Not being a Burmese history expert and not being very familiar with the Burmese chronology of kings, this book will be a challenging read in terms of keeping the various names in order...however, anyone who has heard the story of Pagan being destroyed by the Mongols in 1287 will be familiar enough with the period in time and stories this book covers. And the stories are fascinating.

Author Aung-Thwin tackles five major events in Burmese history that he believes have been misunderstood, misinterpreted, or just plain misrepresented. All make for fascinating reading. The first "deals with King Kulakya, 'the king felled by the Indians'." The second concerns "the epithet given to King Narathihapade of Pagan, known as Tarup Pliy Man (the king who fled the Chinese) and his significance in Burmese history." The third is the story of the Mongols attacking and destroying Pagan in 1287. The fourth "concerns the 'end' of the Pagan dynasty in 1287 after the death of 'the king who fled the Chinese' and 'the "fall" of Pagan'". And the final myth concerns the ethnicity of the three brothers of the Pagan court who "not only were blamed for the final demise of the Pagan kingdom...but also became the basis for interpreting the significance of the Kingdom of Ava--'the Shan period' in Burmese history." So all five events are related intimately with one another.

In short, Aung-Thwin makes short work of all five events and I'll site the one probably most familiar--that of the sack of Pagan. It probably didn't happen. There seems to have been confusion and misunderstandings of texts, dates and geography to name just three arguments. Yes, the Mongols attacked the kingdom of Pagan but it's unclear if the city of Pagan was reached. In fact, there's a good case to agree with Aung-thwin that it wasn't. More likely, he argues, that it crumbled through neglect, age, failing economies and other internal reasons (like the king's own son imprisoning him in an internal revolt). Each of the other four events have similar holes in their stories...and are a sharp reminder of the need for fact-based research, especially when contemplating commonly accepted historical 'facts'.

The author is no young man with a bee in his bonnet. He is, in fact, a brilliant scholar, a professor of Burmese history and historiography, familiar with both Burmese and Chinese sources, who began research in the subject matter covered in this volume while still a graduate student at the University of Michigan in the early 70s--40 years ago. Myth and History in Historiography of Early Burma was published jointly by the Ohio University Center for International Studies and ISEAS (the well-regarded Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore).

But read this fascinating book and decide for yourself. I'm already back-pedaling. ( )