In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

330 Uwe Krech Chapter 26 Cultural and Ethnic Diversity in the Burma Area, First Millennium CE: A New Look at the Early Urban Settlements Uwe Krech Abstract I shall explore the relationships between several types of 1st millennium urban settlements of the Burma area attested in the form of archaeological remains and the cultural and / or ethnic identities of their respective inhabitants.1 Introduction Let me first make some methodological comments on what I regard as deficiencies of the historiography of the Burma area, as described hitherto; these remarks — as sketchy as they regrettably have to remain — are necessary for understanding the subsequent discussion. Though I have to criticize some of the ideas and practices of Gordon Hannington Luce, keep in mind that this article is, to a large degree, informed by my reading of his publications, which made the most significant contributions to our knowledge of the historiography, culture and language of the proto / early Burma area. The fallacy of Luce and his followers (henceforth “Luce’s school”) that apparently had the most pervasive negative effects on the historiography of the Burma area, in quantitative and qualitative respects, was Luce’s de dicto taboo on using the Burmese chronicles as historiographic sources, advocating the use of relevant Chinese chronicles instead (see e.g., Luce 1948: 79–81). This postulate is largely kept intact to this day, even by researchers who otherwise do not follow the postulates of “Luce’s school” closely. However, apart from the deficiencies of both the Burmese and the Chinese chronicles, in different respects,2 both kinds of sources contain indispensable information. Hence, both should be studied for historiographic purposes (besides the scarce additional historiographic material, e.g., relevant Arabic sources) — from a critical perspective. The interpretation of the term “Pyu” (transliterated pyū) by “Luce’s school” shows a fundamental inconsistency. We find the term “Pyu” used as unequivocally signifying a (single) people we find exclusively in Burmese chronicles, not in other sources.3 Note that the so-called “Pyu” inscriptions of the 1st millennium CE have essentially not yet been deciphered; the better understood “Pyu” faces of the famous quatrilingual Myazedi inscriptions (ca. early 12th century CE) do not exhibit the term “Pyu” and — contra Luce (1985, vol. 1: 66-7) — the rare instances of the term “Pyu” occurring as part of toponyms in Mranma inscriptions (or so-called “Old Burmese” inscriptions; 12th–14th century CE)4 do not permit an unequivocal identification of a (single) ethnic “Pyu” entity, either. Thus, how could “Luce’s school” de facto employ the term “Pyu”, despite its de dicto taboo on using the Burmese chronicles as historical sources? Yet, although in Burmese chronicles like the Great Glass Palace Chronicle the term “Pyu” virtually exclusively designates inhabitants of an ancient city-state called “Thayayehkittayar” (transliterated: sa re khe tta rā), Luce and his followers nevertheless introduced “Pyu” as a broad label covering the entire cultural landscape of the interior lowlands (the largest part of which is the dry zone) during most of the 1st millennium CE. Extra-linguistic criteria seem to have played a role. A number of widespread material 330 Connecting Empires hi res combin330 330 8/24/2012 9:49:25 PM 331 Cultural and Ethnic Diversity in the Burma Area, First Millennium CE features certainly justify the concept of a rather unified archaeological (macro)culture covering this area.5 However, with the intensification of archaeological activities since the late 1990s, it became increasingly obvious that various subregional material cultures had to be discerned within the “Pyu” macro-region, see e.g., [Win Maung (Tampawaddy) and Cho Zaw’s map in Moore 2007: 146]. Therefore, we deal neither with a single uniform culture in this area nor with a single ethnic entity, conjecturally named “Pyu”. A further major fallacy of “Luce’s school” to be pointed out here concerns the issue of the alleged disappearance of the “Pyu” civilization in the 9th century CE. Luce, citing Chinese sources, originally claimed that, following an onslaught from the Nan-chao kingdom (based in the present-day province of Yunnan, China)6 in the 830s CE, the once widespread and highly sophisticated so-called “Pyu” population and their civilization virtually ceased to exist, without leaving traces in situ (Luce 1937: 252–3). Though Luce weakened this claim later when he recognized a number of “Pyu” traces at and around the city of Pagan (see e.g., Luce 1985, vol. 1: 66–7) — indicating at least some “Pyu” impact on Pagan...

Share