The question of ‘China’ in Burmese chronicles

Goh Geok Yian
Historical studies of Burma–China relations have emphasised warfare, seen from the
perspective of Chinese sources. One commonly studied event is the thirteenth-century
Mongol invasion of Bagan. Burmese sources describe the flight of King Narathihapate
(1257–87) from the Mongols, thus earning the Burmese epithet ‘Taruppye’. ‘Tarup’
now refers to the Chinese, but the identities of the people and region to which the
term applies have not been constant. This paper discusses the question of the identity
of ‘ Tarup’ in the Burmese chronicles.
Introduction
The term tayok (spelled either tarup [-¡. ] or taruk [-¡- ] in different sources) is
an exonym
1
used by the Burmese to refer to the Chinese today, but a survey of the
Burmese chronicles indicates that the term has not always been used to refer to a
single homogenous entity. Tarup may have been used at various times and in various
sources to refer to at least two or three different groups who came from the region to
the north, northwest and northeast of Burma. The phrase ‘tarup amyomyo’ contains a
pun on the words ‘amyomyo’ depending on the spelling and pronunciation of the
words. ‘Amyomyo’ (±..) can refer to ‘varieties’ or ‘all sorts’.
This current discussion of the Tarup in Burmese sources represents an important
contribution to the study of early Southeast Asian perceptions of the Chinese. Few
indigenous Southeast Asian sources discuss the Chinese except for those from
Vietnam. Most Southeast Asian sources only discussed the Chinese in the context
of the Mongol invasions. The fourteenth-century Javanese text Desawarnana
describes the rulers of China as ‘Tartar’;
2
it does not refer to the Chinese at all.
Little work has been undertaken to examine Southeast Asian views of ancient
China by using indigenous texts. On the contrary, most work has focused on
Goh Geok Yian is Assistant Professor at Nanyang Technological University. Correspondence in connec-
tion with this paper should be addressed to: gygoh@ntu.edu.sg. The author would like to thank Michael
Aung-Thwin, Leonard Andaya, Kenneth R. Hall and the two anonymous reviewers for their comments
on earlier drafts of this article. I would also like to extend my gratitude to the former Librarian of the
University of Yangon Library, Saya U Thaw Kaung, the former deputy director of Universities
Historical Research Centre (UHRC), Daw Khin Hla Han and all the research assistants and librarians
of UHRC and Universities Central Library (UCL) in Yangon.
1 Exonym refers to a name given to an ethnic group by outsiders, so the members of that ethnic group
may or may not accept the moniker as an accurate description of themselves.
2 See Theodore G.Th. Pigeaud, Java in the 14th century: A study in cultural history – The
Nagara-Kertagama by Rakawi Prapanca of Majapahit, 1365 A.D. 3: Translations. Koninklijk Instituut
Voor Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde Translation Series, 4, 3 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960), p. 51.
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 41(1), pp 125–152 February 2010.
125
© The National University of Singapore, 2010 doi:10.1017/S0022463409990282
Chinese textual sources’ descriptions of early Southeast Asian polities, which are then
compared with Southeast Asian indigenous textual evidence.
3
This however does not
mean that Southeast Asian texts do not discuss China or any groups associated with
the Chinese at all, but few scholars have used indigenous sources to examine
Southeast Asian perceptions of ancient China. Scholarship has largely focused on
anthropological study of the Chinese in Southeast Asia in colonial and postcolonial
times.
The principal exception is Vietnam. The earliest Vietnamese texts, including the
Annam chi luoc and Dai Viet su luoc, were largely derived from Chinese records.
4
The ultimate motivation of most scholars who have studied these indigenous
sources has been to gain a better understanding of the workings of early
Vietnamese polities and their relations with China. Rarely have they looked at
Vietnamese views of the Chinese. Burmese descriptions of early Bagan–Tarup
relations emphasise a shared Buddhist culture; this approach to the description of
relations is unusual in Southeast Asian sources. For example during the early
Bagan period, in the competition for Buddha’s relic, the Burmese chronicles describe
the Tarup (‘China’) as the successful possessor of the relic (to the detriment of the
Burmese).
The Burmese chronicle or yazawin is one of many different genres of the
Burmese textual tradition. Yazawin, commonly translated in English as ‘chronicle’,
focuses on the royal genealogy of kings, and the rise and fall of dynasties and king-
doms. It is similar to the rajavamsa of the Sri Lankan tradition. We do not know
when the genre was introduced; the earliest extant yazawin can be dated to 1520
CE. Burmese chronicles contain numerous accounts of the relations between Tarup
pyi (‘Tarup country’, presently used to refer to China) and Burma. The best-known
example of the use of the word ‘Tarup’ appears in the epithet ‘Taruppye’ (‘he who
fled from the Chinese’) infamously borne by Narathihapate, king of Bagan (1257–
87), who fled his capital during the Mongol invasion of 1284=1287.
5
In this instance,
Tarup clearly refers to the Mongols. However, a chronological assessment of events
pertaining to Tarup reveals that at other times the term has referred to different
groups of people. This is the first study to look in depth at how a Southeast Asian
society perceived China in the precolonial period.
Why is it important to define the identity of the Tarup, and how does under-
standing the Burmese perception of the Tarup contribute to historical scholarship
of not just Burma but the larger world? On one level, the Burmese representation
of Tarup is not unique; it is a common practice by a single community, nation, king-
dom or a nation-state to apply a single label to a diverse group of people. Examples of
3 See George Coedès, The Indianized states of Southeast Asia (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii,
1968); and Paul Wheatley, Nagara and commandery: Origins of the Southeast Asian urban traditions
(Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography, 1983).
4 Keith W. Taylor, The birth of Vietnam (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Los Angeles, 1983),
pp. 350–1.
5 For detailed discussions, see Michael Aung-Thwin, Myth and history in the historiography of early
Burma: Paradigms, primary sources, and prejudices (Ohio and Singapore: Ohio University Center for
International Studies and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1998), pp. 33–62; J. Paul Bennett, ‘The
“fall of Pagan”: Continuity and change in 14
th
century Burma’, in Bennett, Conference under the tamar-
ind tree: Three essays in Burmese history (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), pp. 3–53.
126 GOH GE OK YI AN
such categorisation include the Chinese use of ‘Kunlun’
6
to refer to Southeast Asians
regardless of their ethnic, geographical and cultural diversity; the western European
appropriation of the term ‘Tartar’ to refer to both Turks and Mongols as the latter
two groups were seen in the same light as marauders on horseback;
7
and the
Burmese use of the term ‘Kula’ (--s) to refer to people from South Asia regardless
of whether they were Chola or Mughal.
How did the Burmese in the thirteenth century perceive ethnicity? What does it
matter whether the Burmese of the 1280s could distinguish between Chinese,
Mongols and Yunnanese=Tibeto-Burman speakers? Understanding whether the
Burmese distinguished these identities in the 1280s would enable us to compare
the relative compatibility between the emic (internally generated set of primordial
and ascribed traits) and the etic categories of ethnicity. Ethnicity theorists such as
Fredrik Barth emphasise that the fluctuating and dynamic nature of the boundary
between ethnic groups is constantly being negotiated and determined;
8
in the case
of Burma, Edmund Leach’s work represents the most famous study of ethnic distinc-
tions in postcolonial Burma.
9
Exploration of additional dimensions of the important
insights Leach obtained for the Shan and Kachin in the same general area has the
potential to illuminate further aspects of this topic. History as well as anthropology
can be studied through this perspective. This Tarup study fits within this framework
of enquiry by examining the process through which ethnic relations between two
6 In the Chinese account of the pilgrim Pun˙yodaya, in 656 the emperor asked the Indian pilgrim who
was then in China to travel to Kunlun, which was Southeast Asia. The account is contained in the T. 486
Maṇ ḍa¯sta sūtra; see Lin Li-kouang, ‘Puṇ yodaya (Na-t’i), un propagateur du tantrisme en Chine et au
Cambodge à l’époque de Hiuan-tsang’, Journal Asiatique, 227 (1935): 83–100; Hiram Woodward, ‘A
review article: Esoteric Buddhism in Southeast Asia in the light of recent scholarship’, Journal of
Southeast Asian Studies (henceforth JSEAS), 35, 2 (2004): 336. Paul Wheatley also pointed out that
just like ‘Suvarṇ advīpa’, ‘Kunlun’ was used by the Chinese as a regional toponym to refer to ‘a succession
of peoples ranging from the Malays around the coasts of the Peninsula to Chams along the shores of
Indo-China’; Paul Wheatley, The golden Khersonese: Studies in the historical geography of the Malay
peninsula before A.D. 1500 (Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1961), pp. 283 and 285. For
‘Po-sse’ and ‘k’un-lun-po’, refer to J. Innes Miller, The spice trade of the Roman empire: 29 B.C. to
A.D. 641 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 52; and O.W. Wolters, Early Indonesian commerce:
A study of the origins of Srivijaya (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967), ch. 6–10.
7 W.R. Jones, ‘The image of the barbarian in medieval Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and
History, 13, 4 (1971): 398–400. The Tartar threat to Europe during the later medieval period was exem-
plified in the popular legend which described Alexander the Great’s deliberate exclusion of the peoples of
Gog and Magog from his civilised world. The Gog and Magog were identified with the steppe nomads
who included the Scythians, Huns, Avars, Tartars and Turks. The Franciscan monk John of Plano de
Carpine used the term ‘Tartar’ to describe Mongol society in his descriptions of his travels to China
which was then under Mongol rule. The text he purportedly wrote was Yystoria Mongalorum or
Mongol Mission which was the source for two later documents: Hystoria Tartarorum (mid-13
th
century)
or Tartar relation and the Vinland map (mid-15
th
century). Refer to B.B. Szczesniak, ‘Notes and remarks
on the newly discovered Tartar relation and the Vinland map’, Journal of the American Oriental Society,
86, 4 (1966): 373–6. Tartary was used to signify the ‘territories occupied mostly by the Mongols or Turkic
nomads between the lower Volga and Western borders of China’ (p. 373). Fourteenth-century Javanese
poet Mpu Prapanca also used ‘Tartar’ to refer to the Mongol invaders in his work Desawarnana.
8 Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference, ed. Fredrik Barth (Oslo:
Universitets-forlaget, 1969); Thomas H. Eriksen, Ethnicity and nationalism: Anthropological perspectives
(Boulder, CO: Pluto Press, 1993).
9 Edmund R. Leach, Political systems of highland Burma: A study of Kachin social structure (London:
Athlone Press, 1970).
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 127
groups of varying composition developed over a long period of contact. Therefore the
Burmese perception of the Shans is associated with a negotiable frontier. The
Tarup-Burmese boundary, by contrast, was not negotiable. The spatial division
between the Tarup and Burmese was clearly marked by a stable border which
could not be simply crossed over by either ethnic group.
10
It is possible that the Burmese during the eleventh to thirteenth centuries perceived
ethnicity differently from the Burmese of the eighteenth century. Thus the referent of the
linguistic term‘Tarup’ could well have been characterised differently in these two periods.
In order to settle this point, it is necessary to determine whether ‘Tarup’ referred to an
ethnic category or a political entity. It is suggested here that the ethnic definition of the
Tarup was fluid, but its geopolitical association was less flexible. Tarup pyi designated
the area north and northeast of what later Burmese chroniclers considered to be the
northernmost extent of classical Burmese kingdoms’ spheres of influence.
The earliest extant Burmese chronicle, the ¸s.--.-s Yazawingyaw [‘Celebrated
Chronicle’] begun by Shin Thilawuntha (Silavaṃ sa) in 1502, does not describe the
eleventh-century ruler Anawrahta’s expedition to Tarup, but refers to Taruppye
Min’s reign as signalling the end of the Bagan dynasty.
11
The most elaborate accounts
of Burma’s relations with the Tarup appear first in the early eighteenth-century
chronicle by U Kala (c. 1678–1738), the .-s¸s.--_- Mahayazawingyi [‘Great
Chronicle’]. The Mahayazawinthit
12
[‘Great New Chronicle’] completed by
Twinthin Taikwun Mahasitthu (1726–1806) in 1798
13
contains much reduced
descriptions of the same events. Scholars such as G.H. Luce, Pe Maung Tin, U
Thaw Kaung and Dr Yi Yi have regarded this chronicle as a critical history, which
represents ‘a serious attempt to check history by means of inscriptions’.
14
The .˙,,,
10 The negotiability of boundary between Burmese and Shan on one hand and the non-negotiability of
Burmese and Tarup on the other were likely determined by the nature of relationships between these
groups. The Shan, unlike the Tarup, fell within the Burmese kingdoms’ spheres of authority in the
sense that the Shans were traditionally seen as tributaries of the Burmese states. ‘Tarup pyi’, on the
other hand, was an independent political entity comparable in size or in fact larger than the Burmese
kingdoms.
11 ¸-.-s.--.¬¸s.--.-s.¸,-,-¿s¸. Shin Maha Thilawuntha, Ra¯javan˙`kyò (Yangon: Hanthawati,
1965). I have utilised two different transliterations systems for the Burmese-language works. In the
main text the titles are transliterated phonetically as they are pronounced in Burmese, whereas in the
footnotes the Library of Congress Romanization system is used for the titles so as to allow readers to
locate these sources more efficiently.
12 -∑-.-¬_.,.s¸s.--.-.._.- ∑¸,-,_. .--s..˙.---¿s.. Twinthin Taikwun Mahasitthu, Tvan˙`” San˙`”
e* Mran`ma¯ Ra¯javan˙`sac` (Ran`kuin`: Man˙gala¯ puṃ nhip`tuik`, 1968). The first volume of Twinthin’s
chronicle published in 1968 bears the title Myanma Yazawinthit, but vols. 2 and 3 which were published
later in 1998 and 1997 respectively both bear the title Mahayazawinthit. Palm-leaf manuscript copies of
the same chronicle normally bear the title Mahayazawinthit or Yazawinthit.
13 Although there is some controversy over the date of the chronicle, most scholars such as U Tin Ohn,
U Thaw Kaung and Victor Lieberman have concurred on ‘1798’ as the date of the completion of
Twinthin’s chronicle; see Tin Ohn, ‘Modern historical writing in Burmese, 1724–1942’, in Historians
of South East Asia, ed. D.G.E Hall (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 88; Thaw Kaung, ‘Two
compilers of Myanmar history and their chronicles’, paper presented at the Universities Historical
Research Centre Golden Jubilee Conference, Yangon, Jan. 2005, p. 9; and Victor Lieberman, Strange par-
allels: Southeast Asia in global context, c. 800–1830: Volume 1: Integration on the mainland (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 198.
14 G.H. Luce and Pe Maung Tin, The Glass Palace Chronicle of the kings of Burma (Rangoon: Rangoon
University Press, 1960), p. xvii; see also Thaw Kaung, ‘Two compilers of Myanmar history and their
128 GOH GE OK YI AN
¸s.--.-s_- Hmannan Yazawindawgyi [‘Great Glass Palace Chronicle’] was
commissioned in 1829,
15
and the compilers replicated almost verbatim the elaborate
descriptions of accounts of figures, events and kingdoms found in U Kala’s chronicle
at least up to the Inwa period, which marks the end of volume three of the latter’s
work. The Hmannan does vary slightly from the latter chronicle in terms of the
organisation of the narrative sequence, insertions of certain short statements justifying
the sequence of events, and the commentaries inserted by the compilers. When these
chronicles were compiled, China was ruled by the Qing dynasty, and Chinese govern-
ment was more highly centralised than at any previous period. This situation may
have led the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Burmese writers to project the con-
cept of Tarup as an all-encompassing category that referred to the Chinese in the past.
This could explain the chroniclers’ tendency to see Tarup=China as a single political
unit. The chroniclers may have assumed that the Tarup of the earlier periods con-
formed to this categorisation. The chronicles contain perhaps the largest repository
of information on Burma’s relations with neighbouring polities, including Tarup.
This is one major justification for the use of the Burmese chronicles as important
sources of information on early Burmese history. The chronicles also contain hitherto
relatively unexplored Burmese perceptions of their neighbours.
Even if the Burmese writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw the
term ‘Tarup’ as the unified polity China, this is a very broad subject which cannot
be resolved in one article. Instead, this contribution focuses on one aspect of the
chronicles: their treatment of ethnicity. It is not possible to state that the chronicles
are entirely accurate, nor are they completely fantastical. Instead it is likely that
there are areas and sources of concern which reflect genuine historical situations,
whereas others – such as political factionalism, for example – are much more likely
to be altered by subsequent editors. When the compilers of sixteenth- through
nineteenth-century Burmese chronicles used the term ‘Tarup’, they were referring
to the ‘Tarup’ of the specific time periods they were discussing. The rendering of
‘Tarup’ as ‘China’ or ‘Chinese’ is likely a nineteenth- and twentieth-century modern
construction imposed on earlier Burmese texts and the past in general. There are two
variables to note here: first, the Burmese perception of who they think the Tarup were
and second the actual territory of Tarup which might have consisted of quite diverse
groups.
The reliability of the Burmese chronicles has often been questioned and that has
made historians reluctant to use them as reliable sources. J.D. Legge’s statement that
‘it can be argued that — with the exception of Vietnam whose dynastic historians did
attempt to preserve a record of events — there was no genuinely historical tradition in
Southeast Asia’ shows that the reluctance to use traditional chronicles extends to other
writing traditions in the region too.
16
Most Western scholars, such as G.E. Harvey,
D.G.E. Hall, John Cady and even Gordon Luce himself, refused to accept chronicles
chronicles’, and Dr Yi Yi, ‘A bibliographical essay on the Burmese sources for the history of the
Konbaung period, 1752–1885’, Bulletin of the Burma Historical Commission, 3 (1963): 143–70.
15 .˙,,,.-s¸s.--.-s ”-..±.-∑.¸,-,_. ..---.s-±-.,.¸-¿¿¸. Mhan`nan`” Maha¯ra¯javan˙`to `krī”
(Hmannan Maha Yazawindawgyi) (Ran`kuin`: Myui” Khyac` Sit`dha¯t` Thak`san`re”, 1992), 3 vols.
16 J.D. Legge, ‘The writing of Southeast Asian history’, in The Cambridge history of Southeast Asia,
vol. 1, ed. Nicholas Tarling (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 2.
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 129
as histories, criticising their use of legends and folktales on the one hand and their
concern with legitimisation on the other. Cady wrote in his preface: ‘the dependable
sources covering Burmese-British relations are almost entirely in English. The rel-
evant historical chronicles prepared by the Burmese Court down to 1885 were
often designed not to record actual happenings but to salve royal prestige.’
17
Hall
even went to the extent of questioning the ability of contemporary Burmese scholars
to produce serious historical works. He noted in his review of Maung Htin Aung’s
book, The stricken peacock: ‘it seems highly doubtful whether a work of adequate criti-
cal standards can be produced by a Burmese scholar’.
18
Burmese scholars, on the other hand, were split into two camps: Western-educated
scholars like the late Than Tun tended to treat the chronicles with a tinge of distrust,
whereas others such as Maung Htin Aung and U Tet Htoot tended to treat them as
factual histories.
19
Within the last three decades, scholars in general have become
more open to the idea of using the chronicles as sources for specific periods of
Burmese history. Lieberman, for instance, suggests at least two reasons which support
the historicity of Burmese chronicles such as the Mahayazawingyi: the influence of the
Theravada historiographic tradition, which emphasises ‘accurate history’, and the
degree of discretion the Burmese chroniclers exercised by not discussing contemporary
issues.
20
By avoiding discussion of contemporary issues, writers were able to eliminate
at least one potential source of biased interpretation. In a recent article, Michael
Aung-Thwin argues that the Burmese chronicles provide accurate descriptions of the
notion of ‘Mranma Pran’ and its reality.
21
The usage of ‘Tarup’ was not new; it can be found in the 1285 inscription of Shin
Dissapramok. The twelfth-century Bagan temple, Kyanzittha Umin, also contains a
depiction of what the Burmese now refer to as Mongol warriors with their bows and
arrows. The eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Burmese writers would have been
aware of these references to the Tarup. By attempting to distinguish between the
Tarup at different periods, it is possible to get a better idea of how to use the chronicles.
A comparison of the chronicles with Chinese sources reveals that in spite of the cultural
bias of each country’s histories, it is possible to glean from them a perspective on the
distant past. This perspective will allow one to understand the worldview of the
eleventh-, thirteenth- and eighteenth-century Burmese, diverse as they were.
It is possible to isolate two variant forms of contact in a diachronic study of the
interactions between the Burmese
22
rulers and the Tarup Utibhwa (-¡.¡-_-∑s). The
17 John F. Cady, A history of modern Burma (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1958), p. vi.
18 See Reynaldo Ileto, ‘On the historiography of Southeast Asia and the Philippines: The “Golden Age”
of Southeast Asian Studies — experiences and reflections’, paper presented at Workshop for the
Academic Frontier Project: ‘Social change in Asia and the Pacific’, Meiji Gakuin University, 1–2 Mar.
2003, p. 12.
19 Htin Aung, Burmese history before 1287: A defense of the chronicles (Oxford: Asoka Society, 1970);
Htin Aung, A history of Burma (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967); Tet Htoot, ‘The nature of
Burmese chronicles’, in Hall ed., Historians of South East Asia, pp. 50–62.
20 Victor Lieberman, ‘How reliable is U Kala’s chronicle? Some new comparisons’, JSEAS, 17, 2 (1986):
253.
21 See Michael Aung-Thwin, ‘Mranma Pran: When context encounters notion’, JSEAS, 39, 2 (2008):
193–217.
22 Burmese is used here to refer to the rulers of various kingdoms which existed at different periods in
what is known today as Myanmar=Burma.
130 GOH GE OK YI AN
first appears to be conducted within the scope of a religious network which spanned
the region from India and Sri Lanka across Burma and northern Thailand to south-
eastern China and parts of Central Asia between the tenth and thirteenth centuries.
The other appears to represent a shift of ideology, from one informed by religion
to one that is concerned with territorial expansion and political sovereignty. This
transformation took place when large states disintegrated some time after the
Mongol invasion of 1284=87. The first form of interaction can be perceived within
the scope of religious cosmopoleis whereby individual cities such as Bagan and
Tarup (Gandhara Division) represent two among numerous cities which comprised
a religious oikoumene or commonwealth.
23
An analysis of the accounts of
Burmese–Tarup relations provides clues to who and what was Tarup and thus con-
tributes to a better understanding of the complex relations between Myanmar and
‘Tarup’ (China) today. The second theme of contact is represented by the smaller
socio-political and urban Burmese cosmopoleis which emphasised ethnic differences,
fought with each other and often enlisted the help of the Tarup to resolve these con-
flicts. In this later period, competition for resources such as people, land and commer-
cial gains determines the nature of the Tarup–Burmese relationship, not religious
values.
Tarup Amyomyo (‘varieties of Tarup’)
The question of who and what was Tarup is not new; it is rather a revisiting of an
old question posed by G.H. Luce in 1959. What is interesting is not that Luce never
resolved the controversy but rather that this issue, like numerous other questions
which emerged in the study of Burmese past, was never picked up by another scholar
or student, except Michael Aung-Thwin. In a footnote in Myth and history in the his-
toriography of early Burma, Aung-Thwin wrote, ‘The word Tarup or Tarok is a cur-
rent reference to the Chinese, but was said to have been a reference, at the time [i.e.,
the thirteenth century], to Turks in the Mongol armies. However, the latter interpret-
ation is not entirely correct, since contemporary (Pagan period) and near-
contemporary (Ava period) inscriptions clearly used the word to refer to the
Chinese.’
24
Aung-Thwin refers here to Sir Arthur Phayre’s suggestion that Tarup is
derived from the Chinese word for the Turks, who comprised a large contingent of
the Mongol army during the thirteenth century. Luce, on the other hand, notwith-
standing the fact that he was writing at an earlier time, found it a perplexing enigma.
He wrote, ‘whether the Taruk in Old Burmese ever means, as it does today, the
Chinese, is highly questionable’.
25
Luce believed that Taruk ought to refer to the
Mongols based on the inscription of 1285, which describes Shin Dissapramok’s
peace mission to China. In this inscription, the ‘Taruk king’ is Kubilai Khan. Luce
23 In the words of Marius the Epicure, polis can also refer to a commonwealth. ‘Ho kosmos hùsanei polis
estin — the world is as it were a commonwealth, a city: and there are observances, customs, usages, actu-
ally current in it, things our friends and companions will expect of us, as the condition of our living there
with them at all, as really their peers or fellow-citizens.’ Walter Pater, Marius the epicure, vol. 2, Etext of
the Project Gutenberg. http:==www.gutenberg.org=etext=4058 (last accessed on 2 Mar. 2009), p. 12.
24 Aung-Thwin, Myth and history, p. 162.
25 G.H. Luce, ‘Note on the peoples of Burma in the 12
th
–13
th
century A.D.’, Journal of the Burma
Research Society [henceforth JBRS], 42, 1 (June 1959): 69.
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 131
also tended to accept Phayre’s allusion to the Turks: ‘the word Taruk (probably
‘Turk’) comes in first with the Mongols, at the end of the Pagán dynasty’.
26
Phonetically Tarup and Tujue
27
(突厥, the Chinese term for Turk) sound a little
different; although it is possible that the former could have been a mispronunciation
of the latter. In addition the word ‘turuk’, which sounds close to the Burmese Tarup,
was used in the eighth-century inscriptions of the Orkhon valley in Mongolia,
regarded as the heartlands of the Mongol civilisation. The Orkhon inscriptions are
bilingual, comprising both minor Chinese-language texts and inscriptions written
in a form of Turkic script (Orkhon).
28
Though these do not by any means prove
with certainty that the Burmese term Tarup indeed was derived from the Chinese
term for the Turks, it is a possibility which requires further investigation.
Paul Pelliot, on the other hand, tended to think of Tarup as originating
from Daliguo (大理國), the old kingdom of Nanzhao (南詔), based on his
reading of the Hledauk inscription of 1110–11 CE.
29
Pelliot was an influential
Sinologist whose research on Chinese sources pertaining to Southeast Asia and
Burma in particular was considered by scholars such as Luce to be most reliable.
Luce had studied early Chinese sources with Pelliot and Louis Finot, another famous
Sinologist, at the Sorbonne in Paris in 1917. Luce suggested that it is likely that the
Burmese, reflecting their perception of the Mongols, saw the Nanzhao troops as also
being Tarup.
30
Here I will suggest two other possible origins of ‘Tarup’: first as a literal transli-
teration of ‘Dayue’ from Chinese references to the group they called ‘Dayuezhi’ (大月
支or 大月氏) and second as a corruption of ‘Tangut’. ‘Dayue’ supports the argument
that ‘Tarup’ did in fact refer to a Turkic-speaking group of people, in this case, the
Kusan or Kushan Huns. ‘[T]he Annals of Wei (c. CII fol. 15) say that “the kingdom
of Ta Yüe-Chi (Kušan Huns) … was bordered on the north by the Jwen-Jwen [the
Juan Juan or Avar Turks], and they were often exposed to their attacks. They therefore
moved westward and established themselves in the city of Po-lo”.’
31
This westward
migration supposedly began around the year 450 CE. By 468 CE, most of the
Kušan had settled in India following Peroz’s victory over them. C.A. Macartney
describes how the term ‘Turk’ or the Greek rendering of it, ‘Toue-Kioue’,
32
was
26 G.H. Luce, Old Burma-early Pagan (Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin Publisher, 1969), p. 28; and G.
H. Luce, ‘The early Syam in Burma’s history: A supplement’, Journal of the Siam Society [henceforth JSS],
47, 1 (June 1959): 136, 184.
27 For discussion of Tujue and China’s relations with the Turks, see Pan Yihong, Son of Heaven and
Heavenly Qaghan: Sui-Tang China and its neighbors (Bellingham, WA: Center for East Asian Studies,
Western Washington University, 1997), and Victor Cunrui Xiong’s review of Pan’s book in China
Review International, 6, 2 (1999): 511–14.
28 György Kara, ‘Aramaic scripts for Altaic languages’, in The world’s writing systems, ed. Peter Daniels
and William Bright (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 536–58.
29 Luce, ‘Note on the peoples of Burma’, p. 69.
30 Ibid., pp. 69–70.
31 C.A. Macartney, ‘On the Greek sources for the history of the Turks in the sixth century’, Bulletin of
the School of Oriental and African Studies, 11, 2 (1944): 268, quoting Édouard Specht, ‘Études sur l’Asie
centrale d’après les historiens chinois’, Journal Asiatique, Série 8, 2 (1883): 327–8.
32 According to Macartney’s discussion of Németh’s description of Mongol tribal names, the Avars,
Huns (including the Kushan) and Toue-Kioue belong to the same linguistic branch of the Turkish family.
The Kushan can thus be considered Turkic-speaking people or in many ways, Turks.
132 GOH GE OK YI AN
used ‘almost in consecutive breaths to describe different peoples…’.
33
This is a com-
mon problem with using ethnonyms and exonyms,
34
which can be used to refer to
more than one specific language group or ethnic group or sometimes to a group of
people occupying a particular geographical location. It is possible that ‘Tarup’ rep-
resents the Burmese attempt to render the Chinese name of the Dayuezhi or
Kushan, known to be Buddhists. In the context of the eleventh century, and consider-
ing that the references to Tarup during Anawrahta’s reign emphasise the Buddhist
character of the Tarup polity, it is probable that in the universal history of
Buddhism the Burmese chroniclers of later times continued to refer to the former ter-
ritory once occupied by the Kushan as ‘Tarup’, derived from Dayue. That the meaning
of Tarup of the pre-Mongol invasion period is closely tied up with the history of
Buddhism should be acknowledged as an important factor in determining the identity
of the Tarup during this early time period.
‘Tarup’ as a corruption of ‘Tangut’ fits well within the context of Burmese histor-
iographers’ interest in relating Burma’s history of kingdoms with the history of
Buddhism, particularly in the case of the reference to Tarup-‘China’ in the period
before the Mongol invasion. Tangut refers to the ethnic group which established
the state of Xia (1038–1227), which also came to be known as Xixia. ‘Tangut’ is an
ethnic name which first appeared in Orkhon Turkic runic inscriptions of 735.
35
The Tangut elite spoke a language which is related to Tibetan, and referred to them-
selves as ‘Mi’ or ‘Mi-nyag’ in Tibetan. They never called themselves ‘Tangut’, a name
attributed to them by outsiders, particularly the Chinese who called them ‘Dangxiang’
黨項. Tangut Xixia began building its empire around the same time Bagan rose to
prominence as a Buddhist centre around 1038. It is probable that the eighteenth-
and nineteenth-century Burmese chroniclers knew that Tangut Xixia was a
Buddhist contemporary of eleventh-century Bagan. It had requested and received
numerous Buddhist scriptures from Song China, and was an important nexus of
the Buddhist communications and trade network between India and China. There
were at least three overland routes linking these various Buddhist polities: a
Tibetan route through Central Asia, a route from Khotan through Gilgit and
Chilas, and the third and by far the oldest, which could be divided into two sub-
routes, both of which crossed Burma.
36
Along these overland routes and networks religious persons, texts and relics cir-
culated. It would thus not be surprising if Burmese chroniclers of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries recorded Tangut Xixia as representing the contemporary and
powerful Buddhist polity of Tarup pyi, especially since Buddhism was on the wane
in Song China. The Tangut court was said to have ‘commemorated 150 relic frag-
ments of the Buddha with lavish gifts and donations’ in 1038,
37
illustrating the devout
33 Macartney, ‘On the Greek sources for the history of the Turks in the sixth century’, p. 272.
34 Anthropologically ethnonyms have been used to refer exclusively to names which ethnic groups have
given themselves as opposed to exonyms which refer to names given by outsiders.
35 Ruth W. Dunnell, The great state of White and High: Buddhism and state formation in eleventh-
century Xia (Honolulu: University of Hawaìi Press, 1996), p. xiii.
36 Tansen Sen, Buddhism, diplomacy, and trade: The realignment of Sino-Indian relations, 600–1400
(Honolulu: Association for Asian Studies and University of Hawai`i Press, 2003), pp. 171–4.
37 Ibid., p. 191.
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 133
Buddhist character of Xixia. In addition, the latter was a militarily strong neighbour of
Song China which, having suffered countless defeats in battles with the Khitans,
Jurchens and Tanguts, agreed to send it an ‘annual tribute of 50,000 tales of silver,
130,000 bolts of silk, and 10,000 catties of tea in exchange for peace’ in 1044,
38
coin-
cidentally the first year of King Anawrahta’s reign.
It would appear that before the Mongol invasion Tarup could have referred to
one of several different ethno-political groups, although it is likely that the Tarup
of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, particularly during Anawrahta’s reign (1044–
77) could only have been either Tangut or Nanzhao. By contrast, the 1285
Dissapramok inscription clearly suggests that the Tarup referred to were the
Mongols or Yuan, and this is a point agreed upon by several scholars from Luce
through Chen Yi-sein and Aung-Thwin. The main points of dispute revolve around
the actual date of Dissapramok’s mission, whether it preceded or followed another
mission by Anantapisan and Mahabuiw, and whether there were two journeys instead
of one.
39
As these issues lie beyond the scope of my article, it will be sufficient to note
that the Tarup described in this inscription and referred to in the chronicles with
reference to King Narathihapate were the Mongols. Whether the Mongols actually
reached Bagan or whether Narathihapate fled in fear as stated in the chronicles is irre-
levant. It will be noted that in the inscription, during the year Sakkaraj 647 (1285 CE),
the king who was then staying in Hlaykya, in the western part of the country, wished
to be informed of the coming of the Tarup.
40
This suggests that during the year 1285,
the latter had not yet reached where the king was staying and therefore most likely
had not reached Bagan.
The Yuan shi contains numerous accounts of campaigns against the Mian
(Burmese) and tribute missions by them. One account describes a campaign sent
against the Burmese in 1284, which succeeded in invading Tagaung, attacking with
200 boats.
41
The Yuan shi stated that Mian country sent a diplomatic mission led
by ‘Ma-la-bu’ and ‘Ti-ban-de’ with tribute.
42
The mission by Mahabuiw and
Anantapisan is therefore corroborated by the Yuan shi, even though that source
38 Ibid., p. 153.
39 For a detailed discussion on these issues, see Chen Yi Sein, ‘The Chinese inscription at Pagan’,
Bulletin of the Burma Historical Commission, 1, 2 (1960); Chen Yi Sein, ‘Rhan Disapamkha Nrim
Khyam Re Mac Rhan Aphwai’ [Account of Shin Disapramok’s peace mission], Nuin˙n˙am˙ Samuin˙
Sutesana [Researches in Burmese History], 1 (1977): 41–57; G.H. Luce ‘The early Syam in Burma’s his-
tory’, JSS, 46, 2 (1958); Luce, ‘The early Syam in Burma’s history: A supplement’, pp. 59–101; Than Tun,
‘History of Buddhism in Burma: A.D. 1000–1300’, JBRS, 61, 1-2 (1978): 1–266; and Aung-Thwin, Myth
and history, chs. 2 and 3.
40 '.-¸-s¸¸._.-'.¦-.˙-._._±.,s----˙_-.-.- ”-,.--.¬.±,.†.-_.'-s¦.---,----¡-¬±-s±-s-- . ”.
-.-.--.-.¬±,.†'.¦-_.-s.-±-¬.¯ ¡_-...s-..¸.-s-_.,.s.-s--s.s--.-∑.-˚¸s.s¸¸ .˙s¿¿.¸,-,_. .¸˙
.-s-..-.,¡-_s, -¿.,. U Ngyein Maung (U Nrim`” Mon˙`), Rhe”hon˙`” Mran`ma¯ Kyok`sa¯mya¯”.
Tatiyatvai. Sakkara¯j`622 mha 699 (Ran`kuin`mrui’: Rhe”hon˙` Sutesana Usī”ṭ ha¯na, 1983), p. 141. An
account of these events is discussed in Aung-Thwin, Myth and history, pp. 42–3; Aung-Thwin is the
first scholar to mention and demonstrate that Hlaykya was the place to which Narathihapate fled.
41 The account can be found in Song Lian, Yuanshi [History of the Yuan Dynasty] Shanghai: Zhonghua
Book Image and Print, 1935), pp. 253–4. See also Zhongguo gujizhong youguan Miandian ziliao huibian
[Compilation of research materials on Myanmar in ancient Chinese sources], ed. Yu Dingbang and
Huang Zhongyan (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2002), p. 40.
42 Song Lian, Yuan shi, vol. 15, p. 311; Yu and Huang ed., Zhongguo gujizhong, p. 43.
134 GOH GE OK YI AN
contains many references to campaigns against the Burmese which are not mentioned
in Burmese inscriptions or later chronicles.
The account of the Mongols is one of the better-known episodes in the Burmese
chronicles, but it is not the only description of the Tarup; there are other accounts of
Burmese interactions with the Tarup prior to and after the reign of King
Narathihapate. Examples may be taken from King Pyuminhti’s reign (Tharehkettara
or Sriksetra kingdom) to the Ava-Burma period (reigns of Rajadhiraj and Ava king
Minkhaung). Several Burmese texts contain variant versions of the same events.
These include U Kala’s Mahayazawingyi, Twinthin Taikwun Mahasithu’s
Mahayazawinthit, and the Hmannan Yazawindawgyi, which were referred to earlier.
Others, which have not been discussed yet, are: (1) a palm-leaf recension of the
Bagan Yazawin [Bagan Chronicle], believed to have been compiled some time during
the later part of the nineteenth century; (2) the Bagan Yazawinthit or
Yazawunthazalinikyam [New Bagan Chronicle], whose date of composition is unknown
but is believed by most scholars to have been compiled after the original Bagan Yazawin;
and (3) the Zatadawpon Yazawin [Chronicle of Royal Horoscopes], which was most
likely compiled over a long span of time by different authors, although the introduction
to the 1960 printed edition suggests that the text was compiled during the reign of King
Minyeh Kyawhtin (c. 1672–98).
43
Aung-Thwin, however, believes that ‘the earliest
portions of this text appear to have been written sometime in the late thirteenth or
early fourteenth centuries’.
44
These chronicles discuss the subject of Burma–Tarup relations more extensively
than inscriptions and other sources of information. Even though the information in
the chronicles was not necessarily recorded at the time of the events which they are
supposedly describing, they are still the primary source that historians must rely on.
The accounts in the Burmese chronicles will be discussed in conjunction with refer-
ences corresponding to the events, figures or time periods taken from Chinese sources
such as the Yuan shi and Ming Shilu wherever possible. Even though the Burmese
chronicles are not contemporaneous with the Chinese sources, their descriptions of
the events which involve both countries characterise important information on the
Tarup.
The Tarup in Burmese chronicles
The earliest extant Burmese chronicle to mention ‘Tarup’ is Shin Thilawuntha’s
Yazawingyaw, which was composed in 1520. It appears in the infamous epithet
Taruppye (-¡.._.) bestowed on King Narathihapate. In the chronology of Burmese
history, the earliest reference to ‘Tarup’ appears in the accounts describing the
destruction of Tagaung kingdom in roughly the fifth century CE. This account can
be found in the Hmannan Yazawindawgyi, but not the other two earlier chronicles,
43 ¡-˙--'-˙..,¦..s-s.-s.¸s.--.¸,-,._._.-s--.¡.-.-, ”-_s,.¡.-s-..-.,_,_-s.¸-,¡.¡.-s-
-s...˙-.¡.-._s,-.-¿s-. U. Hla Tin, Jãtãto`pum. Rãjawan˙` (Zatadawpon Yazawin) (Ran`kun`:
Praññ`ton˙`cu Yañ`kye“mhu van`krī” t ̣ ãna, Rhe“hon˙`” Sutesana Ññvhan`krã“ re”van`ruṃ , Rhe“hon˙”
cãpe nhan˙’` yañ`kye” mhu t ̣ ãna, 1960), p. 1.
44 Michael Aung-Thwin, The mists of Ra¯mañña: The legend that was lower Burma (Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i Press, 2005), p. 121.
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 135
U Kala’s Mahayazawingyi and Twinthin Taikwun Mahasitthu’s Mahayazawinthit.
The Hmannan states:
During the reign of King Bheinnaka, the last of those kings of Tagaung country called
Sanghassaratha, the Tarup and Tayek from Sein country [-, is an archaic word used
to refer to China], Gandhalaraj division came to disrupt and destroy the great country
of Tagaung named Sanghassatha. King Bheinnaka assembled all his remaining troops
and they entered Malaykhyaung where they remained.
45
According to this account, the Tarup attacked Tagaung with another ‘ethnic’
group, Tayek. Who were these Tayek? Were they the ‘Dayue zhi’, a term used by
the Chinese to refer to the Kushan? It is now known that the Kushan spoke
Tokharic, which has been identified as an Indo-European language, but Kushan
chronology remains ‘an unresolved problem’; as ‘much has been built up on indirect
sources’, it is possible that the Kushan have been characterised as ‘Turks’ as a result of
later writings. Benjamin Walker argues that ‘Kushan’ is the name of ‘a group of
Mongolian tribes of Central Asia known to the Chinese chroniclers as Yu-chi (or
Yueh-chi), and to medieval historians like Kalhana as the Turushka (Turks or
Tartar)’.
46
Considering that the earliest extant Burmese chronicle (Yazawingyaw)
was compiled in the early sixteenth century, it is possible that the Kushan were
characterised as Turks or Turkic speakers by the medieval period. The Tarup and
Tayek could very well refer to two related groups, the Kushan and the Turkic groups
who did inhabit the Gandhara region from which the Buddha’s tooth relic originated.
Even though ‘Sein’ is an archaic term
47
used to refer to China, it was used to designate
a general area in which China was located in relation to Burma. Gandharalaj, Sein
country, refers thus to the Central Asian homeland from which the Kushan (Tarup
and Tayek) came from. Chronologically when this attack on Tagaung took place
around the fifth century, the Kushan of Gandhara were close to completing their
mass exodus from Central Asia into northern India. Could this purported attack
on Tagaung represent a foray made by the fleeing Kushan on the kingdom located
in the northern region of Burma? It is possible, but only a speculation, since it
would be difficult to prove.
Another reference to ‘Tarup’ appears in the section of the chronicle under the
first kingdom of Arimaddana-Bagan. This account describes the legendary King
Pyuminhti’s victory over a numerically superior army of Tarup soldiers, an event pur-
portedly celebrated as one of the twelve great festivals of Pyuminhti. Other festivals
include the king’s slaying of the four great enemies of Bagan: giant boar, giant flying
squirrel, giant bird and giant tiger. ‘It is one festival [to commemorate] the time when
45 Mhan`nan`” Maha¯ra¯javan˙`to`krī”, vol. 1, p. 156; Pe and Luce, Glass Palace Chronicle, p. 3.
46 Benjamin Walker, Hindu world: An encyclopedic survey of Hinduism, vol. 1 (New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal, 1983), pp. 581–2. Vincent Smith wrote that ‘a tribe of Turkī nomads, known to Chinese
authors as the Hiung-nū [Xiongnu], succeeded in inflicting upon a neighbouring and rival horde of
the same stock a decisive defeat before the middle of the second century B.C.’; Vincent A. Smith, The
early history of India, 3
rd
edn (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 1999), p. 248 (emphasis
added).
47 According to Department of the Myanmar Language Commission, Myanmar-English dictionary
(Yangon: Department of the Myanmar Language Commission, Ministry of Education, 1993), p. 125.
136 GOH GE OK YI AN
the great king on elephant marched with his cavalry and elephant troops to do battle
as a unified whole against more than ten million and hundreds of Tarup soldiers
arrived at Kawthambhi town, which had formerly been a village in the country.’
48
Another chronicle, Bagan Yazawin, contains an elaborate description of the actual
battle, noting that it took place over three months.
49
These first two accounts of
‘Tarup’ clearly characterise it as a military power, capable of wreaking destruction
in the first instance, and not a match for the supernatural legendary prowess of
Pyuminhti in the second.
Burmese depictions of the Tarup in connection with the Bagan period
The first religious allusion to the Tarup is likely the account contained in the
Yazawunthazalini, otherwise known as the Bagan Yazawinthit [New Bagan
Chronicle]. Although the version of the text used here is undated, Luce and Pe
Maung Tin noted that it ‘was said to have been written in 1785’.
50
In the
Yazawunthazalini, an unusual connection is made between Tarup and the ‘heretical’
Ari monks of Bagan which cannot be found in the main chronicles of Yazawingyaw,
Mahayazawingyi, Mahayazawinthit and Hmannan Yazawindawgyi. This description
interestingly points out the unsavory aspects of Tarup monks’ behaviour. In one
instance, it refers to Tarup arahant robes: ‘Those Ari monks do not wear the dye-
cloths of hermits or monks (which is made with boiled tree bark) but like the
Panlaung and Tarup monks, when they wear indigo blue dark cloths they place a
new bamboo in their heavy hair.’
51
The passage is not found in U Kala’s Mahayazawingyi, however, which gives an
account of the Ari monks and their followers, their practice of the wrong law and their
use of charms to beguile others, but does not refer to their appearance. The descrip-
tion is also omitted in the Hmannan Yazawindawgyi and Bagan Yazawin. This
suggests that the description was probably inserted during the compilation of the
Yazawunthazalini. Whether the description was inserted at a more recent time is per-
haps not as important as the two following points: Ari, Tarup and Panlaung monks
do not belong to the same school of Buddhism as the Burmese hermit monks (who
practice the ‘correct’ Law), and there are distinctive differences in the dress code. As
an integral part of establishing the ‘correct’ form of Buddhism (Theravada) in Bagan,
Anawrahta carried out a purging of Ari monks who were considered heretics.
Religiously, the similarity between Ari, Tarup and Panlaung monks suggests that
they belong to what could have been a branch of Mahayana Buddhism, especially
48 .--.-s.-_--..s .-s..ı‘. . -._±¸s.-..s-¡.--._- .¸s-..s±. .-_--..-s-- ±--_.-¸-±.s
.˙- ..-s._ . ˙.,--._-.-s...s.∑-_-_-.. ¡--s..-s¸s.-- ”-..±.±..±¸s.∑—-__-_._.¸,-,_. _.,
.s..-., ±.--¿s-..±.¸˙._. U Kala, Mahayazawingyi, vol. 1 (Yangon: Burma Research Society,
1960), 142; Twinthin, Tvan˙`” San˙`” e* Mran`ma¯ Ra¯javan˙`sac`, p. 55; Mhan`nan`”
Maha¯ra¯javan˙`to`krī”, vol. 1, p. 203; see also Pe and Luce, Glass Palace Chronicle, p. 41.
49 .-¸s.--. Pugaṃ Ra¯javan˙`, palm-leaf manuscript Accession no. 585 (Yangon: Universities Historical
Research Centre, 1895), leaves - —.-s to - —-.; leaves - —-. to - —.-s. 1895 refers not to the original year
of composition, but rather to the date on which this particular manuscript was copied.
50 Pe and Luce, Glass Palace Chronicle, p. xv.
51 ±±¸__-- -s.-,¸_-∑,..s±---.--...-s-¸-,-¡.¸-,.s-. .-_._.s± ,- ±._-----±.-
.-.---±s¬..¸--¸----∑ ..±_-.-s.-s--s¡-s.¸_-_.,.s._s¸˙¡.-.¸s.-..s-, ._..s.-¸s.--.-. U Bhe,
Ra¯zavam˙ sara¯linī maññ`so Pugam˙ Ra¯zavan˙`sac`, p. 106. This text contains no publication date.
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 137
one which emphasises the use of spells, incantations and other means of aiding people
in their path toward salvation.
The next reference to ‘Tarup’ in the Burmese chronicles appears in the account of
King Anawrahta’s march to Gandhara division in Tarup country. The
Yazawunthazalini states that King Anawrahta based on the saying that the Buddha’s
tooth relic is in Gandhara division, marches toward Tarup kingdom once the weapons
and artillery for the purpose of besieging are assembled.
52
A similar description can be
found in the Mahayazawingyi:
Anawrahtaminsaw wanting to generate a lot of faith in the noble religion begins to form
a plan. ’There is a noble Buddha’s tooth relic in the Gandhalaraj division which beca-
me=which will be Tarup country. In asking the Tarup Utibhwa for the noble
Buddha’s tooth relic, all sentient beings together will be able to worship it and as
such the noble religion also to a large extent exceedingly shall shine, and all sentient
beings will also enjoy the many rewards until the end of 5,000 [years] of the noble reli-
gion’. In stating this and when the plan is made, [he] assembles the elephants, horses and
soldiers in the whole nation and [once he] gathers [all] 36 million [soldiers] by water
route, 36 million [soldiers] by land route together with the four spirit horses [implying
that it would include his four warriors, Kyansittha, Ngahtweyu, Ngalonlekhpek, and
Nyaung U Bhi] and the Shwephya brothers, to march to Tarup country.
53
The versions of this account in Bagan Yazawin
54
and Mahayazawinthit
55
contain
some major variations. The Hmannan Yazawindawgyi contains an almost verbatim
description of what was recorded in U Kala’s chronicle with few differences.
56
There are several important points pertaining to this description of Anawrahta’s inter-
est in marching to Tarup country.
First, the title of the Tarup ‘ruler’ or Tarup Utibhwa (¡-_-∑s) is of interest.
There are two possible literal meanings of utibhwa: one which refers to the hereditary
nature of the position where ‘bhwa’ (-∑s) in Burmese suggests ‘to be born (with)’, as in
the case of the Burmese rendering of Shan ‘saopha’ as ‘sawbhwa’ (.-s-∑s),
57
and the
other suggesting a woman leader, which seems less likely. Utibhwa is most likely a
hereditary rank passed down through a line of chiefs. It is also highly likely that
the utibhwa is not the ruler of Tarup, but an official appointed by the Chinese
ruler. Should the emperor of China be referred to, the title of mingyi (.-”-) or ekayaj
(.-¸s. ) would have been used, as in the context of the Dissapramok inscription,
which refers to the mingyi Kubilai Khan, and other contemporary Burmese inscriptions
where the king is mentioned. Luce suggested that ‘utibhwa’ was a term derived ‘from
52 Ibid., p. 115.
53 U Kala, Mahayazawingyi, vol. 1, pp. 184–5. This passage can be found in the fourth volume of the
chronicle, published in the second book of the 1960 edition which contains three books altogether.
54 Pugaṃ Ra¯javan˙`, leaves -.-.-s to .--..
55 Twinthin, Tvan˙`” San˙`” e* Mran`ma¯ Ra¯javan˙`sac`, pp. 86–7.
56 Mhan`nan`” Maha¯ra¯javan˙`to`krī”, vol. 1, p. 250.
57 Sawbhwa is the Burmese transliteration of the Shan title, saopha (---), which is often defined as
‘king’ or ‘prince’ in Shan language, and refers to the Shan chieftains of olden days. Saw in Shan language
refers to ‘lord or master’ (Cushing’s Shan-English dictionary: A phonetic version, ed. Thomas J. Hudak
(Tempe: Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies, Monograph Series Press,
2000), p. 205.
138 GOH GE OK YI AN
titles conferred by Tibet on the Nan-chao [Nanzhao] emperor in the 8
th
century —
lorded it over the plains’.
58
He also wondered whether ‘bhwa’ might have been derived
from the Burmese term sawbhwa.
59
It is very likely that utibhwa relates to the Nanzhao
leader, even though etymologically it is difficult to prove the origin of the term. A note-
worthy point is that utibhwa certainly does not refer to the Chinese emperor and
implies a title conferred by a higher authority, either the Chinese emperor or – as argued
by Luce – by Tibet on a leader of Nanzhao.
The next question pertains to whether Tarup is the name of an administrative
region, a protectorate or a vassal country of China. Tarup is described as a ‘pyi’
(_._ ) in both chronicle and epigraphic references, which means simultaneously two
different spatial categories: a country and a royal city. In this context it certainly refers
to a country, but this does not necessarily imply any inherent autonomy. There are
examples in the chronicles which refer to entities such as Bagan, Tharehkettara
(Sriksetra), Thaton and Pegu, as a ‘pyi’ in one instance and a ‘myo’ in another.
Obviously the latter is used to refer specifically to the city or capital (another variation
of which is the term naypyidaw [.,_._.-s ] or place=seat of the abode or country)
while the former pertains to the area which falls directly under the circle of influence
of the sovereign of the country. This, however, does not negate the possibility that a
pyi may have an overlord to whom it pays tribute or pledges allegiance. ‘Tarup’ may
perhaps refer to China after all and it is only through transference of identity that the
utibhwa, an official or vassal of the emperor of China becomes known as the heredi-
tary leader=chief of Tarup.
The next issue concerns the location of Gandhalaraj (or Gandhara in some
cases). In the history of the noble Buddha’s tooth relic, the upper left eye-tooth of
the historic Buddha was first taken to the Gandhara division (in the Indian context,
it is traditionally believed to be in the vicinity of present-day Taxila, a northwestern
province of Pakistan) by a local Gandharan monk and placed in a cedi (.-- ) to be
worshipped. The tooth relic was moved at different times to various places ranging
from the Khotanese capital (Xinjiang province) to its final resting place in Beijing.
60
According to Kyaw, by 1071 CE the mother of a chief over governors in the internal
palace of the Liao emperor (Khitan dynasty) had built a cedi in which she placed the
revered tooth relic; it was located on the southeastern corner of the enclosure of the
Lingguang monastery to the west of Beijing.
61
If this is true, the tooth relic which
Anawrahta eagerly sought, is indeed in what constitutes China today, but during
that earlier time it was considered a part of Khitanese territory. In order to get
there, Anawrahta would have to travel across either Song-ruled territory or the
Xixia kingdom. In addition, the location of the tooth relic was no longer at
Gandhara, so what would ‘Gandhalaraj division’ have meant? Does it mean an
administrative district within a country, or a kingdom with that name which perhaps
traced its roots to the Gandhara dynasty that came to an end in the fifth=sixth
centuries CE?
58 Luce, Old Burma-early Pagan, p. 28.
59 Ibid.
60 .-s..s.±s-..-_.--∑..-s.-±..-.¸,-,_. ._-_.--s..¸--¸. Kyaw Zaw Aung, Pugaṃ Mrat`svay`tò
Le”chū Samuin˙` (Ran`kuin`mrui’: Yuṃ Kraññ` Khyak` Sa¯pe, 2004), pp. 17–21.
61 Ibid., pp. 19–20.
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 139
The Huns captured Gandhara around the mid-fifth century and by the next cen-
tury the Sassanians aided by Turks defeated the Huns. When the Muslim Arabs
defeated the Sassanians in 644 in Persia, Buddhist Turks ruled Gandhara from
Kabul. In the same year, the Buddhist monk Xuanzang visited Gandhara and noted
that Buddhism was on the decline.
62
He wrote Datang Xiyou Ji [大唐西域記 Journey
to the West during the Tang Dynasty], which is an important primary source for
studying medieval Buddhism in Central and South Asia. By the early eleventh cen-
tury, the new Muslim ruler Mahmud of Ghazni had ordered the destruction of all
remaining standing monuments.
63
Gandhara no longer existed by the reign of King
Anawrahta.
Monywe Hsayadaw (1766–1835), a Konbaung-period scholar and one of the
main compilers of the Hmannan Yazawindawgyi, similarly found it highly unlikely
that Gandhara and Tarup were both in the same location, although he arrived at a
different conclusion, believing that the tooth relic had remained the whole time in
Gandhara.
Gandara division where the noble Buddha’s tooth relic is placed is not Tarup country but
the Gandara division within the Central Indian continent [Mizzima taik] as is evident
[in the] decisive treatise [written] by the intelligent and educated Monywe Hsayadaw.
In that decisive treatise, Gandara division is [situated] at a distance of 45 yuzana
[Sanskrit yujana; 1 yuzana = 12.72 miles] from Thawutti country, Tarup country
[would then] be more than 5000 yuzana from Gandara division. Therefore Tarup
country is not the Gandara division where the Buddha’s tooth relic is placed.
64
To a fair extent, one can conclude that the famous Gandhara kingdom of the Buddhist
Kushan kings (first to fifth century CE) was not the same entity as the Tarup of the
eleventh century, although the question of whether there was a division or a kind of
administrative area called Gandhara in Tarup remains unanswered. Tarup in this con-
text could thus have referred to China at the time (either the Liao, Xixia or Song
kingdoms), or it may have referred to an administrative region, probably a small
country to the north of Burma ruled by an indigenous leader who was either an offi-
cial of the Chinese emperor (Song or Tangut?) or a vassal with high degree of internal
autonomy.
If Tarup were a country with a high degree of autonomy but nevertheless a vassal
of the Chinese, the likeliest candidate would have been Nanzhao, as the French
Sinologist Pelliot believed. The area of Nanzhao, which roughly corresponded to
what is western Yunnan province today, was an independent polity until the seventh
century, when the Tang assumed control of much of Yunnan and made it a tributary
of China. By the beginning of the ninth century, Nanzhao had regained autonomy
from China and in a series of attacks seized numerous captives from central Burma
(Pyu), resettling them at Kunming.
65
The Man shu, written in China in the 860s,
described the kingdom as a multi-ethnic society with a complex administrative system
62 Si-Yu-Ki: Buddhist records of the western world, by Hiuen Tsiang, trans. Samuel Beal, 2 vols.
(London. Reprint: Delhi. Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1969).
63 J. Hussain, An illustrated history of Pakistan (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1983).
64 U Bhe, Ra¯zavam˙ sara¯linī maññ`so Pugam˙ Ra¯zavan˙`sac`, p. 116.
65 Lieberman, Strange parallels: Southeast Asia in global context, c. 800–1830, p. 90; Luce, ‘The early
140 GOH GE OK YI AN
similar to that of China.
66
From the eleventh century Nanzhao was probably weaken-
ing, a process which accelerated as Thai principalities began to emerge around the late
twelfth century. The Mongols attacked and conquered Nanzhao in 1253, and by 1257
they controlled most of Yunnan.
67
Another piece of description which must be discussed before deciding whether
the Tarup of eleventh century was indeed Nanzhao or rather Tangut Xixia is the
term ‘pyigyi’ (_._ ”-) or large country. Its use suggests that Tarup was a country
that was either larger than Bagan or if not, then at least comparable in autonomy
and strength. The text also refers to __.__--±-¸..s¡-_-∑s (‘[the] utibhwa
[who] governs this large country…’),
68
suggesting that the utibhwa was not an offi-
cial or minister nor a king, but a leader administering Tarup pyi.
69
The same phrase
was used in the section regarding Alaungsithu’s march to Tarup pyi to request the
tooth relic. Both Anawrahta and Alaungsithu failed in the end to get the relic,
plainly because it elected to stay in Tarup. In a sense these events recognise the
superiority of Tarup’s glory to that of Bagan; though the reasons given are couched
in indirect terms, they acknowledge the need to abide by the Buddha’s prophecy
that the tooth relic has to remain in Tarup. As a result of this, Anawrahta built
a pagoda at the place where the tooth relic hovered in the sky. It is also
implied that he continued to pay tribute in the form of gold and silver items
sent as objects of worship for the relic.
70
It is important to note that the nature
of the contact between Anawrahta and Alaungsithu on the one hand and the
Tarup Utibhwa on the other is characterised by negotiation and unity in terms
of religious values and knowledge, not military might. In fact the Burmese word
nyinywat (__∑- ) is used in both accounts, suggesting the union of minds, not
disagreement.
It is unlikely that the Tarup of the pre-Mongol invasion period were the Kushan
or Turks or even the Song Chinese. Based on religious comparison and geography, the
‘Tarup pyi’ of Anawrahta’s reign could have been the kingdoms of either Tangut or
Nanzhao (known as Daliguo by the tenth century). Both kingdoms were Buddhist
and located to the north of Burma, outside the Gandhara division where the
Buddha tooth relic previously inhabited. Tangut Xixia was known to have been an
important procurer of Buddhist relics which were brought to the kingdom via the
overland routes by South Asian traders.
71
Brian Ruppert has also noted the resurgence in demands for Buddha relics
around the eleventh century and the role played by merchants in their circulation
Syam in Burma’s history: A supplement’; Luce, Old Burma-early Pagan; David. K. Wyatt, Thailand:
A short history (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), pp. 13–14.
66 Wyatt, Thailand: A short history, pp. 13–14.
67 Ibid., p. 42.
68 U Kala, Mahayazawingyi, vol. 1, p. 186.
69 It is important to make a distinction between government with complete authority and government
with some limitations such as in the case of Nanzhao, which being a vassal of China at this time, was not
able to conduct foreign relations freely. There is a possibility that by using the title ‘Utibhwa’ rather than
‘Mingyi’ (as in the case of the Dissapramok inscription) and by stating that he was ‘governing’ Tarup, the
Burmese may have been trying to make a distinction between a sovereign and a vassal ruler.
70 U Kala, Mahayazawingyi, vol. 1, pp. 188–9.
71 Sen, Buddhism, diplomacy, and trade, p. 191.
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 141
throughout East Asia.
72
In terms of religion, Nanzhao Buddhism shared several
similarities with the earlier practices of the Ari monks in Bagan. As described earlier,
the Yazawunthalini describes Tarup and Ari monks as wearing the same robes,
suggesting that they engaged in the same religious rituals, notably those belonging
to an esoteric Mahayana school. As Angela Howard, one scholar of Nanzhao
Buddhism, describes the Azhali (acha¯rya) Esoteric Buddhism which was practiced
in Nanzhao-Yunnan: ‘The term “acha¯rya” translated into “azhali”, thus lost the con-
notation of someone well-versed in yoga practices and in orthodox Buddhist ritual,
and conjured up instead, in the mind of Nanzhao people, incantation, superhuman
powers and the control of events through magic.’
73
Once the foreign azhali monks
received support from the ruling class, they did not try to transform the people’s
view of their training and mission, which highlighted their possession of supernatural
powers through the use of spells.
This similarity in the form of Buddhist practices between the azhali and Ari
monks of Nanzhao and Bagan respectively should be noted as an indication of the
state of interaction which had already existed between the two kingdoms prior to
Anawrahta’s establishment of Theravada Buddhism in Bagan. Howard suggests that
Buddhism went from India to China via Burma around the first centuries CE.
74
In
addition, considering the esoteric character of Nanzhao=Daliguo Buddhism,
Anawrahta might have felt compelled to take any Buddha tooth relic from
Nanzhao to Bagan, where the ‘true’ and ‘correct’ form of Buddhism was practised.
Geographically, Nanzhao=Daliguo in Yunnan was a lot closer to Bagan than
Tangut Xixia. A Song-period text, Lingwai daida 嶺外代答, describes the proximity
of Dali to Bagan: ‘Pugan is distant from the country of Dali by five cheng (程, route
marches) and 60 cheng from the country of Wali’.
75
It was likely that by the eleventh
century, Nanzhao=Daliguo, then weakened, was a tributary vassal of Song China or
even possibly of Tangut Xixia, playing both polities against each other. In which
case, Nanzhao=Daliguo was by transference of authority and identity a ‘stand-in’
for Tarup-China (Song or Tangut?).
Furthermore, there has been controversy over the ethnic identity of the Nanzhao
people. Nanzhao was long viewed as the ‘first Thai kingdom’, but it is now generally
accepted that it was ruled by Tibeto-Burman speakers.
76
The title of the Tarup ruler
or leader, ‘utibhwa’, appears to bear resemblance to the Burmese title given to Shan
chiefs, ‘sawbwa’. This suggests that it is possible that Burmese used the title to indicate
the leader’s connection to the Tai. According to Backus, the Nanzhao rulers were
known to have used lowland ‘proto-Thai’ peoples as fighters in their armies,
77
which might have influenced the Burmese characterisation of the Tarup leader.
72 Brian Ruppert, Jewel in the ashes: Buddha relics and power in early medieval Japan (Cambridge:
Harvard University Asia Center, 2000), p. 36.
73 Angela Howard, ‘The Dha¯raṇ ī pillar of Kunming, Yunnan. A legacy of esoteric Buddhism and burial
rites of the Bai people in the kingdom of Dali (937–1253)’, Artibus Asiae, 57, 1=2 (1997): 43.
74 Ibid., pp. 43–4.
75 Zhou Qufei, Ling wai dai da, 10 vols. (Taipei: Xinwenfeng Publishing Co., 1984), p. 142.
76 Charles Backus, The Nan-chao kingdom and T’ang China’s southwestern frontier (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 46–52.
77 Ibid., p. 51.
142 GOH GE OK YI AN
In terms of the kingdoms’ relative political might and size, Tangut Xixia was a
powerful contemporary of Song China and Jin-Jurchen kingdom, unlike Daliguo,
the successor to Nanzhao, which then ‘controlled considerably less territory than
had Nan-chao during its most expansive decades in the middle of the ninth cen-
tury’.
78
The chronicles’ description of Tarup suggests that Tarup pyi, though a pyigyi,
was positively alarmed by the approach of the Burmese military led by Anawrahta.
Though this could have been a literary device to characterise the Burmese might,
the description of Tarup suggests a kingdom or state which paralleled Bagan in pol-
itical autonomy and size, rather than one which was much stronger.
The Chinese sources appear to support the argument that Bagan was at least by
the early twelfth century considered a country of major importance to Song China.
The Zhufanzhi 諸番志 is perhaps the only Song text to describe the earliest mission
made by Bagan in 1004=05.
79
Other Song sources mention the tribute mission of
1106;
80
the Song shi 宋史, in particular, states that Bagan should not be treated like
a minor country, and must be accorded respect given to countries such as Dashi
(Arab countries) and Jiaozhi (Vietnam).
81
Among these countries of major impor-
tance were Sanfoqi (Srivijaya) and Dali.
The connection between Bagan and Daliguo was first established in the Chinese
source, Song huiyao jigao 宋会要辑稿. It describes the joint tribute mission sent by
Bagan and Daliguo in 1136 which comprised local products.
82
The Yuhai 玉海men-
tions the same mission
83
and the Ke Shu 可書contains an elaborate description of the
envoys and the objects of tribute.
84
It is possible that by the mid-twelfth century,
Daliguo’s reduced status caused it to send a joint mission with Bagan. It is impossible
to know whether Daliguo prior to that time served as a default receiver of tribute from
Bagan to Song China, as it was only in 1136 that both countries had to send their
tribute via the Guangxi Regional Commission. Could Dali somehow have served in
this capacity as a regional nexus along which tribute that was being sent to the
Chinese capital was evaluated before being forwarded to the capital? This remains
a point to be resolved and an issue which requires more deliberation, particularly
on the subject of the routes along which tribute to Song China was sent.
Bagan’s tradition of paying tribute was to continue through the reigns of all
Bagan kings until Narathihapate, when his refusal to send tribute and his supposed
killing of the envoys sent by the Mongols led to the Mongol attack and his downfall.
Even the kings of the dynasties following the fall of Bagan at times received orders to
continue to deliver the tribute. As the account of Narathihapate and the identity of the
Tarup during his reign have to a fair degree been examined in the earlier part of this
paper, the next section will touch largely on descriptions of Tarup in connection with
fifteenth century Burmese kingdoms.
78 Ibid., p. 164.
79 Zhao Rugua, ‘Zhufanzhi’, Zhongguo shixue xongshu xubian [Chinese historical works], vol. 35
(Taipei: Student Book Bureau, 1979), p. 176.
80 Zhou, Ling wai dai da, p. 142; Zhao, ‘Zhufanzhi’, p. 176; Tuo Tuo, Song shi [History of the Song]
(Taipei: Chinese Book Bureau, 1977), pp. 376 and 14087.
81 Tuo, Song shi, p. 14087.
82 Xu Songji, Song huiyao jigao (Beijing: Chinese Book Bureau, 1957), p. 7682.
83 Wang Yinglin, Yuhai (Zhejiang Province: Zhejiang Publisher, 1883), p. 33.
84 Zhang Zhifu, Ke shu (Taipei: Xinwenfeng Publishing Company, 1984), p. 681.
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 143
However there is one particular observation regarding the Tarup-Mongol invasion
which should be discussed here. This refers to a particular characterisation of the
Tarup which appears only in Twinthin’s chronicle: he described the Tarup soldiers as
‘Panthe’ or ‘Panse’ ., ..,
85
identifying them as Muslims. This description appears in
the account characterising the chaos and commotion following the Burmese king’s flight
from the palace. The limited resources available made it impossible for all palace
maids-in-waiting to be transported out of Bagan. As the story alleges, it was decided
then that 3,000 of them were to be drowned to prevent their falling into the hands of
the Tarup soldiers. This description of Mongol Muslims does not appear in any other
texts, including the Hmannan. There is no indication as to how Twinthin came to this
conclusionthat the Tarup soldiers were Muslims or that there were Muslims among them.
The known presence of Central Asians among the Mongols does support the
view that there were Muslims among the Tarup. The Yuan rulers, especially since
the reign of Kubilai Khan, employed Muslims in government, particularly in financial
administration.
86
Not many Muslims led military expeditions or were appointed to
the highest ranks in the Mongol army, largely because rulers like Kubilai remained
suspicious of them. However, in 1277 the Yuan court dispatched Na¯ṣ ir-al-Dīn
(Na-su-ting) to lead a military campaign against Burma.
87
He was the son of the
first Muslim governor of Yunnan, Saiyid Ajall Shams al-Dīn, appointed by Kubilai
in 1274. Prior to the latter’s conquest of much of Yunnan in 1252–53, that region
had become a main centre for Muslims in the region. Southwest China had attracted
a steady flow of Muslim merchants and craftsmen who were interested in exploiting
its strategic location along the trade routes between China and Burma and India. By
1254, the Mongols had already captured Dali-Nanzhao’s capital. It is thus within this
context that we should understand the Burmese characterisation of the Tarup: for
them, the Tarup of the Mongol invasion period or even during the twelfth century
leading up to the invasion were the Dali-Nanzhao people including the Central
Asians of Yunnan region
88
and the Mongol soldiers ruled by the great king or mingyi,
Kubilai Khan.
The title ‘mingyi’ is used to refer to the khan only in the Burmese inscriptions; the
chronicles continue to refer to the utibhwa, which I argue is in fact the title of
the Mongol-appointed administrator in Yunnan=Dali-Nanzhao rather than the
emperor. The strongest evidence lies in the Yuan shi descriptions of Mian.
89
The first description in the Yuan shi describes the envoys sent by the Dali
85 Twinthin, Tvan˙`” San˙`” e* Mran`ma¯ Ra¯javan˙`sac`, p. 155.
86 Morris Rossabi, ‘The Muslims in the early Yüan dynasty’, in China under Mongol rule, ed. John D.
Langlois Jr. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), p. 274.
87 Ibid., p. 277; Geoff Wade, ‘An annotated translation of the Yuan shi account of Mian (Burma)’, con-
ference paper presented at the Burma Studies Conference 2006, ‘Communities of Interpretation’, 13–15
July 2006, Singapore, p. 4.
88 Rossabi asserts that most of the prominent Muslims of the early Yuan period were from Central Asia
or the Middle East (Rossabi, ‘Muslims in the early Yüan dynasty’, p. 260). There were also Chinese
Muslims from the northern Chinese region and of course other Muslim groups who were already in
Yunnan. But following Kubilai Khan’s successful conquest of the Yunnan region, the Mongol court
encouraged further migration of Muslim groups into the Yunnan area, some of which were in fact forced
migrations.
89 Song Lian, Yuan shi, vol. 210, pp. 1423–4. For English translation of the folio, see appendix of Wade,
‘Annotated translation of the Yuan shi account of Mian (Burma)’.
144 GOH GE OK YI AN
Pacification Commission and Shanchan Chief Military Command
90
to Mian country
in 1271=72.
91
The mission returned with a Burmese envoy; another mission was sent
in 1273 by the same two institutions. The two envoys sent were to deliver an imperial
command. The missive contains an interesting allusion to the presence of a Buddha
relic in the ‘great country’ (大國), likely the same Buddha tooth relic which was said
to be residing in Kubilai’s new capital (Beijing) since 1071.
In the subsequent descriptions of missions and campaigns undertaken by the
Mongols, the actions were largely carried out by Mongol officials such as the
Pacification Commissioner or high-ranking administrator from the Yunnan Branch
Secretariat. It is clear that Yunnan (Dali-Nanzhao of old) represented the regional
capital where tribute missions, particularly those from Mian-Burma and other lesser
polities, gathered before being escorted to the capital if they were allowed to proceed.
It is highly unlikely that utibhwa was a title used to refer to the Mongol khan.
This title, previously used to refer to the Nanzhao hereditary ruler during
Anawrahta’s and Alaungsitthu’s reigns, was likely transferred to the position of the
Pacification Commissioner of Yunnan Branch Secretariat or the Governor of
Yunnan, an appointee of the Mongol ruler. Both were subordinate positions in com-
parison to the title of mingyi, and the main difference is characterised by the tran-
sition made from indirect to direct ‘rule’. In terms of geography and territorial
identification, Tarup refers both to the Yunnan region and to its overlord,
Mongol-ruled China, though what the Burmese saw as Tarup was likely very much
determined by the regional administration in Yunnan.
In the post-Mongol period, descriptions of Tarup in Burmese chronicles
increased in frequency and length. To some extent, this may have something to do
with Ming China’s more coercive methods of collecting allegiance and tribute, a
point which Wade has strongly argued.
92
Burma’s relations with Tarup were clearly
transformed by the Mongol invasion and by the numerous wars (largely described
in Yuan sources) that occurred between the two polities; Burmese interactions with
Tarup (in this case, Ming China) were characterised solely by wars between the
two parties. References to Buddhism and Buddha relics no longer appear in
Burmese or Chinese sources. Unlike Yuan China, particularly during the reign of
Kubilai Khan, which not only tolerated but also promoted Buddhism, the religion
did not feature prominently in Ming China’s relations with other polities which it
considered its vassals.
Burmese descriptions of Tarup in association with the Inwa period
Following the Mongol ‘invasion’ and the fall of Bagan, there are at least two sep-
arate accounts of contact between the Burmese and Tarup, one of which occurred
during the Myinsaing period (c. 1298–1364). However the most elaborate accounts
pertain to the fifteenth-century period in which corresponding records from the
90 The term in Chinese is ‘Dali Shanchan Denglu Xuanwei Sidu Yuanshua’i 大理鄯闡等路宣慰司都
元帥府。 Wade, ‘Annotated translation’, states that Shanchan is the name of polity which was derived
from the earlier Dali kingdom.
91 See appendix of Wade, ‘An annotated translation of the Yuan shi account of Mian (Burma)’.
92 See Geoff Wade, ‘Ming China and Southeast Asia in the 15
th
century: A reappraisal’, ARI Working
Paper 28 (Singapore: ARI, 2004).
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 145
Chinese Ming shilu (based on Wade’s translation) can be used to give a more com-
plete picture of not only the nature of the interactions but also the biases embedded
in the perceptions of each party. The following description refers to an attack carried
out by the Burmese on the Shan sawbwa of Theinni, who then enlisted the Tarup’s
assistance to defend his city against the Burmese attack:
During Sakkaraj 773 (1411 CE)
93
all the sawbwa of Theinni (Seinni) together with his
hordes and multitudes [people] came marching to Ava to do battle. … Minyekyawswa
also after presenting to his royal father the captured prisoners-of-war, elephants and
horses, marched and reached Theinni. Theinni sawbwa’s sons and sons-in-law also
called for military assistance from Tarup and when they successfully completed the
work to strengthen their city, [even] if there were no more rations they withheld.
Minyekyawswa also attacked Theinni city a number of times without success for
approximately the duration of five months. In formulating a plan to resolve that [con-
undrum] [Yinthosi] Minyekyawswa even as he heard of the arrival of the reinforcements
of 2,000 horses, and 20,000 foot soldiers from Tarup, [waited] until the night of Tamahti
[or until the depths of night when no one was awake in Theinni city] to pull away from
Theinni city. With [his] 200 battle elephants, 3,000 horses and 40,000 soldiers, [he]
stayed in Sinkhan forest. By splitting the Tarup reinforcements into three groups, they
destroyed the Tarup by attacking them as they came out from the forest. [He] captured
as prisoners-of-war five Tarup officials with close to 1,000 horses and almost 2,000 per-
sons. An estimate of 500 horses died. As he was victorious over the Tarup, he returned to
besiege Theinni city as always.
94
Although the dates of the Burmese and Chinese sources appear to be inconsistent, the
above episode must refer to the following account in the Ming shilu, which describes
an envoy from Mu-bang (Hsenwi) to the Ming court:
In the early years of his reign, while vying with Ava-Burma for influence in Yun-nan,
Yong-le was particularly concerned about the polity of Mu-bang (Hsenwi). When the
Mu-bang envoy came to the Ming court in 1409, reportedly complaining about
Na-luo-ta, the Ava-Burma ruler, the response by Yong-le included the following:
‘Na-luo-ta, with his petty piece of land, is double-hearted and is acting wrongly. I
have long known of this. The reason that I have not sent troops there is that I am con-
cerned that good people will be hurt. I have already sent people with instructions requir-
ing him to change his ways and start anew. If he does not reform, I will order the
generals to despatch the army. The troops will attack from the ocean route and you
can arrange to have your native cavalry attack overland. The despicable fellow will not
be equal to that.’
95
93 The date provided in the Hmannan differs from U Kala’s chronicle by a year: Sakkaraj 774 (1412
CE). The same date appears in Twinthin’s Mahayazawinthit, corroborating the date given in the
Hmannan.
94 U Kala, Mahayazawingyi, vol. 2, p. 10; Mhan`nan`” Maha¯ra¯javan˙`to`krī”, vol. 2, pp. 8–9; a variant
description of the same event can be found in Twinthin, Tvan˙`” San˙`” e* Mran`ma¯ Ra¯javan˙`sac`,
pp. 288–9.
95 Wade, ‘Ming China and Southeast Asia in the 15
th
century: A reappraisal’, p. 14.
146 GOH GE OK YI AN
‘When the Ming intended to attack Ava-Burma in 1409, Mu-bang was ordered to
prepare its troops for an overland attack, while the Ming forces were to attack
from the sea. Mu-bang (Hsenwi) was a frequent pawn in the Ming-Burma machina-
tions, as it lay between the two and was subject to demands by both polities.’
96
Wade’s statement, though not conclusive as to which side won the battle, does
suggest that if Hsenwi usually ended up the victim of these tugs-of-war, the
Burmese account may be true to some degree. The statement made by the Yongle
emperor not only did not promise Chinese help but was phrased in a vague
manner. Probably the Chinese did send a small reinforcement of cavalry and foot
soldiers, either because the naval Fleet of the Western Ocean was engaged in some
other battles and unable to send reinforcements, or because the logistics of moving
troops across Burma from either the coast of Arakan or from the delta region
would have exhausted the soldiers if not their food rations by the time they reached
Hsenwi.
The following account in the early eighteenth-century Mahayazawingyi describes
another episode in which a war took place between the Burmese and Tarup as a result
of a request for intervention made to the latter by a chief, in this case, a Shan chief or
myosa, Mawtonmawkaysa. This particular account, however, is not substantiated in
the Ming sources, probably either because the event did not take place or because
the Chinese turned out to be the losers in this battle.
In Sakkaraj 774 (1412 CE)
97
when the account came to be said [that] Mawtonmawkaysa
[and the] Shans [intended to] attack Mye Tu city. When the king, Minkhaung, heard [of
this], he appointed [his] son, the crown prince Minyekyawswa, to start organizing 11
military units [for the] march. Minyekyawswa marched without gathering the last
unit of the 11 military units of countless elephant and horse troops comprising 300 bat-
tling elephants, 4,000 horses, [and] 80,000 soldiers. They faced no obstacles in reaching
Myetu, [and even] if [they] fought courageously, Mawtonmawkaysa [and his men] could
not defeat the military units [and therefore] reached the point of destruction. Therefore
[even] before the unit was destroyed, the two brothers of Mawtonmawkaysa assembled
[and] together with soldiers and people [who were] not captured rode horses and fled to
Tarup country. Prince Minyekyawswa also by taking as prisoners of war their sons,
wives, elephants, horses and people returned to Ava. … [The] Mawtonmawkaysa broth-
ers went to the Tarup Utibhwa and implored, ‘Our sons and wives have been seized and
placed in the place of the Sun King where they [now] are. Please be compassionate and
ask the Sun King from [whom] we will get our sons and wives [back]’. Therefore the
Tarup Utibhwa gathered all the sawbwas from all places near and far from Tarup city
and sent an ultimatum to the Sun King demanding the return of Mawtonmawkaysa’s
sons and wives to him. ‘If [you] don’t give, there will be a war’, and he stated, ’and
when [my] 200 battle elephants, 4,000 horses and 40,000 foot soldiers arrive, the dirt
they stir shall resemble the great battle of the fourth level of the purgatory of hell
96 Ibid., pp. 23–4.
97 There is a discrepancy between the dates in U Kala’s chronicle and the Hmannan: the Hmannan
gives Sakkaraj 775 (1413 CE) as the date of the Shans’ attack on Mye Tu. Twinthin’s account again
bears the same date as the Hmannan and very likely was the source for the Hmannan compilers.
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 147
with the appearance of the mountain ogres and victory will be fixed and established at
that very place’.
98
The Chinese then sent their demands to the Burmese king ordering the release of
the Shan chief’s wife and children. Refusing to comply, King Minkhaung sent
Thameinpayan, Rajadhiraja’s (a Mon king, r. 1384–1420) son-in-law. The crown
prince Minyekyawswa had won Thameinpayan’s loyalty when he took the latter’s
elephant after his victorious battle over Rajadhiraj’s Mon country. By capturing
Thameinpayan’s elephant, the crown prince won his service. The Burmese–Chinese
battle is epitomised as a battle between two individuals, a joust on horseback between
Thameinpayan and a Tarup soldier, Kammani. Equipped with god-like weapons
given by the king, Thameinpayan engaged in an amazing battle with Kammani,
using his elephant goad to hook onto Kammani’s body, cutting his head off and
dropping it into a basket before re-entering the city. The Tarup soldiers exclaimed
in awe, ‘no longer a human, [he] became a nat’. The Burmese term ‘nat’ refers to
three general categories of supernatural beings: devas (deities), natural spirits such
as those which inhabit trees or rivers, and malevolent spirits which have died
‘green’, unnatural deaths, but stayed on in the living world in order to disrupt the
order of the living. In death Kammani obviously became a nat of the last category.
The following account, also taken from U Kala’s chronicle (see also the pages in
Hmannan and Mahayazawinthit) and the last example to be given for this section, is
corroborated in the Ming sources. Again the Burmese and Chinese dates differ, in this
case by four years.
In Sakkaraj 806 (1444 CE)
99
after stating, “I [referring to Minngeh Kyawhtin] shall wel-
come the Tarup who come to attack,” he marched with five military units on land among
which were 800 battle elephants, 15,000 horses, and 250,000 soldiers. With [his] water
military unit comprising 500 battle boats, 300 royal boats (with high and ornamented
prow and stern) made of iron, 80,000 soldiers, he rode his golden royal barge and
advanced strong on the water. The land and water military units settled on Nga Yin
U island on which they landed and liked. After the vestments of cloths had been
given out on Tagaung’s Thintwe island, [together] with [the] four Tarup generals and
tens of millions of soldiers who could not cross the water, they came asking for the
Maw official [min here most likely refers to the status of the official, implying his sub-
ordinate status to the Burmese] Tho Ngam Pwa [Bhwa]. King Narapati also said to Tho
Ngam Bhwa, ‘You slave being in my possession I shall not give’, and in saying so gave his
order. The Tarup also descended into Kaung Ton with all their generals. At that time the
Tarup general killed the ‘eater’ [of Kaungton] Maw Thaung Pein. The Tarup soldiers also
died in great numbers. Having suffered losses, the Tarup troops having scarce food and
water, retreated to Mo Wun and stayed there. King Narapati also returned [to his capital]
after he had assigned elephants, horses and people to [assist] the Mo Kaung and Mo Nay
sawbwas who were to stand guard at Ban Maw. At that time, the On Bhaung sawbwa
98 U Kala, Mahayazawingyi, vol. 2, pp. 15–18; Mhan`nan`” Maha¯ra¯javan˙`to`krī”, vol. 2, pp. 21–8, a
variant version is found in Twinthin, Tvan˙`” San˙`” e* Mran`ma¯ Ra¯javan˙`sac`, pp. 301–8.
99 Interestingly the date first cited in Twinthin’s chronicle is the same one given in U Kala’s
Mahayazawingyi. The date given in the Hmannan is Sakkaraj 807 (1445 CE).
148 GOH GE OK YI AN
Tho Khin Bhwa also came to Kaung Ton with presents and weapons to pay obeisance at
the feet…The Tarup soldiers also stayed at the place to which they withdrew during the
time when food and water were scarce. Having gotten their provisions, they would return
advancing on their march, [as] they would not return until after they had taken Tho
Ngam Bhwa … Three days having passed since the Tarup reached [Yamethin city],
the envoy came, bearing the statement, ‘Give us the person Tho Ngam Bhwa. If [you]
don’t give [him up] we will go to war’…
When King Narapati also had [finished] selecting the skilled elephant riders, he
assembled, with 100 battle elephants, men skilled in [using] shields and 10,000 soldiers,
and marched toward Yamethin city. On the Tarup side, the four generals and horses
together with 10,000 assigned men placed a boat across a small river to form a bridge
and crossed over. Having reached Hlaing Tek, Minngeh Kyaw Htin also did not dare
to stay in the hole [hiding place?] in the city and together with all his people exited
from Yamethin city. When Minngeh Kyawhtin fled, all of Yamethin was able to stand
firmly together with Bhaya Kyawhtin.
When the Tarup went back, Tho Ngam Bhwa having reached Ava, also ate poison
and died. King Narapati happily packed Tho Ngam Bhwa’s corpse and sent it to the
Tarup. The Tarup also having gotten Tho Ngam Bhwa, chopped off his head and placed
it on an iron spit and having finished roasting it, dried it out in the sun and took it with
them.
100
The above description very likely refers to the following account contained in the
Ming history:
A further major Ming military expedition which was to greatly affect the upland
Southeast Asian polities was that launched in 1448 to capture Si Ji-fa, a son of Si
Ren-fa [a Tai-Mao political leader]. At a date equivalent to April=May 1448, Imperial
instructions were issued to Wang Ji requiring him to capture Si Ji-fa and the chieftains
of Meng-yang. The surrounding polities of Ava-Burma, Mu-bang, Nan Dian, Gan-yai
and Long-chuan were also required to provide troops for deployment against Si Ji-fa.
The imperial orders sent to Wang Ji presaged the disruption which such an expedition
would have wrought in the region. ‘He [Si Ji-fa] may flee into Ava-Burma’s territory and
be concealed by the people there. If so, capture persons as the situation demands, so that
the yi people will know fear and the Great Army will not have been sent in vain.’ While
Wang Ji reported success in his attack on Si Ji-fa’s stockade, later accounts tell of how
Wang Ji had sought personal advantages from the ‘native officials’ and how in fact he
had been defeated by Si Ji-fa.
101
The Burmese chronicle cites the date of the Tarup attack as 1444, whereas the Ming
account gives 1448. Besides the relative proximity in dates, the Mahayazawingyi
further refers to the prior long-standing enmity between the Tarup Utibhwa and
Tho Ngam Bhwa’s father which led to this particular episode related above. The sig-
nificance of the four-year discrepancy in dates is not known, but it probably resulted
from inherent flaws within the Burmese Sakkaraj system. The term ’Sakkaraj’ can be
100 U Kala, Mahayazawingyi, vol. 2, pp. 80–s2; Mhan`nan`” Maha¯ra¯javan˙`to`krī”, vol. 2, pp. 86–8; see
a variant account in Twinthin, Tvan˙`” San˙`” e* Mran`ma¯ Ra¯javan˙`sac`, pp. 360–2.
101 Wade, ‘Ming China and Southeast Asia in the 15
th
century: A reappraisal’, p. 16.
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 149
rendered as ‘Myanmar Era’, and refers to the number of years which should be added
to the dates used in the Burmese chronicles in order to calculate corresponding dates
in the Gregorian calendar. After incorporating two prior modifications, the year 638
CE was selected to mark the first year of the Myanmar era. Discrepancies in the dates
of events are known to exist between different Burmese chronicles.
Who are the Tarup in the chronicles?
Evidence from the accounts of Tarup in the Burmese chronicles leads one to con-
clude that the territory of the Tarup most likely corresponds to the region of Yunnan,
at one time the autonomous polity of Nanzhao-Dali, next a polity which was directly
governed by a Mongol-appointed administrator during the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, and finally a tributary of Ming China in the fifteenth century. That said,
however, the word ‘Tarup’ does not merely relate to a bounded territory with an
unchanging population, but rather to an imagined space, the actual size of which
the Burmese were perhaps never absolutely sure. The Burmese consistently use the
term to refer to an entity located to the north of Burma and considered an ‘other’
administrative region; ‘Tarup’ was thus an exonym referring to peoples living beyond
northern Burma. Politically and geographically, the referent of Tarup likely switched
from the Central Asian polity of Kushan-Gandhara to Nanzhao-Dali, and by transfer-
ence of authority to the overlord of Dali, which was at one time the Yuan and sub-
sequently the Ming. The various Tarup remain nevertheless in the region north of
Burma’s kingdoms. Ethnically the identity of the Tarup is a complex issue to resolve;
even ‘Chinese’ remains a problematic ethnic term to define if one is to consider the
variety of dialect groups which fall under this general category.
From the fifth through the fifteenth centuries CE, what constituted the Tarup
underwent many changes. Clearly the composite group would have included
Turkic speakers (many of whom were Central Asians, some of whom were
Muslims who settled in the Yunnan region); Nanzhao peoples who were
Tibeto-Burman speakers and soldiers in their armies from what Backus refers to as
the ‘Proto-Thai’ groups; Mongols, Han Chinese, etc.
102
To attempt to attribute a
fixed ethnic identity to the Tarup is clearly not just problematic, but wrong.
‘Tarup’ in the context of the twentieth century does refer to the broad category,
‘Chinese’ and ‘China’, but such a definition is inadequate in explaining its historical
ramifications. To problematise Tarup as a term of identity is thus a necessary pursuit,
not one undertaken for the pure pleasure of intellectualising an unchallenging
characterisation.
As discussed earlier, the original root of ‘Tarup’ is likely taruk (-¡- ), derived
from the Orkhon inscription rendering of ‘turuk’ for the Turkic speakers or Ta
yue, a Chinese characterisation of the Kushan of Gandhara. It is clear that Burmese
descriptions of the Tarup, particularly by the Bagan period (especially beginning
with Anawrahta’s reign), emphasise the Buddhist character of the Tarup polity.
That Tarup is mentioned often in relation with Gandhara is telling in its indication
that the Burmese saw the ‘Tarup’ of later times as synonymous or at least related
to those of earlier periods, which were likely the Kushan rulers of Gandhara, where
102 Backus, Nan-chao kingdom and T’ang China’s southwestern frontier, pp. 51–2.
150 GOH GE OK YI AN
the famed Buddha tooth relic resided before being transported to China proper. Thus
the identity of Tarup should be perceived in connection with its Buddhist character
and connotations. For the Burmese, whether it was Kushan-Gandhara or
China-Gandhara, Tarup pyi was the place which possessed the Buddha tooth relic.
At various times in the past, the Tarup corresponded to populations of differing
ethnic composition, which might have been autonomous polities that pledged alle-
giance to the Chinese emperors of various dynasties during some periods or at
other times vassals directly governed or submissive to the Chinese government.
Hence whether or not the attacking party referred to as the Tarup actually claimed
to be representing the ‘Tarup’ who were the Chinese, it was nevertheless perceived
by the Burmese to be the Tarup. By observing that these people came from the region
which the Tarup supposedly inhabited, the Burmese identified them as the Tarup,
regardless of any differences in their ethnic makeup, language or attire. Of course
the Chinese were not and never have been a homogenous ethnic group, like any
other, but the Burmese like all ethnic groups sometimes speak and act as though
such homogenous entities exist.
Conclusion
The following description of Mian-Burmese in the Yuan shi is particularly telling
of the ways the identities of individuals, groups and polities were determined: ‘Mian
country is of the Southernwestern Yi [Chinese term for barbarians, used to refer to
the groups living beyond the ‘Han’ borders], of which type it is [however] not
known’=緬國為西南夷不知何種.
103
Just as the Yuan could not clearly characterise
the type of yi the Mian-Burmese were, the Burmese probably were equally unable
to classify the Tarup as simply one single type. ‘Mian’ is an exonym the Chinese
used to refer to peoples of Burmese ethnicity, whereas in earlier Chinese sources of
the Tang and Song periods, descriptions of Myanmar comprised kingdoms’ names.
Just like ‘Tarup’, which has come to refer exclusively to the Chinese ethnic group,
‘Mian’ also referred to the peoples of the country, Myanmar.
This analysis of Burmese–Tarup relations challenges historians to confront the
problems of classifications which involve geographically mobile populations within
boundaries which not only have shifted but were probably measured by a different
set of principles in the premodern mindset. ‘Tarup’ cannot be ascribed to any specific
ethnic population because it was not the nature of Tarup ethnicity which changed;
rather, the population referred to as ‘Tarup’ actually changed physically. Tarup is
thus closely tied in with a specific geographical region (the area beyond northern
Burma) and this fixedness of Tarup pyi is not negotiable. The Burmese envisioned
the Tarup as the inhabitants of a region to the north of what was the northernmost
extent of the Burmese kingdom par excellence,
104
Bagan. Just as the form determines
the perception regardless of its content, the Tarup were always seen as Tarup whether
103 Song Lian, Yuan shi, vol. 210, p. 1423; see also appendix of Wade, ‘An annotated translation of the
Yuan shi account of Mian (Burma)’.
104 Par excellence not in terms of territorial expanse, but rather with relation to the importance of the
Buddha’s religion epitomised in the monuments and by association with the genealogy of kingship.
Presumably later Burmese kingdoms such as the second Hanthawati of Bayinnaung and Konbaung
Burma amassed greater areas for their empires.
THE QUE S TI ON OF ‘ CHI NA’ I N B UR ME S E CHRONI CL E S 151
they were Nanzhao, Mongol, Yunnanese, Ming Chinese, Turks, or any other.
However one important point which makes a group Tarup, and not Maw Shan or
another ethnic minority, is that the space where the Tarup are is ‘other’, beyond
the boundary and suzerainty of Burma. In this sense there is a perception of an ima-
gined boundary which may not be clearly marked by either military outposts or natu-
ral environmental features.
The observation that a number of the Burmese chroniclers’ accounts of the Tarup
are corroborated by Chinese historical sources suggests that the Burmese chronicles
can be treated as valid primary historical records for this particular type of infor-
mation. Similar to most other primary sources, a researcher must exercise discretion
in the use of these documents, often checking them against other contemporary
sources, including those of external origins or more established traditions such as
the Chinese histories. Even though Burmese chronicles of the eighteenth and nine-
teenth centuries still contain descriptions which celebrate and possibly exaggerate
the glory of former Burmese kings and their courts, there remain sufficient narrative
descriptions of activities, events and personages which can prove important in filling
the gaps of knowledge which still exist in the relatively barren field of Burmese his-
tory,
105
especially in the case of Burmese–‘Chinese’ relations via the borderlands of
Yunnan and Shan areas.
105 Other than in areas such as religion and politics, research in Burma, particularly on subjects per-
taining to the early periods of Burmese history, remains scant compared to most other Southeast Asian
countries, except perhaps Laos.
152 GOH GE OK YI AN

126

GOH GEOK YIAN

Chinese textual sources’ descriptions of early Southeast Asian polities, which are then compared with Southeast Asian indigenous textual evidence.3 This however does not mean that Southeast Asian texts do not discuss China or any groups associated with the Chinese at all, but few scholars have used indigenous sources to examine Southeast Asian perceptions of ancient China. Scholarship has largely focused on anthropological study of the Chinese in Southeast Asia in colonial and postcolonial times. The principal exception is Vietnam. The earliest Vietnamese texts, including the Annam chi luoc and Dai Viet su luoc, were largely derived from Chinese records.4 The ultimate motivation of most scholars who have studied these indigenous sources has been to gain a better understanding of the workings of early Vietnamese polities and their relations with China. Rarely have they looked at Vietnamese views of the Chinese. Burmese descriptions of early Bagan–Tarup relations emphasise a shared Buddhist culture; this approach to the description of relations is unusual in Southeast Asian sources. For example during the early Bagan period, in the competition for Buddha’s relic, the Burmese chronicles describe the Tarup (‘China’) as the successful possessor of the relic (to the detriment of the Burmese). The Burmese chronicle or yazawin is one of many different genres of the Burmese textual tradition. Yazawin, commonly translated in English as ‘chronicle’, focuses on the royal genealogy of kings, and the rise and fall of dynasties and kingdoms. It is similar to the rajavamsa of the Sri Lankan tradition. We do not know when the genre was introduced; the earliest extant yazawin can be dated to 1520 CE. Burmese chronicles contain numerous accounts of the relations between Tarup pyi (‘Tarup country’, presently used to refer to China) and Burma. The best-known example of the use of the word ‘Tarup’ appears in the epithet ‘Taruppye’ (‘he who fled from the Chinese’) infamously borne by Narathihapate, king of Bagan (1257– 87), who fled his capital during the Mongol invasion of 1284=1287.5 In this instance, Tarup clearly refers to the Mongols. However, a chronological assessment of events pertaining to Tarup reveals that at other times the term has referred to different groups of people. This is the first study to look in depth at how a Southeast Asian society perceived China in the precolonial period. Why is it important to define the identity of the Tarup, and how does understanding the Burmese perception of the Tarup contribute to historical scholarship of not just Burma but the larger world? On one level, the Burmese representation of Tarup is not unique; it is a common practice by a single community, nation, kingdom or a nation-state to apply a single label to a diverse group of people. Examples of
3 See George Coedès, The Indianized states of Southeast Asia (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1968); and Paul Wheatley, Nagara and commandery: Origins of the Southeast Asian urban traditions (Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography, 1983). 4 Keith W. Taylor, The birth of Vietnam (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Los Angeles, 1983), pp. 350–1. 5 For detailed discussions, see Michael Aung-Thwin, Myth and history in the historiography of early Burma: Paradigms, primary sources, and prejudices (Ohio and Singapore: Ohio University Center for International Studies and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1998), pp. 33–62; J. Paul Bennett, ‘The “fall of Pagan”: Continuity and change in 14th century Burma’, in Bennett, Conference under the tamarind tree: Three essays in Burmese history (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), pp. 3–53.

Wolters. the western European appropriation of the term ‘Tartar’ to refer to both Turks and Mongols as the latter two groups were seen in the same light as marauders on horseback. ‘Notes and remarks on the newly discovered Tartar relation and the Vinland map’. 1969). The golden Khersonese: Studies in the historical geography of the Malay peninsula before A. 1970). un propagateur du tantrisme en Chine et au ¯ Cambodge à l’époque de Hiuan-tsang’. ch. 641 (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1993). The account is contained in the T. Fredrik Barth (Oslo: Universitets-forlaget.C. 227 (1935): 83–100. 1967).W. CO: Pluto Press. Szczesniak. ‘Puṇyodaya (Na-t’i). For ‘Po-sse’ and ‘k’un-lun-po’. 486 Maṇḍasta sūtra. Edmund Leach’s work represents the most famous study of ethnic distinctions in postcolonial Burma. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 4 (1971): 398–400. Paul Wheatley. Jones. Tartars and Turks. 7 W. see Lin Li-kouang.R. History as well as anthropology can be studied through this perspective. 1500 (Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. 9 Edmund R. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (henceforth JSEAS). 35. Thomas H. The Tartar threat to Europe during the later medieval period was exemplified in the popular legend which described Alexander the Great’s deliberate exclusion of the peoples of Gog and Magog from his civilised world. Political systems of highland Burma: A study of Kachin social structure (London: Athlone Press. 1969). The text he purportedly wrote was Yystoria Mongalorum or Mongol Mission which was the source for two later documents: Hystoria Tartarorum (mid-13th century) or Tartar relation and the Vinland map (mid-15th century).B. Ethnicity and nationalism: Anthropological perspectives (Boulder. to A. Tartary was used to signify the ‘territories occupied mostly by the Mongols or Turkic nomads between the lower Volga and Western borders of China’ (p.9 Exploration of additional dimensions of the important insights Leach obtained for the Shan and Kachin in the same general area has the potential to illuminate further aspects of this topic. p. Huns.D. ‘Kunlun’ was used by the Chinese as a regional toponym to refer to ‘a succession of peoples ranging from the Malays around the coasts of the Peninsula to Chams along the shores of Indo-China’. ‘A review article: Esoteric Buddhism in Southeast Asia in the light of recent scholarship’.) to refer to people from South Asia regardless of whether they were Chola or Mughal. Journal Asiatique.D. 86. Refer to B. ed. 4 (1966): 373–6. Fourteenth-century Javanese poet Mpu Prapanca also used ‘Tartar’ to refer to the Mongol invaders in his work Desawarnana. 373).THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 127 such categorisation include the Chinese use of ‘Kunlun’6 to refer to Southeast Asians regardless of their ethnic. Ethnicity theorists such as Fredrik Barth emphasise that the fluctuating and dynamic nature of the boundary between ethnic groups is constantly being negotiated and determined. refer to J. This Tarup study fits within this framework of enquiry by examining the process through which ethnic relations between two 6 In the Chinese account of the pilgrim Punyodaya. . 2 (2004): 336. pp. 8 Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Early Indonesian commerce: A study of the origins of Srivijaya (Ithaca: Cornell University Press. which was Southeast Asia. 13. Eriksen. 283 and 285. 52. Leach. Mongols and Yunnanese=Tibeto-Burman speakers? Understanding whether the Burmese distinguished these identities in the 1280s would enable us to compare the relative compatibility between the emic (internally generated set of primordial and ascribed traits) and the etic categories of ethnicity. The Gog and Magog were identified with the steppe nomads who included the Scythians.8 in the case of Burma. in 656 the emperor asked the Indian pilgrim who ˙ was then in China to travel to Kunlun. geographical and cultural diversity.7 and the Burmese use of the term ‘Kula’ (kula. Hiram Woodward. Innes Miller. How did the Burmese in the thirteenth century perceive ethnicity? What does it matter whether the Burmese of the 1280s could distinguish between Chinese. 6–10. Paul Wheatley also pointed out that just like ‘Suvarṇadvīpa’. Avars. The Franciscan monk John of Plano de Carpine used the term ‘Tartar’ to describe Mongol society in his descriptions of his travels to China which was then under Mongol rule. The spice trade of the Roman empire: 29 B. ‘The image of the barbarian in medieval Europe’. and O. 1961).

1724–1942’. Scholars such as G.E Hall (London: Oxford University Press. whereas in the footnotes the Library of Congress Romanization system is used for the titles so as to allow readers to locate these sources more efficiently. most scholars such as U Tin Ohn. The Shan.H. In the main text the titles are transliterated phonetically as they are pronounced in Burmese. Palm-leaf manuscript copies of the same chronicle normally bear the title Mahayazawinthit or Yazawinthit. on the other hand. 2003). does not describe the eleventh-century ruler Anawrahta’s expedition to Tarup. but its geopolitical association was less flexible. c. ed. p. ‘Modern historical writing in Burmese. which represents ‘a serious attempt to check history by means of inscriptions’.f®mn\marazwc\qs\"p@mt´∑'rn\kun\®mio > 'mgçlapMuNip\tiuk\'1968" Twinthin Taikwun Mahasitthu. Luce and Pe Maung Tin. U Thaw Kaung and Victor Lieberman have concurred on ‘1798’ as the date of the completion of Twinthin’s chronicle. Mahayazawingyi [‘Great Chronicle’]. Pe Maung Tin.H. The Glass Palace Chronicle of the kings of Burma (Rangoon: Rangoon University Press. 88. 1961). paper presented at the Universities Historical Research Centre Golden Jubilee Conference. p.128 GOH GEOK YIAN groups of varying composition developed over a long period of contact. see also Thaw Kaung. 2 and 3 which were published later in 1998 and 1997 respectively both bear the title Mahayazawinthit. 12 t∑c. in Historians of South East Asia. D.10 It is possible that the Burmese during the eleventh to thirteenth centuries perceived ethnicity differently from the Burmese of the eighteenth century. ‘Two compilers of Myanmar history and their chronicles’. In order to settle this point. The spatial division between the Tarup and Burmese was clearly marked by a stable border which could not be simply crossed over by either ethnic group. 800–1830: Volume 1: Integration on the mainland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. Yangon. Rajavan`kyò (Yangon: Hanthawati. Therefore the Burmese perception of the Shans is associated with a negotiable frontier. but vols. I have utilised two different transliterations systems for the Burmese-language works. ‘Two compilers of Myanmar history and their . Strange parallels: Southeast Asia in global context. The Tarup-Burmese boundary. p. the razwc\ek¥a\ Yazawingyaw [‘Celebrated Chronicle’] begun by Shin Thilawuntha (Silavaṃ sa) in 1502. 13 Although there is some controversy over the date of the chronicle. 9. 11 rxc\mhaq^lwMqfrazwc\ek¥a\"rn\kun\'1965" Shin Maha Thilawuntha. The first volume of Twinthin’s ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ chronicle published in 1968 bears the title Myanma Yazawinthit. ˙ ¯ 1965). ‘Tarup pyi’.14 The m˙n\nn\. 1968). Tvan`” San`” \ ˙ ˙ ˙ e* Mran`ma Rajavan`sac` (Ran`kuin`: Mangala puṃ nhip`tuik`. 1960). Luce. was not negotiable.G. It is suggested here that the ethnic definition of the Tarup was fluid. fell within the Burmese kingdoms’ spheres of authority in the sense that the Shans were traditionally seen as tributaries of the Burmese states. the mharazwc\Âk^. 10 The negotiability of boundary between Burmese and Shan on one hand and the non-negotiability of Burmese and Tarup on the other were likely determined by the nature of relationships between these groups. see Tin Ohn. 14 G. The earliest extant Burmese chronicle.11 The most elaborate accounts of Burma’s relations with the Tarup appear first in the early eighteenth-century chronicle by U Kala (c. was an independent political entity comparable in size or in fact larger than the Burmese kingdoms. Thus the referent of the linguistic term ‘Tarup’ could well have been characterised differently in these two periods. 198. Jan. The Mahayazawinthit12 [‘Great New Chronicle’] completed by Twinthin Taikwun Mahasitthu (1726–1806) in 179813 contains much reduced descriptions of the same events. U Thaw Kaung and Dr Yi Yi have regarded this chronicle as a critical history. but refers to Taruppye Min’s reign as signalling the end of the Bagan dynasty.qc\. Thaw Kaung. it is necessary to determine whether ‘Tarup’ referred to an ethnic category or a political entity. 2005. xvii. 1678–1738). Tarup pyi designated the area north and northeast of what later Burmese chroniclers considered to be the northernmost extent of classical Burmese kingdoms’ spheres of influence. unlike the Tarup. and Victor Lieberman. by contrast.

insertions of certain short statements justifying the sequence of events. The chronicles also contain hitherto relatively unexplored Burmese perceptions of their neighbours.G. Nicholas Tarling (Cambridge. and Dr Yi Yi. ed."pTmt∑´"rn\kun\®mio > 'm¥io.15 and the compilers replicated almost verbatim the elaborate descriptions of accounts of figures.and twentieth-century modern construction imposed on earlier Burmese texts and the past in general. The chronicles contain perhaps the largest repository of information on Burma’s relations with neighbouring polities.'1992" Mhan`nan`” Maharajavan`to `krī” ˙ ¯ ¯ (Hmannan Maha Yazawindawgyi) (Ran`kuin`: Myui” Khyac` Sit`dhat` Thak`san`re”. .K¥s\sit\Dat\Tk\qn\er. Instead it is likely that there are areas and sources of concern which reflect genuine historical situations. and Chinese government was more highly centralised than at any previous period. 3 vols. ¯ 16 J. Bulletin of the Burma Historical Commission. vol. J. refused to accept chronicles chronicles’. 3 (1963): 143–70. p. events and kingdoms found in U Kala’s chronicle at least up to the Inwa period.16 Most Western scholars. ‘The writing of Southeast Asian history’. When these chronicles were compiled. There are two variables to note here: first. D. such as G. The chroniclers may have assumed that the Tarup of the earlier periods conformed to this categorisation. When the compilers of sixteenth. 1992). this contribution focuses on one aspect of the chronicles: their treatment of ethnicity. The reliability of the Burmese chronicles has often been questioned and that has made historians reluctant to use them as reliable sources. This situation may have led the eighteenth.and nineteenth-century Burmese writers to project the concept of Tarup as an all-encompassing category that referred to the Chinese in the past. whereas others – such as political factionalism. This could explain the chroniclers’ tendency to see Tarup=China as a single political unit. Instead. Even if the Burmese writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw the term ‘Tarup’ as the unified polity China.D. John Cady and even Gordon Luce himself.mharazwc\eta\”k^. 1992). Legge’s statement that ‘it can be argued that — with the exception of Vietnam whose dynastic historians did attempt to preserve a record of events — there was no genuinely historical tradition in Southeast Asia’ shows that the reluctance to use traditional chronicles extends to other writing traditions in the region too. 1. including Tarup. It is not possible to state that the chronicles are entirely accurate.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 129 razwc\eta\Âk^. for example – are much more likely to be altered by subsequent editors. The rendering of ‘Tarup’ as ‘China’ or ‘Chinese’ is likely a nineteenth. 1752–1885’. New York: Cambridge University Press.E. Hall.through nineteenth-century Burmese chronicles used the term ‘Tarup’. The Hmannan does vary slightly from the latter chronicle in terms of the organisation of the narrative sequence. 2. this is a very broad subject which cannot be resolved in one article. ‘A bibliographical essay on the Burmese sources for the history of the Konbaung period. China was ruled by the Qing dynasty. the Burmese perception of who they think the Tarup were and second the actual territory of Tarup which might have consisted of quite diverse groups. and the commentaries inserted by the compilers. Legge. 15 m˙n\nn\. in The Cambridge history of Southeast Asia. they were referring to the ‘Tarup’ of the specific time periods they were discussing.D. Hmannan Yazawindawgyi [‘Great Glass Palace Chronicle’] was commissioned in 1829. This is one major justification for the use of the Burmese chronicles as important sources of information on early Burmese history.E. Harvey. nor are they completely fantastical. which marks the end of volume three of the latter’s work.

1967). for instance. 21 See Michael Aung-Thwin. whereas others such as Maung Htin Aung and U Tet Htoot tended to treat them as factual histories. Htin Aung. JSEAS. paper presented at Workshop for the Academic Frontier Project: ‘Social change in Asia and the Pacific’. it is possible to glean from them a perspective on the distant past. and the degree of discretion the Burmese chroniclers exercised by not discussing contemporary issues. It is possible to isolate two variant forms of contact in a diachronic study of the interactions between the Burmese22 rulers and the Tarup Utibhwa (tRup\Ë. Meiji Gakuin University. Burmese history before 1287: A defense of the chronicles (Oxford: Asoka Society.and eighteenth-century Burmese. By attempting to distinguish between the Tarup at different periods. diverse as they were. He noted in his review of Maung Htin Aung’s book. The 17 John F.130 GOH GEOK YIAN as histories. in Hall ed. 1970). Michael Aung-Thwin argues that the Burmese chronicles provide accurate descriptions of the notion of ‘Mranma Pran’ and its reality.tv\B∑a. 22 Burmese is used here to refer to the rulers of various kingdoms which existed at different periods in what is known today as Myanmar=Burma. Historians of South East Asia. . which emphasises ‘accurate history’. ‘How reliable is U Kala’s chronicle? Some new comparisons’. A comparison of the chronicles with Chinese sources reveals that in spite of the cultural bias of each country’s histories. 20 Victor Lieberman. 1–2 Mar.’17 Hall even went to the extent of questioning the ability of contemporary Burmese scholars to produce serious historical works. ‘On the historiography of Southeast Asia and the Philippines: The “Golden Age” of Southeast Asian Studies — experiences and reflections’. ‘The nature of Burmese chronicles’. suggests at least two reasons which support the historicity of Burmese chronicles such as the Mahayazawingyi: the influence of the Theravada historiographic tradition. criticising their use of legends and folktales on the one hand and their concern with legitimisation on the other. The eighteenth. Cady wrote in his preface: ‘the dependable sources covering Burmese-British relations are almost entirely in English. The relevant historical chronicles prepared by the Burmese Court down to 1885 were often designed not to record actual happenings but to salve royal prestige.18 Burmese scholars. The stricken peacock: ‘it seems highly doubtful whether a work of adequate critical standards can be produced by a Burmese scholar’. 39. it is possible to get a better idea of how to use the chronicles. JSEAS. 1958). 50–62. 17. This perspective will allow one to understand the worldview of the eleventh-. 2 (2008): 193–217.19 Within the last three decades..21 The usage of ‘Tarup’ was not new. 2 (1986): 253. 19 Htin Aung.and nineteenth-century Burmese writers would have been aware of these references to the Tarup. it can be found in the 1285 inscription of Shin Dissapramok. In a recent article. Cady. vi. A history of modern Burma (Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 12. were split into two camps: Western-educated scholars like the late Than Tun tended to treat the chronicles with a tinge of distrust. pp. A history of Burma (New York: Columbia University Press. Lieberman. on the other hand. Kyanzittha Umin. 18 See Reynaldo Ileto.). Tet Htoot. p. also contains a depiction of what the Burmese now refer to as Mongol warriors with their bows and arrows. The twelfth-century Bagan temple. thirteenth. 2003.20 By avoiding discussion of contemporary issues. ‘Mranma Pran: When context encounters notion’. p. scholars in general have become more open to the idea of using the chronicles as sources for specific periods of Burmese history. writers were able to eliminate at least one potential source of biased interpretation.

which describes Shin Dissapramok’s peace mission to China. at the time [i. Journal of the Burma Research Society [henceforth JBRS]. fought with each other and often enlisted the help of the Tarup to resolve these conflicts.25 Luce believed that Taruk ought to refer to the Mongols based on the inscription of 1285. like numerous other questions which emerged in the study of Burmese past.’ Walter Pater. but was said to have been a reference. ‘whether the Taruk in Old Burmese ever means. Luce. Luce 23 In the words of Marius the Epicure. 42. 1 (June 1959): 69. ‘Note on the peoples of Burma in the 12th–13th century A. land and commercial gains determines the nature of the Tarup–Burmese relationship. as it does today.gutenberg. However. The first form of interaction can be perceived within the scope of religious cosmopoleis whereby individual cities such as Bagan and Tarup (Gandhara Division) represent two among numerous cities which comprised a religious oikoumene or commonwealth. In this inscription. This transformation took place when large states disintegrated some time after the Mongol invasion of 1284=87. from one informed by religion to one that is concerned with territorial expansion and political sovereignty. p. In this later period. 24 Aung-Thwin. 2009). Marius the epicure.H. Etext of the Project Gutenberg. as the condition of our living there with them at all. Myth and history. http:==www. to Turks in the Mongol armies. as really their peers or fellow-citizens. What is interesting is not that Luce never resolved the controversy but rather that this issue. vol. usages. notwithstanding the fact that he was writing at an earlier time. things our friends and companions will expect of us. found it a perplexing enigma. not religious values. ‘Ho kosmos hùsanei polis estin — the world is as it were a commonwealth. . He wrote. was never picked up by another scholar or student. the ‘Taruk king’ is Kubilai Khan.’. In a footnote in Myth and history in the historiography of early Burma. since contemporary (Pagan period) and nearcontemporary (Ava period) inscriptions clearly used the word to refer to the Chinese. 162. the latter interpretation is not entirely correct.org=etext=4058 (last accessed on 2 Mar.23 An analysis of the accounts of Burmese–Tarup relations provides clues to who and what was Tarup and thus contributes to a better understanding of the complex relations between Myanmar and ‘Tarup’ (China) today. 12. except Michael Aung-Thwin. actually current in it. a city: and there are observances.. Aung-Thwin wrote. is highly questionable’. Tarup Amyomyo (‘varieties of Tarup’) The question of who and what was Tarup is not new. customs. the thirteenth century]. Luce. ‘The word Tarup or Tarok is a current reference to the Chinese.e. polis can also refer to a commonwealth. The second theme of contact is represented by the smaller socio-political and urban Burmese cosmopoleis which emphasised ethnic differences. p.’24 Aung-Thwin refers here to Sir Arthur Phayre’s suggestion that Tarup is derived from the Chinese word for the Turks. who comprised a large contingent of the Mongol army during the thirteenth century. it is rather a revisiting of an old question posed by G. 2. the Chinese. on the other hand. 25 G. Luce in 1959. competition for resources such as people.H.D. The other appears to represent a shift of ideology.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 131 first appears to be conducted within the scope of a religious network which spanned the region from India and Sri Lanka across Burma and northern Thailand to southeastern China and parts of Central Asia between the tenth and thirteenth centuries.

Old Burma-early Pagan (Locust Valley. 2 (1944): 268. 11. ‘Toue-Kioue’. 27 For discussion of Tujue and China’s relations with the Turks. NY: J. 6. based on his reading of the Hledauk inscription of 1110–11 CE. 28 György Kara. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 47. 32 According to Macartney’s discussion of Németh’s description of Mongol tribal names. most of the Kušan had settled in India following Peroz’s victory over them. Huns (including the Kushan) and Toue-Kioue belong to the same linguistic branch of the Turkish family. C. ed. Turks. 2 (1883): 327–8. 1969). ‘Aramaic scripts for Altaic languages’.30 Here I will suggest two other possible origins of ‘Tarup’: first as a literal transliteration of ‘Dayue’ from Chinese references to the group they called ‘Dayuezhi’ (大月 支 or 大月氏) and second as a corruption of ‘Tangut’. Journal Asiatique. ‘The early Syam in Burma’s history: A supplement’. pp.A. 536–58. on the other hand. Série 8. Luce. J. 1 (June 1959): 136. 69–70. although it is possible that the former could have been a mispronunciation of the latter. quoting Édouard Specht. and they were often exposed to their attacks. ‘Études sur l’Asie centrale d’après les historiens chinois’.26 Phonetically Tarup and Tujue27 (突厥. in The world’s writing systems. p. and Victor Cunrui Xiong’s review of Pan’s book in China Review International. the Chinese term for Turk) sound a little different. reflecting their perception of the Mongols. 30 Ibid.132 GOH GEOK YIAN also tended to accept Phayre’s allusion to the Turks: ‘the word Taruk (probably ‘Turk’) comes in first with the Mongols. They therefore moved westward and established themselves in the city of Po-lo”. CII fol. Peter Daniels and William Bright (New York: Oxford University Press. 2 (1999): 511–14. the Avars. it is a possibility which requires further investigation. ‘[T]he Annals of Wei (c. was used in the eighth-century inscriptions of the Orkhon valley in Mongolia. tended to think of Tarup as originating from Daliguo (大理國). The Orkhon inscriptions are bilingual. H. Luce. the Kusan or Kushan Huns. 28. Luce had studied early Chinese sources with Pelliot and Louis Finot.H. By 468 CE. 1997). comprising both minor Chinese-language texts and inscriptions written in a form of Turkic script (Orkhon). The Kushan can thus be considered Turkic-speaking people or in many ways. see Pan Yihong. 1996). 69. Journal of the Siam Society [henceforth JSS]. Paul Pelliot. ‘On the Greek sources for the history of the Turks in the sixth century’. and G. Macartney. regarded as the heartlands of the Mongol civilisation. another famous Sinologist. at the end of the Pagán dynasty’. Luce suggested that it is likely that the Burmese.’31 This westward migration supposedly began around the year 450 CE. 184. Western Washington University.A. p. pp. ‘Dayue’ supports the argument that ‘Tarup’ did in fact refer to a Turkic-speaking group of people. at the Sorbonne in Paris in 1917. Son of Heaven and Heavenly Qaghan: Sui-Tang China and its neighbors (Bellingham.. ‘Note on the peoples of Burma’.28 Though these do not by any means prove with certainty that the Burmese term Tarup indeed was derived from the Chinese term for the Turks. . 15) say that “the kingdom of Ta Yüe-Chi (Kušan Huns) … was bordered on the north by the Jwen-Jwen [the Juan Juan or Avar Turks]. Macartney describes how the term ‘Turk’ or the Greek rendering of it.29 Pelliot was an influential Sinologist whose research on Chinese sources pertaining to Southeast Asia and Burma in particular was considered by scholars such as Luce to be most reliable. In addition the word ‘turuk’. in this case. saw the Nanzhao troops as also being Tarup. WA: Center for East Asian Studies.32 was 26 G. 29 Luce. 31 C. which sounds close to the Burmese Tarup. Augustin Publisher. the old kingdom of Nanzhao (南詔).

Tangut refers to the ethnic group which established the state of Xia (1038–1227). 191. . ‘On the Greek sources for the history of the Turks in the sixth century’. 171–4. p. pp. and trade: The realignment of Sino-Indian relations.33 This is a common problem with using ethnonyms and exonyms. 34 Anthropologically ethnonyms have been used to refer exclusively to names which ethnic groups have given themselves as opposed to exonyms which refer to names given by outsiders. ‘Tarup’ as a corruption of ‘Tangut’ fits well within the context of Burmese historiographers’ interest in relating Burma’s history of kingdoms with the history of Buddhism. 35 Ruth W. There were at least three overland routes linking these various Buddhist polities: a Tibetan route through Central Asia. which could be divided into two subroutes. 36 Tansen Sen. a route from Khotan through Gilgit and Chilas. p. 2003). Tangut Xixia began building its empire around the same time Bagan rose to prominence as a Buddhist centre around 1038. The great state of White and High: Buddhism and state formation in eleventhcentury Xia (Honolulu: University of Hawaìi Press. In the context of the eleventh century.35 The Tangut elite spoke a language which is related to Tibetan. xiii. especially since Buddhism was on the wane in Song China. 600–1400 (Honolulu: Association for Asian Studies and University of Hawai`i Press. a name attributed to them by outsiders.. particularly in the case of the reference to Tarup-‘China’ in the period before the Mongol invasion. texts and relics circulated. which also came to be known as Xixia. 272.37 illustrating the devout 33 Macartney. It had requested and received numerous Buddhist scriptures from Song China. ‘Tangut’ is an ethnic name which first appeared in Orkhon Turkic runic inscriptions of 735. That the meaning of Tarup of the pre-Mongol invasion period is closely tied up with the history of Buddhism should be acknowledged as an important factor in determining the identity of the Tarup during this early time period.36 Along these overland routes and networks religious persons. both of which crossed Burma. p. particularly the Chinese who called them ‘Dangxiang’ 黨項. 1996). They never called themselves ‘Tangut’.34 which can be used to refer to more than one specific language group or ethnic group or sometimes to a group of people occupying a particular geographical location. it is probable that in the universal history of Buddhism the Burmese chroniclers of later times continued to refer to the former territory once occupied by the Kushan as ‘Tarup’. and the third and by far the oldest. and referred to themselves as ‘Mi’ or ‘Mi-nyag’ in Tibetan. diplomacy. and considering that the references to Tarup during Anawrahta’s reign emphasise the Buddhist character of the Tarup polity. It is possible that ‘Tarup’ represents the Burmese attempt to render the Chinese name of the Dayuezhi or Kushan. The Tangut court was said to have ‘commemorated 150 relic fragments of the Buddha with lavish gifts and donations’ in 1038. Dunnell. known to be Buddhists. It would thus not be surprising if Burmese chroniclers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries recorded Tangut Xixia as representing the contemporary and powerful Buddhist polity of Tarup pyi.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 133 used ‘almost in consecutive breaths to describe different peoples…’. derived from Dayue. Buddhism. It is probable that the eighteenthand nineteenth-century Burmese chroniclers knew that Tangut Xixia was a Buddhist contemporary of eleventh-century Bagan. 37 Ibid. and was an important nexus of the Buddhist communications and trade network between India and China.

‘The Chinese inscription at Pagan’. p. Myth and history. By contrast. Chen Yi Sein.. and Aung-Thwin. Luce ‘The early Syam in Burma’s history’. p. See also Zhongguo gujizhong youguan Miandian ziliao huibian [Compilation of research materials on Myanmar in ancient Chinese sources].quetqnË.®cim\. 253–4. particularly during Anawrahta’s reign (1044– 77) could only have been either Tangut or Nanzhao. in the western part of the country. 40 {qkrs\647Ku®mik(qiu)w\N˙s"®pv\Aenak\Pk\l˙v\k¬NOik\mc\”k^niy\tw\m¨f"AnN†pisv\m(ha)piuw\kiuw\nc\tiuw\tRuk\fAlaAlakiuwqi”q \ \ \ c\mlyhsy\t\mfAnN†( pi)sv\mhapiuw\Suw\f"} Ë. Yuan shi. 42 Song Lian.39 As these issues lie beyond the scope of my article. Aung-Thwin is the first scholar to mention and demonstrate that Hlaykya was the place to which Narathihapate fled. Zhongguo gujizhong. pp. p. chs. 2002).®mn\maek¥ak\sam¥a.D. ‘History of Buddhism in Burma: A. 40.40 This suggests that during the year 1285. it will be sufficient to note that the Tarup described in this inscription and referred to in the chronicles with reference to King Narathihapate were the Mongols. JSS. ‘The early Syam in Burma’s history: A supplement’. the king who was then staying in Hlaykya. 2 (1960). and whether there were two journeys instead of one. whether it preceded or followed another mission by Anantapisan and Mahabuiw. An ˙ ¯ ¯ account of these events is discussed in Aung-Thwin.42 The mission by Mahabuiw and Anantapisan is therefore corroborated by the Yuan shi.41 The Yuan shi stated that Mian country sent a diplomatic mission led by ‘Ma-la-bu’ and ‘Ti-ban-de’ with tribute. G. 2 (1958). 1935). 1000–1300’.ehac\. Myth and history. 311. One account describes a campaign sent against the Burmese in 1284. In addition.@an' 1983" U Ngyein Maung (U Nrim`” Mon`). p. the 1285 Dissapramok inscription clearly suggests that the Tarup referred to were the Mongols or Yuan. 61. 1983). pp.emac\"erO. 1-2 (1978): 1–266. 41 The account can be found in Song Lian.000 catties of tea in exchange for peace’ in 1044.134 GOH GEOK YIAN Buddhist character of Xixia.. Yu Dingbang and Huang Zhongyan (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. It would appear that before the Mongol invasion Tarup could have referred to one of several different ethno-political groups. agreed to send it an ‘annual tribute of 50. during the year Sakkaraj 647 (1285 CE). and 10. ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ Tatiyatvai. vol. having suffered countless defeats in battles with the Khitans. 42–3. Jurchens and Tanguts. even though that source 38 Ibid. 153. the latter was a militarily strong neighbour of Song China which.'ttiyt∑´'qk˚raz\622 m˙699"rn\kun\®mio > 'er˙. pp. 46.000 tales of silver. Sakkaraj`622 mha 699 (Ran`kuin`mrui’: Rhe”hon` Sutesana Usī”ṭhana.s^. see Chen Yi Sein. ¨ i \ u i ¨ i ehac\. 130. Bulletin of the Burma Historical Commission. JBRS. Whether the Mongols actually reached Bagan or whether Narathihapate fled in fear as stated in the chronicles is irrelevant. Yu and Huang ed. although it is likely that the Tarup of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. ed.000 bolts of silk. The main points of dispute revolve around the actual date of Dissapramok’s mission. Rhe”hon`” Mran`ma Kyok`samya”. Luce.H. p. attacking with 200 boats. Than Tun. wished to be informed of the coming of the Tarup. 2 and 3. ‘Rhan Disapamkha Nrim Khyam Re Mac Rhan Aphwai’ [Account of Shin Disapramok’s peace mission]. Nuinnam Samuin ˙˙ ˙ ˙ Sutesana [Researches in Burmese History]. and this is a point agreed upon by several scholars from Luce through Chen Yi-sein and Aung-Thwin. which succeeded in invading Tagaung. 1. 141. 1 (1977): 41–57. the latter had not yet reached where the king was staying and therefore most likely had not reached Bagan. It will be noted that in the inscription. 15. Yuanshi [History of the Yuan Dynasty] Shanghai: Zhonghua Book Image and Print. 43. The Yuan shi contains numerous accounts of campaigns against the Mian (Burmese) and tribute missions by them. 59–101. 39 For a detailed discussion on these issues.38 coincidentally the first year of King Anawrahta’s reign. .

but not the other two earlier chronicles. although the introduction to the 1960 printed edition suggests that the text was compiled during the reign of King Minyeh Kyawhtin (c. 1672–98).yU\ek¥. Several Burmese texts contain variant versions of the same events. u saepN˙c\. Hla Tin.'eRO. believed to have been compiled some time during the later part of the nineteenth century. but it is not the only description of the Tarup.ehac\. Others.quetqnVWn\Âka. and (3) the Zatadawpon Yazawin [Chronicle of Royal Horoscopes]. This account can be found in the Hmannan Yazawindawgyi.mO@an1"1960" U. 1.l˙tc\(l˙qmin\)"zataeta\pMrazwc\"rn\kun\"®pv\etac\suyU\ek¥. which have not been discussed yet. 43 U^.er. Rhe“hon`” Sutesana Ññvhan`krã“ re”van`ruṃ . 121.43 Aung-Thwin. The Tarup in Burmese chronicles . The mists of Ramañña: The legend that was lower Burma (Honolulu: ¯ University of Hawai’i Press. Even though the information in the chronicles was not necessarily recorded at the time of the events which they are supposedly describing. Examples may be taken from King Pyuminhti’s reign (Tharehkettara or Sriksetra kingdom) to the Ava-Burma period (reigns of Rajadhiraj and Ava king Minkhaung). Jãtãto`pum. are: (1) a palm-leaf recension of the Bagan Yazawin [Bagan Chronicle]. Even though the Burmese chronicles are not contemporaneous with the Chinese sources. p. The accounts in the Burmese chronicles will be discussed in conjunction with references corresponding to the events. figures or time periods taken from Chinese sources such as the Yuan shi and Ming Shilu wherever possible.@an'eROx. Rãjawan` (Zatadawpon Yazawin) (Ran`kun`: ˙ Praññ`ton`cu Yañ`kye“mhu van`krī” ṭãna.ehac\. ˙ 44 Michael Aung-Thwin. The account of the Mongols is one of the better-known episodes in the Burmese chronicles. Twinthin Taikwun Mahasithu’s Mahayazawinthit. their descriptions of the events which involve both countries characterise important information on the Tarup. which was most likely compiled over a long span of time by different authors.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 135 contains many references to campaigns against the Burmese which are not mentioned in Burmese inscriptions or later chronicles. however. (2) the Bagan Yazawinthit or Yazawunthazalinikyam [New Bagan Chronicle]. p.wn\RuM. 2005). It appears in the infamous epithet Taruppye (tRup\e®p) bestowed on King Narathihapate. there are other accounts of Burmese interactions with the Tarup prior to and after the reign of King Narathihapate. whose date of composition is unknown but is believed by most scholars to have been compiled after the original Bagan Yazawin. Rhe“hon” ˙ ˙ ˙ cãpe nhan’` yañ`kye” mhu ṭãna. believes that ‘the earliest portions of this text appear to have been written sometime in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth centuries’.mOwn\”k^. and the Hmannan Yazawindawgyi. they are still the primary source that historians must rely on. which were referred to earlier. In the chronology of Burmese history. The earliest extant Burmese chronicle to mention ‘Tarup’ is Shin Thilawuntha’s Yazawingyaw. These include U Kala’s Mahayazawingyi. 1960). the earliest reference to ‘Tarup’ appears in the accounts describing the destruction of Tagaung kingdom in roughly the fifth century CE. which was composed in 1520.44 These chronicles discuss the subject of Burma–Tarup relations more extensively than inscriptions and other sources of information.

This account describes the legendary King Pyuminhti’s victory over a numerically superior army of Tarup soldiers. 1. Chronologically when this attack on Tagaung took place around the fifth century. vol. Another reference to ‘Tarup’ appears in the section of the chronicle under the first kingdom of Arimaddana-Bagan. p. ‘It is one festival [to commemorate] the time when 45 Mhan`nan`” Maharajavan`to`krī”. it was used to designate a general area in which China was located in relation to Burma. Who were these Tayek? Were they the ‘Dayue zhi’. the last of those kings of Tagaung country called Sanghassaratha. known to Chinese authors as the Hiung-nū [Xiongnu]. as ‘much has been built up on indirect sources’. refers thus to the Central Asian homeland from which the Kushan (Tarup and Tayek) came from. it is possible that the Kushan were characterised as Turks or Turkic speakers by the medieval period. Even though ‘Sein’ is an archaic term47 used to refer to China. Myanmar-English dictionary (Yangon: Department of the Myanmar Language Commission. it is possible that the Kushan have been characterised as ‘Turks’ as a result of later writings. p. The Tarup and Tayek could very well refer to two related groups. The early history of India. Vincent A. The Hmannan states: During the reign of King Bheinnaka. since it would be difficult to prove. 1999). giant flying squirrel. Sein country. 1983). Smith. Gandharalaj.136 GOH GEOK YIAN U Kala’s Mahayazawingyi and Twinthin Taikwun Mahasitthu’s Mahayazawinthit. King Bheinnaka assembled all his remaining troops and they entered Malaykhyaung where they remained. pp. but only a speculation. but Kushan chronology remains ‘an unresolved problem’. Hindu world: An encyclopedic survey of Hinduism. the Tarup and Tayek from Sein country [sin\ > is an archaic word used to refer to China]. which has been identified as an Indo-European language. an event purportedly celebrated as one of the twelve great festivals of Pyuminhti. the Tarup attacked Tagaung with another ‘ethnic’ group. a term used by the Chinese to refer to the Kushan? It is now known that the Kushan spoke Tokharic. 1993). 47 According to Department of the Myanmar Language Commission. p. Other festivals include the king’s slaying of the four great enemies of Bagan: giant boar. Gandhalaraj division came to disrupt and destroy the great country of Tagaung named Sanghassatha. 248 (emphasis added). the Kushan and the Turkic groups who did inhabit the Gandhara region from which the Buddha’s tooth relic originated. and to medieval historians like Kalhana as the Turushka (Turks or Tartar)’. Tayek. Ministry of Education. the Kushan of Gandhara were close to completing their mass exodus from Central Asia into northern India. 156. giant bird and giant tiger. Vincent Smith wrote that ‘a tribe of Turkī nomads. succeeded in inflicting upon a neighbouring and rival horde of the same stock a decisive defeat before the middle of the second century B. Pe and Luce. Could this purported attack on Tagaung represent a foray made by the fleeing Kushan on the kingdom located in the northern region of Burma? It is possible. vol. 3rd edn (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors.45 According to this account. ˙ ¯ ¯ 46 Benjamin Walker.’. Glass Palace Chronicle. 581–2.46 Considering that the earliest extant Burmese chronicle (Yazawingyaw) was compiled in the early sixteenth century. Benjamin Walker argues that ‘Kushan’ is the name of ‘a group of Mongolian tribes of Central Asia known to the Chinese chroniclers as Yu-chi (or Yueh-chi). 1 (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. p. .C. 125. 3.

m¥a. p.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 137 the great king on elephant marched with his cavalry and elephant troops to do battle as a unified whole against more than ten million and hundreds of Tarup soldiers arrived at Kawthambhi town.lup\ÂkMeta\mueqap∑´.®Ps\eqa ekaqmı^‘mi > qiu> kueFAramkeqatRup\ss\qv\tiu > erak\eqaAKå mc\. Tvan`” San`” e* Mran`ma Rajavan`sac`.qs\twå. ^ ^ Razavamsaralinī maññ`so Pugam Razavan`sac`. leaves g^—ek¥a to gu—wm\. contains an elaborate description of the actual battle. 106. Whether the description was inserted at a more recent time is perhaps not as important as the two following points: Ari. otherwise known as the Bagan Yazawinthit [New Bagan Chronicle]. Glass Palace Chronicle.eqaAwt\kiumwt\"pelac\rhn\. M N˙c\. p. capable of wreaking destruction in the first instance. 585 (Yangon: Universities Historical ˙ ¯ Research Centre. ¯ ¯ 49 pugMrazwc\" Pugaṃ Rajavan`.eB"razwMqzalinmv\eqapugMrazwc\qs\" U Bhe. when they wear indigo blue dark cloths they place a new bamboo in their heavy hair.49 These first two accounts of ‘Tarup’ clearly characterise it as a military power.’48 Another chronicle. but does not refer to their appearance.'1960"qMu. Mahayazawinthit and Hmannan Yazawindawgyi. This description interestingly points out the unsavory aspects of Tarup monks’ behaviour. p. Bagan Yazawin.’51 The passage is not found in U Kala’s Mahayazawingyi. xv. The description is also omitted in the Hmannan Yazawindawgyi and Bagan Yazawin. Tarup and Panlaung monks do not belong to the same school of Buddhism as the Burmese hermit monks (who practice the ‘correct’ Law).sa. 142. however. Although the version of the text used here is undated. 55.tiu > ka. Tarup and Panlaung monks suggests that they belong to what could have been a branch of Mahayana Buddhism. Mhan`nan`” ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ ˙ Maharajavan`to`krī”. p. Anawrahta carried out a purging of Ari monks who were considered heretics."Pn\rv\s∑n\.rc\. Burmese depictions of the Tarup in connection with the Bagan period The first religious allusion to the Tarup is likely the account contained in the Yazawunthazalini.Âk.ek¥ak\saRuM.f"qir^sturgçblB∑´ > KM"A®cim\.tRup\rhn\. an unusual connection is made between Tarup and the ‘heretical’ Ari monks of Bagan which cannot be found in the main chronicles of Yazawingyaw. Twinthin.tÂkim\" Ë."pTmAup\"Srap∑å. 1895). which gives an account of the Ari monks and their followers.. K¥^eta\m¨j Ni˙p\nc\. Mahayazawingyi."mharazwc\”k^.kiuwt\l¥k\SMpc\ el. but rather to the date on which this particular manuscript was copied.50 In the Yazawunthazalini. noting that it took place over three months. vol. 1. 203.lv\. see also Pe and Luce. 1960). and there are distinctive differences in the dress code. 41. 1895 refers not to the original year of composition. the similarity between Ari. Mahayazawingyi.—tv\.kula. it refers to Tarup arahant robes: ‘Those Ari monks do not wear the dyecloths of hermits or monks (which is made with boiled tree bark) but like the Panlaung and Tarup monks. As an integral part of establishing the ‘correct’ form of Buddhism (Theravada) in Bagan.Âk^. Luce and Pe Maung Tin noted that it ‘was said to have been written in 1785’.Âk^. ˙ ¯ ˙ ¯ ˙ ¯ .Am¥a. their practice of the wrong law and their use of charms to beguile others. p. 51 TiuArv\. and not a match for the supernatural legendary prowess of Pyuminhti in the second. which had formerly been a village in the country. Glass Palace Chronicle. leaves g¨—wm\. palm-leaf manuscript Accession no. In one instance. especially 48 Niuc\cMeta\ek¥.®mn\mapvar˙iË.®mc\. 1 (Yangon: Burma Research Society.Ta. 50 Pe and Luce.kiuy\eta\tiuc\ Sc\lu. This suggests that the description was probably inserted during the compilation of the Yazawunthazalini.saer.®PF\qv\"rn\kn®\ mio > '®mn\ u maquetqn Aqc\. to g¨—ek¥a. Religiously.k´.Aup\r˙iqv\" U Kala. This text contains no publication date.qiu > m´tvm´®paA nk\ Amv\. vol.

the title of the Tarup ‘ruler’ or Tarup Utibhwa (Ë.. saopha (sw\P). pp. p. 1. but an official appointed by the Chinese ruler. ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ 56 Mhan`nan`” Maharajavan`to`krī”. Program for Southeast Asian Studies. and refers to the Shan chieftains of olden days. ed. to march to Tarup country. Mahayazawingyi. 250. Thomas J.56 There are several important points pertaining to this description of Anawrahta’s interest in marching to Tarup country. The Yazawunthazalini states that King Anawrahta based on the saying that the Buddha’s tooth relic is in Gandhara division. 86–7. published in the second book of the 1960 edition which contains three books altogether.). 115.”k^. 53 U Kala.. leaves c´-ek´-ek³a to ecÅ-wm\. 2000).53 The versions of this account in Bagan Yazawin54 and Mahayazawinthit55 contain some major variations. The Hmannan Yazawindawgyi contains an almost verbatim description of what was recorded in U Kala’s chronicle with few differences. which seems less likely.) or ekayaj (ekraz\) would have been used.138 GOH GEOK YIAN one which emphasises the use of spells. and other contemporary Burmese inscriptions where the king is mentioned. [he] assembles the elephants.000 [years] of the noble religion’. First. 1. There are two possible literal meanings of utibhwa: one which refers to the hereditary nature of the position where ‘bhwa’ (B∑a. and all sentient beings will also enjoy the many rewards until the end of 5. ˙ ¯ ¯ 57 Sawbhwa is the Burmese transliteration of the Shan title. vol. Luce suggested that ‘utibhwa’ was a term derived ‘from 52 Ibid. which is often defined as ‘king’ or ‘prince’ in Shan language. p. In stating this and when the plan is made. This passage can be found in the fourth volume of the chronicle. 205. . marches toward Tarup kingdom once the weapons and artillery for the purpose of besieging are assembled. horses and soldiers in the whole nation and [once he] gathers [all] 36 million [soldiers] by water route. Saw in Shan language refers to ‘lord or master’ (Cushing’s Shan-English dictionary: A phonetic version. vol. Kyansittha. Monograph Series Press.tv\B∑a. and Nyaung U Bhi] and the Shwephya brothers. Should the emperor of China be referred to. as in the context of the Dissapramok inscription. as in the case of the Burmese rendering of Shan ‘saopha’ as ‘sawbhwa’ (esa\B∑a. The next reference to ‘Tarup’ in the Burmese chronicles appears in the account of King Anawrahta’s march to Gandhara division in Tarup country. Utibhwa is most likely a hereditary rank passed down through a line of chiefs. ’There is a noble Buddha’s tooth relic in the Gandhalaraj division which became=which will be Tarup country.52 A similar description can be found in the Mahayazawingyi: Anawrahtaminsaw wanting to generate a lot of faith in the noble religion begins to form a plan. the title of mingyi (mc\. p. Ngahtweyu. Tvan`” San`” e* Mran`ma Rajavan`sac`. Ngalonlekhpek. 54 Pugaṃ Rajavan`. 36 million [soldiers] by land route together with the four spirit horses [implying that it would include his four warriors.) in Burmese suggests ‘to be born (with)’. In asking the Tarup Utibhwa for the noble Buddha’s tooth relic.57 and the other suggesting a woman leader. which refers to the mingyi Kubilai Khan. Hudak (Tempe: Arizona State University. It is also highly likely that the utibhwa is not the ruler of Tarup. incantations and other means of aiding people in their path toward salvation. 184–5. all sentient beings together will be able to worship it and as such the noble religion also to a large extent exceedingly shall shine. ˙ ¯ 55 Twinthin. pp.) is of interest.

Thaton and Pegu.61 If this is true. either the Chinese emperor or – as argued by Luce – by Tibet on a leader of Nanzhao. 60 ek¥a\ezaeAac\"pugM®mt\s∑y\eta\el. There are examples in the chronicles which refer to entities such as Bagan. a protectorate or a vassal country of China. the location of the tooth relic was no longer at Gandhara. 2004). a northwestern province of Pakistan) by a local Gandharan monk and placed in a cedi (est^) to be worshipped. 17–21. which means simultaneously two \ different spatial categories: a country and a royal city. A noteworthy point is that utibhwa certainly does not refer to the Chinese emperor and implies a title conferred by a higher authority.60 According to Kyaw. p. Old Burma-early Pagan. The tooth relic was moved at different times to various places ranging from the Khotanese capital (Xinjiang province) to its final resting place in Beijing. The next issue concerns the location of Gandhalaraj (or Gandhara in some cases). pp.. Obviously the latter is used to refer specifically to the city or capital (another variation of which is the term naypyidaw [en®pv\eta\] or place=seat of the abode or country) while the former pertains to the area which falls directly under the circle of influence of the sovereign of the country. ‘Tarup’ may perhaps refer to China after all and it is only through transference of identity that the utibhwa.S¨qmiuc\. is indeed in what constitutes China today. the tooth relic which Anawrahta eagerly sought. This."rn\kun®mio > 'yMuÂkv\K¥k\saep'2004" Kyaw Zaw Aung. pp. by 1071 CE the mother of a chief over governors in the internal palace of the Liao emperor (Khitan dynasty) had built a cedi in which she placed the revered tooth relic. In order to get there. The next question pertains to whether Tarup is the name of an administrative region. an official or vassal of the emperor of China becomes known as the hereditary leader=chief of Tarup. or a kingdom with that name which perhaps traced its roots to the Gandhara dynasty that came to an end in the fifth=sixth centuries CE? 58 Luce. Anawrahta would have to travel across either Song-ruled territory or the Xixia kingdom. does not negate the possibility that a pyi may have an overlord to whom it pays tribute or pledges allegiance.58 He also wondered whether ‘bhwa’ might have been derived from the Burmese term sawbhwa. but this does not necessarily imply any inherent autonomy. even though etymologically it is difficult to prove the origin of the term. however. In this context it certainly refers to a country. Tharehkettara (Sriksetra). . Pugaṃ Mrat`svay`tò Le”chū Samuin` (Ran`kuin`mrui’: Yuṃ Kraññ` Khyak` Sape. 19–20. 59 Ibid. In addition. as a ‘pyi’ in one instance and a ‘myo’ in another. so what would ‘Gandhalaraj division’ have meant? Does it mean an administrative district within a country. it is traditionally believed to be in the vicinity of present-day Taxila. the upper left eye-tooth of the historic Buddha was first taken to the Gandhara division (in the Indian context.59 It is very likely that utibhwa relates to the Nanzhao leader. but during that earlier time it was considered a part of Khitanese territory.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 139 titles conferred by Tibet on the Nan-chao [Nanzhao] emperor in the 8th century — lorded it over the plains’. Tarup is described as a ‘pyi’ (®pv\) in both chronicle and epigraphic references. ˙ ¯ 61 Ibid. In the history of the noble Buddha’s tooth relic. it was located on the southeastern corner of the enclosure of the Lingguang monastery to the west of Beijing. 28.

p.62 He wrote Datang Xiyou Ji [大唐西域記 Journey to the West during the Tang Dynasty]. p. The area of Nanzhao. ˙ ¯ ˙ ¯ ˙ ¯ 65 Lieberman. Hussain. Monywe Hsayadaw (1766–1835). (London. 64 U Bhe. a Konbaung-period scholar and one of the main compilers of the Hmannan Yazawindawgyi. Tarup in this context could thus have referred to China at the time (either the Liao.64 To a fair extent. 63 J. Nanzhao had regained autonomy from China and in a series of attacks seized numerous captives from central Burma (Pyu). probably a small country to the north of Burma ruled by an indigenous leader who was either an official of the Chinese emperor (Song or Tangut?) or a vassal with high degree of internal autonomy. Razavamsaralinī maññ`so Pugam Razavan`sac`. 2 vols. as the French Sinologist Pelliot believed. Luce. In that decisive treatise. Strange parallels: Southeast Asia in global context. Buddhist Turks ruled Gandhara from Kabul. believing that the tooth relic had remained the whole time in Gandhara. written in China in the 860s. Samuel Beal.72 miles] from Thawutti country. 1983). the likeliest candidate would have been Nanzhao. In the same year. Therefore Tarup country is not the Gandara division where the Buddha’s tooth relic is placed. described the kingdom as a multi-ethnic society with a complex administrative system 62 Si-Yu-Ki: Buddhist records of the western world. Reprint: Delhi. Gandara division where the noble Buddha’s tooth relic is placed is not Tarup country but the Gandara division within the Central Indian continent [Mizzima taik] as is evident [in the] decisive treatise [written] by the intelligent and educated Monywe Hsayadaw. If Tarup were a country with a high degree of autonomy but nevertheless a vassal of the Chinese. An illustrated history of Pakistan (Karachi: Oxford University Press. 90. Tarup country [would then] be more than 5000 yuzana from Gandara division. which is an important primary source for studying medieval Buddhism in Central and South Asia. By the early eleventh century. Gandara division is [situated] at a distance of 45 yuzana [Sanskrit yujana. Oriental Books Reprint Corporation. Xixia or Song kingdoms). although the question of whether there was a division or a kind of administrative area called Gandhara in Tarup remains unanswered. resettling them at Kunming. When the Muslim Arabs defeated the Sassanians in 644 in Persia. by Hiuen Tsiang. the Buddhist monk Xuanzang visited Gandhara and noted that Buddhism was on the decline. c. although he arrived at a different conclusion. which roughly corresponded to what is western Yunnan province today. 800–1830. when the Tang assumed control of much of Yunnan and made it a tributary of China. one can conclude that the famous Gandhara kingdom of the Buddhist Kushan kings (first to fifth century CE) was not the same entity as the Tarup of the eleventh century. 1969). By the beginning of the ninth century. or it may have referred to an administrative region.65 The Man shu. trans. was an independent polity until the seventh century. 1 yuzana = 12. 116.140 GOH GEOK YIAN The Huns captured Gandhara around the mid-fifth century and by the next century the Sassanians aided by Turks defeated the Huns.63 Gandhara no longer existed by the reign of King Anawrahta. similarly found it highly unlikely that Gandhara and Tarup were both in the same location. the new Muslim ruler Mahmud of Ghazni had ordered the destruction of all remaining standing monuments. ‘The early .

1984). It is also implied that he continued to pay tribute in the form of gold and silver items sent as objects of worship for the relic. 13–14.70 It is important to note that the nature of the contact between Anawrahta and Alaungsithu on the one hand and the Tarup Utibhwa on the other is characterised by negotiation and unity in terms of religious values and knowledge. 68 U Kala. Mahayazawingyi. 71 Sen. outside the Gandhara division where the Buddha tooth relic previously inhabited.67 Another piece of description which must be discussed before deciding whether the Tarup of eleventh century was indeed Nanzhao or rather Tangut Xixia is the term ‘pyigyi’ (®pv\”k^. pp. and trade. (‘[the] utibhwa [who] governs this large country…’).69 The same phrase was used in the section regarding Alaungsithu’s march to Tarup pyi to request the tooth relic. p. though the reasons given are couched in indirect terms. Thailand: A short history (New Haven: Yale University Press. Both kingdoms were Buddhist and located to the north of Burma.. The text also refers to È®pv\Âk^. the ‘Tarup pyi’ of Anawrahta’s reign could have been the kingdoms of either Tangut or Nanzhao (known as Daliguo by the tenth century). p. Thailand: A short history. 69 It is important to make a distinction between government with complete authority and government with some limitations such as in the case of Nanzhao.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 141 similar to that of China. Buddhism. The Mongols attacked and conquered Nanzhao in 1253. not \ disagreement. 13–14. Based on religious comparison and geography. Tangut Xixia was known to have been an important procurer of Buddhist relics which were brought to the kingdom via the overland routes by South Asian traders. 188–9. they acknowledge the need to abide by the Buddha’s prophecy that the tooth relic has to remain in Tarup. K. was not able to conduct foreign relations freely. the Burmese may have been trying to make a distinction between a sovereign and a vassal ruler. 186. David. . As a result of this. In fact the Burmese word nyinywat (v^V∑t) is used in both accounts. a process which accelerated as Thai principalities began to emerge around the late twelfth century.kiuAsiu.) or large country. 42. 66 Wyatt. vol. pp. Both Anawrahta and Alaungsithu failed in the end to get the relic. There is a possibility that by using the title ‘Utibhwa’ rather than ‘Mingyi’ (as in the case of the Dissapramok inscription) and by stating that he was ‘governing’ Tarup.tv\B∑a. In a sense these events recognise the superiority of Tarup’s glory to that of Bagan. but a leader administering Tarup pyi. vol. Its use suggests that Tarup was a country that was either larger than Bagan or if not.71 Brian Ruppert has also noted the resurgence in demands for Buddha relics around the eleventh century and the role played by merchants in their circulation Syam in Burma’s history: A supplement’. It is unlikely that the Tarup of the pre-Mongol invasion period were the Kushan or Turks or even the Song Chinese. and by 1257 they controlled most of Yunnan.reqaË. Wyatt. not military might. 1. Anawrahta built a pagoda at the place where the tooth relic hovered in the sky. 1. Old Burma-early Pagan. Luce. suggesting the union of minds. Mahayazawingyi. p. 70 U Kala. pp. then at least comparable in autonomy and strength.66 From the eleventh century Nanzhao was probably weakening.68 suggesting that the utibhwa was not an official or minister nor a king. 67 Ibid. plainly because it elected to stay in Tarup. which being a vassal of China at this time. diplomacy. 191.

72 Brian Ruppert. describes the Azhali (acharya) Esoteric Buddhism which was practiced ¯ in Nanzhao-Yunnan: ‘The term “acharya” translated into “azhali”.’73 Once the foreign azhali monks received support from the ruling class. 57. A Song-period text. (Taipei: Xinwenfeng Publishing Co. pp.. 51. 76 Charles Backus.74 In addition. incantation. one scholar of Nanzhao Buddhism. which highlighted their possession of supernatural powers through the use of spells.77 which might have influenced the Burmese characterisation of the Tarup leader. 36.76 The title of the Tarup ruler or leader. Nanzhao Buddhism shared several similarities with the earlier practices of the Ari monks in Bagan. but it is now generally accepted that it was ruled by Tibeto-Burman speakers. playing both polities against each other. they did not try to transform the people’s view of their training and mission. pp. superhuman powers and the control of events through magic. 46–52. in the mind of Nanzhao people. Yunnan. where the ‘true’ and ‘correct’ form of Buddhism was practised. Ling wai dai da. Artibus Asiae. This similarity in the form of Buddhist practices between the azhali and Ari monks of Nanzhao and Bagan respectively should be noted as an indication of the state of interaction which had already existed between the two kingdoms prior to Anawrahta’s establishment of Theravada Buddhism in Bagan. . 142. Nanzhao=Daliguo.. 1984). 1981). Nanzhao=Daliguo was by transference of authority and identity a ‘stand-in’ for Tarup-China (Song or Tangut?).. Anawrahta might have felt compelled to take any Buddha tooth relic from Nanzhao to Bagan. In which case. ‘utibhwa’. A legacy of esoteric Buddhism and burial ¯ rites of the Bai people in the kingdom of Dali (937–1253)’. 2000). Lingwai daida 嶺外代答. 73 Angela Howard. Nanzhao=Daliguo in Yunnan was a lot closer to Bagan than Tangut Xixia. then weakened. Furthermore. considering the esoteric character of Nanzhao=Daliguo Buddhism. ‘sawbwa’. This suggests that it is possible that Burmese used the title to indicate the leader’s connection to the Tai. Nanzhao was long viewed as the ‘first Thai kingdom’. was a tributary vassal of Song China or even possibly of Tangut Xixia. 74 Ibid.142 GOH GEOK YIAN throughout East Asia. p. According to Backus. appears to bear resemblance to the Burmese title given to Shan chiefs. route marches) and 60 cheng from the country of Wali’. notably those belonging to an esoteric Mahayana school. and conjured up instead.75 It was likely that by the eleventh century. ‘The Dharaṇī pillar of Kunming. thus lost the con¯ notation of someone well-versed in yoga practices and in orthodox Buddhist ritual. The Nan-chao kingdom and T’ang China’s southwestern frontier (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geographically.72 In terms of religion. Jewel in the ashes: Buddha relics and power in early medieval Japan (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center. As Angela Howard. As described earlier. there has been controversy over the ethnic identity of the Nanzhao people. suggesting that they engaged in the same religious rituals. Howard suggests that Buddhism went from India to China via Burma around the first centuries CE. 1=2 (1997): 43. p. 43–4. 77 Ibid. the Yazawunthalini describes Tarup and Ari monks as wearing the same robes. describes the proximity of Dali to Bagan: ‘Pugan is distant from the country of Dali by five cheng (程. 75 Zhou Qufei. p. 10 vols. the Nanzhao rulers were known to have used lowland ‘proto-Thai’ peoples as fighters in their armies.

81 Tuo.. 79 Zhao Rugua. when his refusal to send tribute and his supposed killing of the envoys sent by the Mongols led to the Mongol attack and his downfall. p. 35 (Taipei: Student Book Bureau. pp. 78 Ibid.82 The Yuhai 玉海 mentions the same mission83 and the Ke Shu 可書 contains an elaborate description of the envoys and the objects of tribute. 1957). which then ‘controlled considerably less territory than had Nan-chao during its most expansive decades in the middle of the ninth century’. 1984). 82 Xu Songji. Tuo Tuo. 1977). Ling wai dai da.79 Other Song sources mention the tribute mission of 1106. Song huiyao jigao 宋会要辑稿. Though this could have been a literary device to characterise the Burmese might. 33. p. Could Dali somehow have served in this capacity as a regional nexus along which tribute that was being sent to the Chinese capital was evaluated before being forwarded to the capital? This remains a point to be resolved and an issue which requires more deliberation. 376 and 14087. 84 Zhang Zhifu. Even the kings of the dynasties following the fall of Bagan at times received orders to continue to deliver the tribute. p. The Chinese sources appear to support the argument that Bagan was at least by the early twelfth century considered a country of major importance to Song China. p. 681. was positively alarmed by the approach of the Burmese military led by Anawrahta. As the account of Narathihapate and the identity of the Tarup during his reign have to a fair degree been examined in the earlier part of this paper.80 the Song shi 宋史. the description of Tarup suggests a kingdom or state which paralleled Bagan in political autonomy and size. Bagan’s tradition of paying tribute was to continue through the reigns of all Bagan kings until Narathihapate. vol. though a pyigyi. p. 176.78 The chronicles’ description of Tarup suggests that Tarup pyi. 80 Zhou. 14087. 176.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 143 In terms of the kingdoms’ relative political might and size. p. Zhongguo shixue xongshu xubian [Chinese historical works]. It is impossible to know whether Daliguo prior to that time served as a default receiver of tribute from Bagan to Song China. ‘Zhufanzhi’. The connection between Bagan and Daliguo was first established in the Chinese source. The Zhufanzhi 諸番志 is perhaps the only Song text to describe the earliest mission made by Bagan in 1004=05. Tangut Xixia was a powerful contemporary of Song China and Jin-Jurchen kingdom.81 Among these countries of major importance were Sanfoqi (Srivijaya) and Dali. Song huiyao jigao (Beijing: Chinese Book Bureau. Daliguo’s reduced status caused it to send a joint mission with Bagan. 142. It describes the joint tribute mission sent by Bagan and Daliguo in 1136 which comprised local products. p. unlike Daliguo. ‘Zhufanzhi’. in particular. . the next section will touch largely on descriptions of Tarup in connection with fifteenth century Burmese kingdoms. as it was only in 1136 that both countries had to send their tribute via the Guangxi Regional Commission. and must be accorded respect given to countries such as Dashi (Arab countries) and Jiaozhi (Vietnam). Song shi [History of the Song] (Taipei: Chinese Book Bureau. Zhao. 83 Wang Yinglin. Ke shu (Taipei: Xinwenfeng Publishing Company. states that Bagan should not be treated like a minor country. Yuhai (Zhejiang Province: Zhejiang Publisher. 164. p. particularly on the subject of the routes along which tribute to Song China was sent. 7682. 1979). the successor to Nanzhao. rather than one which was much stronger. 1883).84 It is possible that by the mid-twelfth century. Song shi.

However. The Yuan rulers. There is no indication as to how Twinthin came to this conclusion that the Tarup soldiers were Muslims or that there were Muslims among them. Prior to the latter’s conquest of much of Yunnan in 1252–53.000 of them were to be drowned to prevent their falling into the hands of the Tarup soldiers. As the story alleges. 210. ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ 86 Morris Rossabi. 88 Rossabi asserts that most of the prominent Muslims of the early Yuan period were from Central Asia or the Middle East (Rossabi. that region had become a main centre for Muslims in the region. 1981). pp. appointed by Kubilai in 1274. the Mongol court encouraged further migration of Muslim groups into the Yunnan area. 1423–4. The strongest evidence lies in the Yuan shi descriptions of Mian. 274. The title ‘mingyi’ is used to refer to the khan only in the Burmese inscriptions. (Princeton. 87 Ibid. . This description appears in the account characterising the chaos and commotion following the Burmese king’s flight from the palace. It is thus within this context that we should understand the Burmese characterisation of the Tarup: for them. p. p. 155. 260). employed Muslims in government. The known presence of Central Asians among the Mongols does support the view that there were Muslims among the Tarup. By 1254. conference paper presented at the Burma Studies Conference 2006. in China under Mongol rule. John D.. ed. including the Hmannan. Geoff Wade. This description of Mongol Muslims does not appear in any other texts. 277.eq. see appendix of Wade. For English translation of the folio. Langlois Jr.87 He was the son of the first Muslim governor of Yunnan. 89 Song Lian. vol. ‘The Muslims in the early Yüan dynasty’. in 1277 the Yuan court dispatched Naṣir-al-Dīn ¯ (Na-su-ting) to lead a military campaign against Burma. especially since the reign of Kubilai Khan. There were also Chinese Muslims from the northern Chinese region and of course other Muslim groups who were already in Yunnan. it was decided then that 3. p. ‘Muslims in the early Yüan dynasty’. Yuan shi. the Mongols had already captured Dali-Nanzhao’s capital. Tvan`” San`” e* Mran`ma Rajavan`sac`. Singapore. 4. which I argue is in fact the title of the Mongol-appointed administrator in Yunnan=Dali-Nanzhao rather than the emperor. the Tarup of the Mongol invasion period or even during the twelfth century leading up to the invasion were the Dali-Nanzhao people including the Central Asians of Yunnan region88 and the Mongol soldiers ruled by the great king or mingyi.85 identifying them as Muslims. 13–15 July 2006. ‘Communities of Interpretation’. This refers to a particular characterisation of the Tarup which appears only in Twinthin’s chronicle: he described the Tarup soldiers as ‘Panthe’ or ‘Panse’ pn\. Southwest China had attracted a steady flow of Muslim merchants and craftsmen who were interested in exploiting its strategic location along the trade routes between China and Burma and India. ‘Annotated translation of the Yuan shi account of Mian (Burma)’. p. ‘An annotated translation of the Yuan shi account of Mian (Burma)’. particularly in financial administration. The limited resources available made it impossible for all palace maids-in-waiting to be transported out of Bagan. NJ: Princeton University Press. Kubilai Khan. Saiyid Ajall Shams al-Dīn.. p. the chronicles continue to refer to the utibhwa. largely because rulers like Kubilai remained suspicious of them.89 The first description in the Yuan shi describes the envoys sent by the Dali 85 Twinthin. some of which were in fact forced migrations.86 Not many Muslims led military expeditions or were appointed to the highest ranks in the Mongol army.144 GOH GEOK YIAN However there is one particular observation regarding the Tarup-Mongol invasion which should be discussed here. But following Kubilai Khan’s successful conquest of the Yunnan region.

92 Burma’s relations with Tarup were clearly transformed by the Mongol invasion and by the numerous wars (largely described in Yuan sources) that occurred between the two polities. It is clear that Yunnan (Dali-Nanzhao of old) represented the regional capital where tribute missions. Both were subordinate positions in comparison to the title of mingyi. The missive contains an interesting allusion to the presence of a Buddha relic in the ‘great country’ (大國). Burmese descriptions of Tarup in association with the Inwa period Following the Mongol ‘invasion’ and the fall of Bagan. Mongol-ruled China. descriptions of Tarup in Burmese chronicles increased in frequency and length. this may have something to do with Ming China’s more coercive methods of collecting allegiance and tribute. ‘Ming China and Southeast Asia in the 15th century: A reappraisal’. particularly during the reign of Kubilai Khan. 1298–1364). the actions were largely carried out by Mongol officials such as the Pacification Commissioner or high-ranking administrator from the Yunnan Branch Secretariat. The two envoys sent were to deliver an imperial command. an appointee of the Mongol ruler. To some extent. ARI Working Paper 28 (Singapore: ARI. However the most elaborate accounts pertain to the fifteenth-century period in which corresponding records from the 90 The term in Chinese is ‘Dali Shanchan Denglu Xuanwei Sidu Yuanshua’i 大理鄯闡等路宣慰司都 元帥府。 Wade. ‘Annotated translation’. though what the Burmese saw as Tarup was likely very much determined by the regional administration in Yunnan. In terms of geography and territorial identification. References to Buddhism and Buddha relics no longer appear in Burmese or Chinese sources. a point which Wade has strongly argued. In the post-Mongol period. and the main difference is characterised by the transition made from indirect to direct ‘rule’. It is highly unlikely that utibhwa was a title used to refer to the Mongol khan. . In the subsequent descriptions of missions and campaigns undertaken by the Mongols. Burmese interactions with Tarup (in this case. ‘An annotated translation of the Yuan shi account of Mian (Burma)’. which not only tolerated but also promoted Buddhism. 2004). another mission was sent in 1273 by the same two institutions. Tarup refers both to the Yunnan region and to its overlord.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 145 Pacification Commission and Shanchan Chief Military Command90 to Mian country in 1271=72. This title.91 The mission returned with a Burmese envoy. Unlike Yuan China. states that Shanchan is the name of polity which was derived from the earlier Dali kingdom. previously used to refer to the Nanzhao hereditary ruler during Anawrahta’s and Alaungsitthu’s reigns. 92 See Geoff Wade. there are at least two separate accounts of contact between the Burmese and Tarup. gathered before being escorted to the capital if they were allowed to proceed. one of which occurred during the Myinsaing period (c. 91 See appendix of Wade. Ming China) were characterised solely by wars between the two parties. likely the same Buddha tooth relic which was said to be residing in Kubilai’s new capital (Beijing) since 1071. particularly those from Mian-Burma and other lesser polities. the religion did not feature prominently in Ming China’s relations with other polities which it considered its vassals. was likely transferred to the position of the Pacification Commissioner of Yunnan Branch Secretariat or the Governor of Yunnan.

The reason that I have not sent troops there is that I am concerned that good people will be hurt. vol. and 20. 10. The same date appears in Twinthin’s Mahayazawinthit. 3. An estimate of 500 horses died. who then enlisted the Tarup’s assistance to defend his city against the Burmese attack: During Sakkaraj 773 (1411 CE)93 all the sawbwa of Theinni (Seinni) together with his hordes and multitudes [people] came marching to Ava to do battle. vol. The following description refers to an attack carried out by the Burmese on the Shan sawbwa of Theinni. 14.000 persons. the response by Yong-le included the following: ‘Na-luo-ta. In formulating a plan to resolve that [conundrum] [Yinthosi] Minyekyawswa even as he heard of the arrival of the reinforcements of 2. pp. which describes an envoy from Mu-bang (Hsenwi) to the Ming court: In the early years of his reign. with his petty piece of land. the above episode must refer to the following account in the Ming shilu. 95 Wade. As he was victorious over the Tarup. while vying with Ava-Burma for influence in Yun-nan. he returned to besiege Theinni city as always. I have long known of this. marched and reached Theinni.000 soldiers. Minyekyawswa also attacked Theinni city a number of times without success for approximately the duration of five months. 94 U Kala. is double-hearted and is acting wrongly.000 horses and 40. 2. the Ava-Burma ruler.000 foot soldiers from Tarup. 288–9.’95 93 The date provided in the Hmannan differs from U Kala’s chronicle by a year: Sakkaraj 774 (1412 CE). they destroyed the Tarup by attacking them as they came out from the forest. . 2. By splitting the Tarup reinforcements into three groups.146 GOH GEOK YIAN Chinese Ming shilu (based on Wade’s translation) can be used to give a more complete picture of not only the nature of the interactions but also the biases embedded in the perceptions of each party.94 Although the dates of the Burmese and Chinese sources appear to be inconsistent. Mahayazawingyi. Yong-le was particularly concerned about the polity of Mu-bang (Hsenwi). Mhan`nan`” Maharajavan`to`krī”. With [his] 200 battle elephants. [even] if there were no more rations they withheld. p. corroborating the date given in the Hmannan. 8–9. Tvan`” San`” e* Mran`ma Rajavan`sac`.000 horses and almost 2. The despicable fellow will not be equal to that. I have already sent people with instructions requiring him to change his ways and start anew. … Minyekyawswa also after presenting to his royal father the captured prisoners-of-war. The troops will attack from the ocean route and you can arrange to have your native cavalry attack overland. [He] captured as prisoners-of-war five Tarup officials with close to 1. p. When the Mu-bang envoy came to the Ming court in 1409. ‘Ming China and Southeast Asia in the 15th century: A reappraisal’. If he does not reform. Theinni sawbwa’s sons and sons-in-law also called for military assistance from Tarup and when they successfully completed the work to strengthen their city.000 horses. [waited] until the night of Tamahti [or until the depths of night when no one was awake in Theinni city] to pull away from Theinni city. [he] stayed in Sinkhan forest. ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ pp. elephants and horses. I will order the generals to despatch the army. a variant ˙ ¯ ¯ description of the same event can be found in Twinthin. reportedly complaining about Na-luo-ta.

Minyekyawswa marched without gathering the last unit of the 11 military units of countless elephant and horse troops comprising 300 battling elephants. is not substantiated in the Ming sources. though not conclusive as to which side won the battle. 97 There is a discrepancy between the dates in U Kala’s chronicle and the Hmannan: the Hmannan gives Sakkaraj 775 (1413 CE) as the date of the Shans’ attack on Mye Tu. there will be a war’. Therefore [even] before the unit was destroyed. or because the logistics of moving troops across Burma from either the coast of Arakan or from the delta region would have exhausted the soldiers if not their food rations by the time they reached Hsenwi. the two brothers of Mawtonmawkaysa assembled [and] together with soldiers and people [who were] not captured rode horses and fled to Tarup country. as it lay between the two and was subject to demands by both polities. in this case. Twinthin’s account again bears the same date as the Hmannan and very likely was the source for the Hmannan compilers. the crown prince Minyekyawswa. ‘Our sons and wives have been seized and placed in the place of the Sun King where they [now] are. … [The] Mawtonmawkaysa brothers went to the Tarup Utibhwa and implored. [and even] if [they] fought courageously. ’and when [my] 200 battle elephants. When the king. Mu-bang was ordered to prepare its troops for an overland attack. while the Ming forces were to attack from the sea. ‘If [you] don’t give. probably either because the event did not take place or because the Chinese turned out to be the losers in this battle. he appointed [his] son. 23–4. The following account in the early eighteenth-century Mahayazawingyi describes another episode in which a war took place between the Burmese and Tarup as a result of a request for intervention made to the latter by a chief. either because the naval Fleet of the Western Ocean was engaged in some other battles and unable to send reinforcements. . This particular account. Mu-bang (Hsenwi) was a frequent pawn in the Ming-Burma machinations.000 foot soldiers arrive. Probably the Chinese did send a small reinforcement of cavalry and foot soldiers.000 soldiers. 4.000 horses and 40.000 horses. and he stated. The statement made by the Yongle emperor not only did not promise Chinese help but was phrased in a vague manner. pp. wives.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 147 ‘When the Ming intended to attack Ava-Burma in 1409. Mawtonmawkaysa.. heard [of this]. horses and people returned to Ava. however. Mawtonmawkaysa [and his men] could not defeat the military units [and therefore] reached the point of destruction. the dirt they stir shall resemble the great battle of the fourth level of the purgatory of hell 96 Ibid.’96 Wade’s statement. They faced no obstacles in reaching Myetu. 4. the Burmese account may be true to some degree. Minkhaung. does suggest that if Hsenwi usually ended up the victim of these tugs-of-war. Please be compassionate and ask the Sun King from [whom] we will get our sons and wives [back]’. Prince Minyekyawswa also by taking as prisoners of war their sons. elephants. In Sakkaraj 774 (1412 CE)97 when the account came to be said [that] Mawtonmawkaysa [and the] Shans [intended to] attack Mye Tu city. Therefore the Tarup Utibhwa gathered all the sawbwas from all places near and far from Tarup city and sent an ultimatum to the Sun King demanding the return of Mawtonmawkaysa’s sons and wives to him. a Shan chief or myosa. [and] 80. to start organizing 11 military units [for the] march.

the Tarup troops having scarce food and water.98 The Chinese then sent their demands to the Burmese king ordering the release of the Shan chief’s wife and children. and malevolent spirits which have died ‘green’. 2. The Burmese–Chinese battle is epitomised as a battle between two individuals. Tvan`” San`” e* Mran`ma Rajavan`sac`. the crown prince won his service. The following account. Equipped with god-like weapons given by the king. The Burmese term ‘nat’ refers to three general categories of supernatural beings: devas (deities). pp. At that time. The crown prince Minyekyawswa had won Thameinpayan’s loyalty when he took the latter’s elephant after his victorious battle over Rajadhiraj’s Mon country. After the vestments of cloths had been given out on Tagaung’s Thintwe island. and 250. . horses and people to [assist] the Mo Kaung and Mo Nay sawbwas who were to stand guard at Ban Maw. [he] became a nat’. The Tarup also descended into Kaung Ton with all their generals. With [his] water military unit comprising 500 battle boats. Rajadhiraja’s (a Mon king. ‘no longer a human. King Narapati also said to Tho Ngam Bhwa. In Sakkaraj 806 (1444 CE)99 after stating. Kammani. Thameinpayan engaged in an amazing battle with Kammani. 21–8. using his elephant goad to hook onto Kammani’s body. The date given in the Hmannan is Sakkaraj 807 (1445 CE). vol. 15–18. pp. the On Bhaung sawbwa 98 U Kala. 1384–1420) son-in-law. pp. also taken from U Kala’s chronicle (see also the pages in Hmannan and Mahayazawinthit) and the last example to be given for this section. Mhan`nan`” Maharajavan`to`krī”. r.000 horses. cutting his head off and dropping it into a basket before re-entering the city. 15. Again the Burmese and Chinese dates differ. a joust on horseback between Thameinpayan and a Tarup soldier. The Tarup soldiers also died in great numbers. At that time the Tarup general killed the ‘eater’ [of Kaungton] Maw Thaung Pein. he rode his golden royal barge and advanced strong on the water. ‘You slave being in my possession I shall not give’. unnatural deaths. King Minkhaung sent Thameinpayan. is corroborated in the Ming sources. implying his subordinate status to the Burmese] Tho Ngam Pwa [Bhwa].000 soldiers. The land and water military units settled on Nga Yin U island on which they landed and liked. natural spirits such as those which inhabit trees or rivers. Mahayazawingyi. In death Kammani obviously became a nat of the last category. 301–8. retreated to Mo Wun and stayed there. The Tarup soldiers exclaimed in awe. a ˙ ¯ ¯ variant version is found in Twinthin. Refusing to comply. they came asking for the Maw official [min here most likely refers to the status of the official. in this case by four years. ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ 99 Interestingly the date first cited in Twinthin’s chronicle is the same one given in U Kala’s Mahayazawingyi. Having suffered losses. King Narapati also returned [to his capital] after he had assigned elephants. “I [referring to Minngeh Kyawhtin] shall welcome the Tarup who come to attack. but stayed on in the living world in order to disrupt the order of the living.148 GOH GEOK YIAN with the appearance of the mountain ogres and victory will be fixed and established at that very place’.” he marched with five military units on land among which were 800 battle elephants. 2. vol. and in saying so gave his order. [together] with [the] four Tarup generals and tens of millions of soldiers who could not cross the water. 80.000 soldiers. 300 royal boats (with high and ornamented prow and stern) made of iron. By capturing Thameinpayan’s elephant.

80–s2. At a date equivalent to April=May 1448. ‘Give us the person Tho Ngam Bhwa. Nan Dian.000 assigned men placed a boat across a small river to form a bridge and crossed over. Having gotten their provisions. The term ’Sakkaraj’ can be 100 U Kala. When the Tarup went back. the Mahayazawingyi further refers to the prior long-standing enmity between the Tarup Utibhwa and Tho Ngam Bhwa’s father which led to this particular episode related above. pp. ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ 101 Wade. Having reached Hlaing Tek. 2. pp. [as] they would not return until after they had taken Tho Ngam Bhwa … Three days having passed since the Tarup reached [Yamethin city]. ‘Ming China and Southeast Asia in the 15th century: A reappraisal’. The Tarup also having gotten Tho Ngam Bhwa. 2. The significance of the four-year discrepancy in dates is not known. ‘He [Si Ji-fa] may flee into Ava-Burma’s territory and be concealed by the people there. On the Tarup side. so that the yi people will know fear and the Great Army will not have been sent in vain. and marched toward Yamethin city. p. Besides the relative proximity in dates. pp. Mahayazawingyi. all of Yamethin was able to stand firmly together with Bhaya Kyawhtin. bearing the statement.100 The above description very likely refers to the following account contained in the Ming history: A further major Ming military expedition which was to greatly affect the upland Southeast Asian polities was that launched in 1448 to capture Si Ji-fa. chopped off his head and placed it on an iron spit and having finished roasting it. dried it out in the sun and took it with them. Mu-bang. later accounts tell of how Wang Ji had sought personal advantages from the ‘native officials’ and how in fact he had been defeated by Si Ji-fa. 16. he assembled. a son of Si Ren-fa [a Tai-Mao political leader]. capture persons as the situation demands.101 The Burmese chronicle cites the date of the Tarup attack as 1444. Tvan`” San`” e* Mran`ma Rajavan`sac`. Imperial instructions were issued to Wang Ji requiring him to capture Si Ji-fa and the chieftains of Meng-yang. Tho Ngam Bhwa having reached Ava. 360–2. the envoy came. see ˙ ¯ ¯ a variant account in Twinthin. men skilled in [using] shields and 10. vol. 86–8. The imperial orders sent to Wang Ji presaged the disruption which such an expedition would have wrought in the region.’ While Wang Ji reported success in his attack on Si Ji-fa’s stockade. but it probably resulted from inherent flaws within the Burmese Sakkaraj system. When Minngeh Kyawhtin fled. . the four generals and horses together with 10. vol. The surrounding polities of Ava-Burma. If so. they would return advancing on their march. If [you] don’t give [him up] we will go to war’… When King Narapati also had [finished] selecting the skilled elephant riders.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 149 Tho Khin Bhwa also came to Kaung Ton with presents and weapons to pay obeisance at the feet…The Tarup soldiers also stayed at the place to which they withdrew during the time when food and water were scarce. whereas the Ming account gives 1448. Minngeh Kyaw Htin also did not dare to stay in the hole [hiding place?] in the city and together with all his people exited from Yamethin city.000 soldiers. with 100 battle elephants. Gan-yai and Long-chuan were also required to provide troops for deployment against Si Ji-fa. Mhan`nan`” Maharajavan`to`krī”. King Narapati happily packed Tho Ngam Bhwa’s corpse and sent it to the Tarup. also ate poison and died.

not one undertaken for the pure pleasure of intellectualising an unchallenging characterisation. emphasise the Buddhist character of the Tarup polity. 51–2. at one time the autonomous polity of Nanzhao-Dali. which was at one time the Yuan and subsequently the Ming. Who are the Tarup in the chronicles? Evidence from the accounts of Tarup in the Burmese chronicles leads one to conclude that the territory of the Tarup most likely corresponds to the region of Yunnan. That Tarup is mentioned often in relation with Gandhara is telling in its indication that the Burmese saw the ‘Tarup’ of later times as synonymous or at least related to those of earlier periods. Politically and geographically. the year 638 CE was selected to mark the first year of the Myanmar era. Han Chinese. a Chinese characterisation of the Kushan of Gandhara. but such a definition is inadequate in explaining its historical ramifications. some of whom were Muslims who settled in the Yunnan region). particularly by the Bagan period (especially beginning with Anawrahta’s reign). and by transference of authority to the overlord of Dali. Ethnically the identity of the Tarup is a complex issue to resolve. ‘Chinese’ and ‘China’. As discussed earlier. however. the original root of ‘Tarup’ is likely taruk (tRut\). but rather to an imagined space. and finally a tributary of Ming China in the fifteenth century. the word ‘Tarup’ does not merely relate to a bounded territory with an unchanging population. Nanzhao peoples who were Tibeto-Burman speakers and soldiers in their armies from what Backus refers to as the ‘Proto-Thai’ groups. To problematise Tarup as a term of identity is thus a necessary pursuit.150 GOH GEOK YIAN rendered as ‘Myanmar Era’. the referent of Tarup likely switched from the Central Asian polity of Kushan-Gandhara to Nanzhao-Dali. That said. which were likely the Kushan rulers of Gandhara. and refers to the number of years which should be added to the dates used in the Burmese chronicles in order to calculate corresponding dates in the Gregorian calendar. Nan-chao kingdom and T’ang China’s southwestern frontier. the actual size of which the Burmese were perhaps never absolutely sure. From the fifth through the fifteenth centuries CE. ‘Tarup’ was thus an exonym referring to peoples living beyond northern Burma. After incorporating two prior modifications. next a polity which was directly governed by a Mongol-appointed administrator during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. . The various Tarup remain nevertheless in the region north of Burma’s kingdoms. ‘Tarup’ in the context of the twentieth century does refer to the broad category. even ‘Chinese’ remains a problematic ethnic term to define if one is to consider the variety of dialect groups which fall under this general category. what constituted the Tarup underwent many changes. Mongols. pp. but wrong. Clearly the composite group would have included Turkic speakers (many of whom were Central Asians. The Burmese consistently use the term to refer to an entity located to the north of Burma and considered an ‘other’ administrative region. etc. It is clear that Burmese descriptions of the Tarup.102 To attempt to attribute a fixed ethnic identity to the Tarup is clearly not just problematic. derived from the Orkhon inscription rendering of ‘turuk’ for the Turkic speakers or Ta yue. where 102 Backus. Discrepancies in the dates of events are known to exist between different Burmese chronicles.

Myanmar. the Burmese probably were equally unable to classify the Tarup as simply one single type. regardless of any differences in their ethnic makeup. the Burmese identified them as the Tarup. like any other. whereas in earlier Chinese sources of the Tang and Song periods. ‘An annotated translation of the Yuan shi account of Mian (Burma)’. used to refer to the groups living beyond the ‘Han’ borders]. Just as the form determines the perception regardless of its content. Just like ‘Tarup’. p. groups and polities were determined: ‘Mian country is of the Southernwestern Yi [Chinese term for barbarians. ‘Tarup’ cannot be ascribed to any specific ethnic population because it was not the nature of Tarup ethnicity which changed. but the Burmese like all ethnic groups sometimes speak and act as though such homogenous entities exist.THE QUESTION OF ‘CHINA’ IN BURMESE CHRONICLES 151 the famed Buddha tooth relic resided before being transported to China proper. but rather with relation to the importance of the Buddha’s religion epitomised in the monuments and by association with the genealogy of kingship. ‘Mian’ is an exonym the Chinese used to refer to peoples of Burmese ethnicity. descriptions of Myanmar comprised kingdoms’ names. which has come to refer exclusively to the Chinese ethnic group. At various times in the past. ‘Mian’ also referred to the peoples of the country. The Burmese envisioned the Tarup as the inhabitants of a region to the north of what was the northernmost extent of the Burmese kingdom par excellence. of which type it is [however] not known’=緬國為西南夷不知何種. Conclusion The following description of Mian-Burmese in the Yuan shi is particularly telling of the ways the identities of individuals. the population referred to as ‘Tarup’ actually changed physically. Tarup pyi was the place which possessed the Buddha tooth relic. language or attire. Tarup is thus closely tied in with a specific geographical region (the area beyond northern Burma) and this fixedness of Tarup pyi is not negotiable. which might have been autonomous polities that pledged allegiance to the Chinese emperors of various dynasties during some periods or at other times vassals directly governed or submissive to the Chinese government.104 Bagan. By observing that these people came from the region which the Tarup supposedly inhabited. . Yuan shi. vol. Hence whether or not the attacking party referred to as the Tarup actually claimed to be representing the ‘Tarup’ who were the Chinese. Thus the identity of Tarup should be perceived in connection with its Buddhist character and connotations. This analysis of Burmese–Tarup relations challenges historians to confront the problems of classifications which involve geographically mobile populations within boundaries which not only have shifted but were probably measured by a different set of principles in the premodern mindset. the Tarup were always seen as Tarup whether 103 Song Lian. see also appendix of Wade. rather.103 Just as the Yuan could not clearly characterise the type of yi the Mian-Burmese were. Presumably later Burmese kingdoms such as the second Hanthawati of Bayinnaung and Konbaung Burma amassed greater areas for their empires. 210. Of course the Chinese were not and never have been a homogenous ethnic group. it was nevertheless perceived by the Burmese to be the Tarup. 1423. the Tarup corresponded to populations of differing ethnic composition. whether it was Kushan-Gandhara or China-Gandhara. For the Burmese. 104 Par excellence not in terms of territorial expanse.

events and personages which can prove important in filling the gaps of knowledge which still exist in the relatively barren field of Burmese history. In this sense there is a perception of an imagined boundary which may not be clearly marked by either military outposts or natural environmental features. and not Maw Shan or another ethnic minority. However one important point which makes a group Tarup. including those of external origins or more established traditions such as the Chinese histories. Even though Burmese chronicles of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries still contain descriptions which celebrate and possibly exaggerate the glory of former Burmese kings and their courts. often checking them against other contemporary sources. a researcher must exercise discretion in the use of these documents. Turks. Similar to most other primary sources. 105 Other than in areas such as religion and politics. is that the space where the Tarup are is ‘other’. Ming Chinese. beyond the boundary and suzerainty of Burma.152 GOH GEOK YIAN they were Nanzhao. there remain sufficient narrative descriptions of activities. Yunnanese. research in Burma. remains scant compared to most other Southeast Asian countries. particularly on subjects pertaining to the early periods of Burmese history.105 especially in the case of Burmese–‘Chinese’ relations via the borderlands of Yunnan and Shan areas. or any other. except perhaps Laos. . Mongol. The observation that a number of the Burmese chroniclers’ accounts of the Tarup are corroborated by Chinese historical sources suggests that the Burmese chronicles can be treated as valid primary historical records for this particular type of information.