Aung-Thwin's methodology in a nutshell
Here is a statement of Aung-Thwin's methodology in a nutshell:
1. Colonial era historians like Luce made primary sources available in well-edited translations.
2. Aung-Thwin's work relies on these translations.
3. Why hasn't Aung-Thwin made more primary sources available in more well-edited translations?
4. Wouldn't this constitute progress in the field?
5. Compared to Cambodia, Burmese epigraphy is still in its infancy.
6. If colonial era historians sometimes made mistakes in historical interpretation, how is this any different than historians from any era?
7. How can a historian make a career solely out of a commentary on another historian's mistakes?
8. The French historian Michel Lorrillard is currently creating an extensive edited volume of Lao inscriptions.
9. Creating a foundation for Burmese epigraphy is possible.
10. This is what Tilman Frasch's German dissertation does. It needs to be translated into English:
Pagan: Stadt und Staat [Pagan] / von [by] Tilman Frasch. - XI, 370 pp. ISBN 3-515-06870-8 Literaturverzeichnis [bibliography] pp. 349-360, Index pp. 361-365, English summary pp. 367-370.
"This study tries to give an overview of the history of Burma´s first capital pagan, again scrutinizing ist source material like epigraphs, chronicles and monuments. It contains a critical assessment of these, focusing on inscriptions and discussing the problems and shortcomings imposed by them and their various editions." (Source)
In Southeast Asia, if you're having a hard time finding this book, the Siam Society's library has a copy: GEN 915.591 F841P
"But the primary sources do not support that theory, and so we have the creation of a myth from a story that might have already been a myth" (Myth and History in the Historiography of Early Burma, 1998, 4)Implications:
1. Pre-modern primary sources are the foundation of any theory.Comments:
2. Pre-modern primary sources often contain stories that are myths.
3. Colonial era historians, in turn, created their own myths from these primary sources.
4. The current era N of historians is likewise creating its own myths, but we won't know what they are until the next era N+1, and so on, ad nauseam.
1. Colonial era historians like Luce made primary sources available in well-edited translations.
2. Aung-Thwin's work relies on these translations.
3. Why hasn't Aung-Thwin made more primary sources available in more well-edited translations?
4. Wouldn't this constitute progress in the field?
5. Compared to Cambodia, Burmese epigraphy is still in its infancy.
6. If colonial era historians sometimes made mistakes in historical interpretation, how is this any different than historians from any era?
7. How can a historian make a career solely out of a commentary on another historian's mistakes?
8. The French historian Michel Lorrillard is currently creating an extensive edited volume of Lao inscriptions.
9. Creating a foundation for Burmese epigraphy is possible.
10. This is what Tilman Frasch's German dissertation does. It needs to be translated into English:
Pagan: Stadt und Staat [Pagan] / von [by] Tilman Frasch. - XI, 370 pp. ISBN 3-515-06870-8 Literaturverzeichnis [bibliography] pp. 349-360, Index pp. 361-365, English summary pp. 367-370.
"This study tries to give an overview of the history of Burma´s first capital pagan, again scrutinizing ist source material like epigraphs, chronicles and monuments. It contains a critical assessment of these, focusing on inscriptions and discussing the problems and shortcomings imposed by them and their various editions." (Source)
In Southeast Asia, if you're having a hard time finding this book, the Siam Society's library has a copy: GEN 915.591 F841P
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home