Sayagyi (‘Revered teacher’) the late Dr. Than Tun (6 April 1923-30 November 2005) would turn (if he were still alive) 97 on 6 April 2020. Dr Than Tun was a preeminent and native historian of Burma of the late 20th century. His undergraduate degrees were from Rangoon University specializing in history. He obtained two earned doctorates from the University of London in 1956 and 1990 respectively (see below). He was Professor of History from University of Mandalay from 1965 till his retirement in 1983. He was a Visiting Professor in Northern Illinois University in the United States and in Kyoto University in Japan in the 1980s. He published English language academic journal articles on history both in Burmese and English and many books in Burmese mainly on historical themes.
In his historical writings Than Tun gave major reliance not (not) on what the Burmese (now Myanmar) or indeed foreign chroniclers wrote in their ‘histories’. Instead his research methodology and historical research was based mainly on empirical work by collecting, collating and interpreting the historical events recorded in epigraphs, inscriptions and votive tablets throughout the ages.
In late March 2020 I bought and read History of Buddhism in Burma, 1000 to 1300 AD by Dr Than Tun (4th printing January 2020). I am grateful to the publishers for not ‘reverting’ or changing the word Burma, Burmese, Burman, Pagan mentioned in the original manuscript of Than Tun to the current vogue of expressions: ‘Myanmar’ ‘Bamar’ and ‘Bagan’. In any case, it is a historical distortion (I trust Sayagyi Dr Than Tun would not necessarily disagree with this) to wily-nilly change formally, officially as well as informally and unofficially and retrospectively the terms used in historical documents like Than Tun’s Ph.D. thesis of 1956.
Seik Ku Cho Cho စိတ်ကူးချိုချို
publishing house republished a ‘revised and enlarged’ edition of then Ph.D. candidate Than Tun’s thesis for his Ph.D. submitted to the Faculty of Arts, University of London in the year 1956.
As a dilettante but with an interest in history and things historical I have learned a lot from Than Tun’s tome or treatise (no less). There are quite a few typos (not Than Tun’s but probably those of the publishers) of the 4th edition. There are a few grammatical or stylistic expressions a few of those may be those of (or by) Than Tun himself of which I would respectfully point out only one stylistic issue.
Throughout his thesis Than Tun used the phrase 'It is interesting to note' at the very least about 15 times. I recall that the post graduate theses guidelines in 1979 at the Faculty of Law at Monash University in Australia states to the effect that ‘Do not overuse phrases such as it is noteworthy, it is interesting .. just make it noteworthy or interesting but eschew the over-use of these phrases’.
Notwithstanding such stylistic issues it is intellectually challenging to learn from the late blunt-speaking, forthright historian.
Another landmark achievement of Than Tun should be stated. About 34 years after Than Tun was awarded a Doctorate (Ph.D.) by the University of London in 1956 the same University awarded him a second Doctorate (D. Litt, Doctor of Literature) in 1990 for his 10 volume (over 7000 pages) collection, collation and skeletal translations of the royal orders issued by various Burmese kings from the years 1598 to 1885 in The Royal Orders of Burma published by the University of Kyoto, the Center for Southeast Asian Studies between the years 1983 to 1990.(The publication of The Royal Orders of Burma was, in part, a collective effort. In the first volume Than Tun thanked about 46 persons by name for their assistance in their collection and compilation).
This writer would only ‘skim’ the postulates provided with strong, convincing epigraphic evidence Than Tun made in his earlier work (in his first doctoral thesis). Around 95% of the time this writer was unable to read the phonetic transliteration of the medieval Burmese (that was the term used by Than Tun). There is one photographic reproduction of a single sentence inscription in medieval (or is it early?) Burmese from a votive by or about King Anirud- dha (Anawrahta). This writer is unab l e to decipher a single alphabet or letter though the English translation provided by Dr Than Tun helps at least indirectly to understand it.
Apparently, Than Tun did not translate his full thesis from English into Burmese. (Incidentally colloquial Burmese was Dr. Than Tun’s style of writing from the mid-1960s). Still, I have seen a few segments of his thesis being translated by himself into Burmese in the Universities Central Library website.
In History of Buddhism in Burma, A.D. 1000-1300 Than Tun claimed or at least opined that: (1) The Buddhist monk Shin Arahan ရှင်အရဟံ did not quite bring Buddhism to Pagan. If he did, it was not 'pure' Buddhism as the chronicles claimed. Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana, mixed with Hinduism) already existed in various forms quite some time before Anawrahta became King.
(2) King Anawrahta အနော်ရထာ (Aniruddha) အနုရုဒါ္ဓ apparently did not invade Suvanabhummi, Thaton’) to obtain the the three baskets of Buddha's discourses' as the chronicles stated but almost as an after thought after Aniruddha incursions into Pegu and lower Burma.
(3) The ‘revered’ King Kyan Sittha ကျန်စစ်သား (Dr Than Tun transliterated as Thiluin Man) ထီးလှိုင်မင်း was (a) usurper (page 24) and (b) interloper (page 319)! Than Tun listed only Thiluin Man as a ’usurper’ among the 12 Pagan kings during the period he discussed (page 24).
(4)Than Tun stated that Aniruddha 'only' prayed that he attained 'nirvana' but the arguably m o r e ambitious or egotistical (my words not that of Than Tun) Thiluin Man (Kyan Sitt Thar) and Cansu I (One)စည်သူ 1 (Alaung Sithu)အလောင်းစည်သူ prayed not only for nirvana (nibbana) နိဗ္ဗာန but for Buddhahood (in contemporary Myanmar language hsu-gyee-pan?)
(5) The peak of the Pagan Empire at least in terms of territorial demarcations (based on conquests) was not during Kings Aniruddha’s and Thiluin Man’s time but during the time of 'Cansu II' ( Narapati Sithu) နရပတိစည်သူ
(6) Before Aniruddha's time the Burmans (Bamas) were a 'raw’ ethnic group’ and the Mons ‘the conquered were, in a sense, conquerors’ culturally over the Burmans.
(7) Mon language was used extensively starting from Aniruddha’s time and especially in Thiluin Man’s time. Mon rather than Burmese was ostensibly the Court language and definitely the main language of most of the inscriptions of the period from about 1084 when Thiluin Man became king of Pagan to about 1174 when 'Cansu II" စည်သူ ၂ (Narapati Sithu) became king.
(8) 'The Burmanisation' (Than Tun's term) started with Cansu II (Narapati Sithu) around 1174. Quite a few times Than Tun inferred that the Burmans owe a lot to the Mons linguistically and culturally. ‘Burmanisation’ started around 1174 and the Burmese language Myanmar Sar မြန်မာစာ or should it be/is it ? Bamar Sar ဗမာစာ) became more in use only in late 12th century.
(9) The Arigyi the supposedly corrupted ‘monks’ have been debased or denigrated by the chroniclers. Than Tun argued that the Ari did not exist before the supposed arrival of 'pure' Theravada Buddhism to Pagan around 1057 (through Shin Arahan) but only in the 13th century where they were quite popular at that time. Monks belonging to that particular sect, in some religious festivals, drank liquor and ate meat and that was about all the ‘deviant’ monks of the era did. Later chroniclers not only exaggerated the supposed shenanigans of the Arigyis but wrongly assigned the Aris to the earlier (11th) rather than the 13th century.
Almost all of the the points mentioned above do not conform to what this writer was taught (until middle school) in the history texts and in history lessons. Arguably, it can perhaps be stated that some if not almost all of the points summarised above have not (not) been incorporated in current middle and high school texts, In relatively recent Myanmar contemporary history and to be ‘provincial’, the writers (perhaps not yet the ‘chroniclers’) of the eighth standard history text of 2018- 19 academic year mentioned the artificial or ‘puffed up’ term khitpyaung taw hlan yae ခေတ်ပြောင်းတော်လှန်ရေး (‘epoch-changing revolution’ in its literal translation) to describe the take over of March 1962 and subsequent events that engulfed if not almost blighted the country.
The text also used the derogatory term pyi pyae ပြည်ပြေး
(the English translation ‘expatriate group’ does not fully convey the derogatory nature of the term pyi pyae) to describe the followers of former Prime Minister U Nu (25 May 1907-14 February 1995)’s failed rebellion from 1969 to 1980. Are we still in the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) era? (Incidentally around 2005 I have seen a paper written in English by Than Tun and published by the Myanmar Historical Commission where he strongly critiqued the BSPP regime. I have not seen such critiques by Than Tun written in the Burmese language).
This writer did mention to two current full-time and adjunct Professors of History about these anomalies if not distortions in middle school, high school history texts. Independently, both informed me that the middle and high school history texts are in the process of being revised.
Even when the new texts are produced may we really see substantive and necessary changes in terminology and orientation regarding contemporary Burmese history? Would any of Dr Than Tun’s ‘revised’ and measured analyses say of the Pagan (Bagan) era be incorporated in the ‘revised’ history texts ?
