his treaties faithfully, a pact of friendship" (Geiger, 1953, 70).

References:

Frasch, Tilman (1998a) "The Mount Thetso Inscription Re-examined," Myanmar Historical Research Journal 2: 109-126.

Geiger, Wilhelm and Christian Mabel Duff (trs.) (1953) Culavamsa : Being the more recent part of the Mahavamsa, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ceylon Govt. Information Dept.

Comments: These Culavamsa passages must be one of the few independent outside sources for military history during the classical Pagan period of Burma’s history. Since my research is on warfare during the early modern period (1350-1600), these passages are of interest to me.

Aung-Thwin gallery of ad hominem attacks

None of the scholars he cites or attacks are listed in the index of his book The Mists of Ramanna. I'm listing them here as a aid to scholarship, as I find them, in my spare time:

1. Against Burmese art historian Paul Strachan

2. Against German Pagan scholar Tilman Frasch

3. Against British legal scholar Andrew Huxley

4. Against Nobel Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.

5. Against French Mon scholar Emmanuel Guillon.

I just realized that getting attacked is like making it onto the all-star team.

[Luce, Frasch, Huxley, ...]

Geiger on Sri Lanka's diplomatic relations with Rāmañña in Lower Burma during the Pagan period

Wilhelm Geiger's Culture of Ceylon in medieval times (1960) provides a nice succinct overview of relations between Sri Lanka and the Mon kingdom of Rāmañña during the Pagan era (citations are to Geiger, 1953):

"Rāmanñña was the name of the province of Pegu in Southern Burma. Its inhabitants were, like those of Ceylon, Buddhists of the Theravadan school. Between the two countries there had never been dissension up to the 12th century, and their monarchs were wont to send each other many costly gifts and in this way to maintain a friendly intercourse (76.10 sq). Vijayabahu I (1059-1114 A.C.) sent envoys with various presents to the king of Rāmañña and received in return valuable gifts from him (58.8 sq). When in Ceylon the number of Bhikkus had decreased so much that it became impossible to fill the chapter in order to perform the Vinaya ceremonies, the same king fetched from Ramanna Bhikkus who were thoroughly versed in the Buddhist precepts and able to restore the Order which had declined in Lanka (60.4 sq.)…

The friendship between the two countries was severely disturbed in the twelfth century. The war made by Parakkamabahu on the Rāmañña king was, according to the chronicle, successful for the Singhalese. The former friendly relations were restored by King Vijayabahu II, 1186-87. The King himself composed a letter in the Maghada language - i.e. Pali, the lingua franca among the Buddhists - which he sent to the ruler of Rāmañña and concluded a treaty with him as Vijayabahu I had done before (80.6-7). (Geiger and Bechert, 1960, 134-135).

Trade disputes are said to have been a motivating cause behind the Singhalese raid on Lower Burma:

"In the medieaval period various stuffs, sandal-wood, camphor and the like were imported from Rāmañña, Southern Burma (58.9 sq.). From the same country elephants were brought to Ceylon though plenty of them roamed wild in the forests. The fact that in the twelfth century the king of Rāmanñña tried to monopolize the elephant-trade and enormously raised the prices, was one of the reasons by which Parakkamabahu's war with Rāmañña was provoked (76.17-34). (Geiger and Bechert, 1960, 108)

References

Geiger, Wilhelm and Christian Mabel Duff (trs.) (1953) Culavamsa : Being the more recent part of the Mahavamsa, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ceylon Govt. Information Dept.

Geiger, Wilhelm (1960) Culture of Ceylon in medieval times, ed. Heinz Bechert, Wiesbanden: Otto Harrassowitz

Tilman Frasch on the Singhalese raid on Lower Burma around 1164-5

Frasch, Tilman (2002) “Coastal peripheries during the Pagan period,” In The Maritime of Burma: Exploring Political, Cultural and Commercial Interaction in the Indian Ocean World, 1200-1800, Edited by Jos Gommans and Jacques Leider, Leiden: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, pp. 59-78.

Luckily I have this paper by Tilman Frasch that seems to clear up a lot of the confusion in Aung-Thwin's rambling 1976 paper:

...the Singhalese raid on Lower Burma around 1164-5 which King Parakkama Bahu I of Polonnaruva had sent to extract revenge for insults he had suffered at the hands of the Burmese. According to the contemporary Sinhalese chronicle Culavamsa [9], the Sinhalese forces captured the two port towns of Kusumiya (Bassein) and Muttuma (Martaban) as well as a third place called Ukkama which may be identified as Okkam, a place some twenty miles north of Rangoon [10]"

[9] Geiger 1925/1929, ch. 76.10-75. This part of the chronicle, dealing with the life of Parakkama Bahu, was written during the later part of the king's reign or shortly afterwards, and is generally regarded as highly reliable, see Geiger 1930, 205-228. The conquest of the port town of Kusumiya (Bassein) is mentioned in the Devanagala Rock inscription that records the reward King Parakkama gave to his victorious general Kit Sri Nuvaragal: Epigraphia Zeylanica 3, 312-325.

[10] I have dealt with the Sinhalese expedition and its implications exhaustively in Frasch 1998a. For earlier views, see Luce 1965a, and Aung-Thwin 1976.

References:

1. Aung-Thwin (1976) "The Problem of Ceylonese-Burmese Relations in the 12th Century and the question of an Inter-regnum at Pagan," Journal of the Siam Society, 64(1): 53-74.
2. Epigraphia Zeylanica
3. Geiger (1925/1929) The Culavamsa. Being the More Recent Part of the Mahavamsa, London: Pali Text Society.
4. Geiger (1930) "The Trustworthiness of the Mahavamsa," Indian Historical Quarterly, 6 (2): 205-228.
5. Luce (1965b) "Some Old References to the South of Burma and Ceylon," In Felicitation Volumes of Southeast Asian Studies, presented to his Highness Dhaninivat...on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday, Vol. 2, Bangkok: Siam Society.

Comments: This is a nice concise overview of what happened that can be filled in later with details from the Culavamsa and inscriptions. Aung-Thwin's 1998 Myths book republishes the 1976 paper. Wikipedia is missing this sort of information.

The Mon Paradigm Fallacy - a fallacist's fallacy

1. Paul Wheatley's cities of the Mon


2. Disorganized footnotes to a positive history not yet written or even hypothesized?


3. The fallacy of argument ad antiquitam


4. To escape from colonial era historiography, go back to the original sources


5. It's the other guy's paradigm, not mine!

Aung-thwin's ad hominem attackon Aung San Suu Kyi

This was his first and most famous ad hominem attack.

It raises the question of whether these attacks are really just lame attempts at PR, pitiful attempts of a second rate intellectual at getting himself in the limelight, trying to jumpstart a career as a public intellectual:

"She had an aristcratic air about her," he said. "She always thought of herself as part of the Burmese aristocracy, and that she had a right to Burma's throne because of her father...She was charming, intelligent, but very stubborn, very authoritarian. She was in favor of overthrowing the military, but she was personally authoritarian herself. Once, I remember her her saying,'It is my destiny to rule Burma.' I said,' You should have a relatively easy time because of your father's name.' She bristled. 'I will do this myself," she said. 'It won't have anything to do with my father.' 'Then why do you use your father's name?' I asked. But she just repeated, 'I will do it myself.'" (From The Lady Triumph, Vanity Fair, October 1995, Source)