My thanks to Prof. Jacob Lassner, Prof. M.C. Ricklefs, Mr. John Okell, and Prof. Michael Aung-Thwin for comments on earlier drafts.

¹ The continuous chronicle ends in October 1711. A postscript, presumably also written by U Kala, describes the investiture of the Heir-Apparent in 1729. The editions of the Maha-ya-zawin-gyi (hereafter MYG) used in this paper are vol. I, ed. Pwa, Saya (Rangoon, 1926)Google Scholar; vol. II, ed. Saya Pwa (Rangoon, 1932); vol. III, ed. Hsaya U Hkin So (Rangoon, 1961).

² These pre-U Kala histories include the “Old Pagan Chronicle”, allegedly composed in the 16th century; local histories, of various vintages, of Tagaung, Prome, Thaton, Toungoo, Ava, and the Mon country; a Burmese translation of the Mon biography of the Peguan king Ya-za-di-ya-za, possibly of 15th century origin; and the “Celebrated Chronicle” (Ya-za-win-gyaw) finished by Shin Thi-la-wun-tha in 1520. Although this last-named history refers to the kings of several Upper Burma capitals, it is essentially a local history of the dry zone, and is too brief to be considered in the same class as U Kala's magnum opus: whereas U Kala's work runs to 1306 printed pages, Shin Thi-la-wun-tha's totals 87, of which only 12 are concerned with Burma. See Thi-la-wun-tha, Shin, Ya-zawin-gyaw, ed. Tin, Pe Maung (Rangoon, n.d)Google Scholar. On pre-U Kala histories and Burmese chronicle traditions generally, see The Glass Palace Chronicle of the Kings of Burma, ed. and trans. Tin, Pe Maung and Luce, G.H. (London, 1923), pp. ix–xxiiiGoogle Scholar; Htoot, U Tet, “The Nature of the Burmese Chronicles”, in Historians of South East Asia, ed. Hall, D.G.E. (London, 1962), pp. 50–62Google Scholar; Tin Ohn, “Modern Historical Writing in Burmese”, in ibid., pp. 85–93; Tun, Than, “Historiography of Burma”, Shiroku 9 (10 1976): 1–22Google Scholar; and Aung-Thwin, Michael's extended essay “Prophecies, Omens, and Dialogue: Tools of the Trade in Burmese Historiography”, in Moral Order and the Question of Change: Essays on Southeast Asian Thought, ed. Wyatt, David K. and Woodside, Alexander (New Haven, 1982), pp. 78–103Google Scholar.

³ The 19th-century “Great Celebrated Chronicle” by the Monywe Hsaya-daw is not to be confused with the aforementioned 16th-century “Celebrated Chronicle” by Shin Thi-la-wun-tha. On post-U Kala histories see previous note, plus Monywe Hsaya-daw, Maha-ya-zawin-gyaw, Reels 16–31 of Burmese microfilm, Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies, Tokyo; Hman-nan maha-ya-zawin-daw-gyi, 3 vols. (Rangoon, 1908–1909)Google Scholar.

⁴ Huxley, Aldous, Jesting Pilate: The Diary of a Journey (London, 1926), pp. 168–71Google Scholar. He was reading Pe Maung Tin and G.H. Luce's translation of The Glass Palace Chronicle, a modified version of the MYG.

⁵ Luce, G.H., “Aspects of Pagan History — Later Period”, in In Memoriam Phya Anuman Rajadhon, ed. Bunnag, Tej and Smithies, Michael (Bangkok, 1970), pp. 129–46Google Scholar; idem, Old Burma — Early Pagan (Locust Valley, N. Y., 1969), pt. A; Tun, Than, “History of Burma, A.D. 1000–1300”, Bulletin of the Burma Historical Commission 1, 1 (06, 1960): 39–57Google Scholar.

⁶ Maung Htin Aung (Oxford, 1970). See too the contribution to the debate by Hall, D.G.E. in his Review, Journal of Asian Studies 27, 4 (1968): 909–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ That is, 205 out of 1306 printed pages.

⁸ Ricklefs, M.C., Jogjakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi 1749–1792 (London, 1974), chap. 7Google Scholar; Vickery, Michael, “The Composition and Transmission of the Ayudhya and Cambodian Chronicles”, in Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia, ed. Reid, Anthony and Marr, David (Singapore, 1979), pp. 130–54Google Scholar; Wolters, O. W., The Fall of Srivijaya in Malay History (London, 1970), esp. chaps. 6, 11, 12Google Scholar; Teeuw, A. and Wyatt, D. K., Hikayat Patani: The Story of Patani (The Hague, 1970), pp. 289–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Ricklefs, M.C., “Javanese Sources in the Writing of Modern Javanese History”, in Southeast Asian History and Historiography, ed. Cowan, C.D. and Wolters, O.W. (Ithaca, 1976), pp. 333, 334, 338Google Scholar; Griswold, A.B., “Foreword”, in Mangrai, Sao Saimong, The Padaeng Chronicle and the Jengtung State Chronicle Translated (Ann Arbor, 1981), pp. xiii–xivGoogle Scholar; Geiger, Wilhelm, trans., The Mahavamsa (repr., Colombo, 1960), pp. xx–xxiiGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ See, for example, Harvey, G.E., History of Burma (repr., London, 1967), pp. xix–xxGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Tun, Than, “History of Burma, A.D. 1300–1400”, Journal of the Burma Research Society 42, 2 (1959): 119–34Google Scholar.

¹² Parker, Edward H., Burma, with Special Reference to Her Relations with China (Rangoon, 1893)Google Scholar.

¹³ Full title: Epistola Patris Nicolai Pimentae Visitatoris Societatis lesu in India Orientali. Ad R.P. Claudium Aquavivam Eiusdem Societatis Praepositum Generalem (Rome: Aloysium Zannettum, 1601)Google Scholar. I have read on microfilm the copy held at the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis) Library. For a brief biography of Pimenta and the ecclesiastical background to his work, see Rev. Sauliere, A., “A Missionary Tour in Bengal in 1598”, Bengal Past and Present 14, 2 (1917): 147–48, 150 n. 2Google Scholar; idem, “The Jesuits on Pegu at the End of the XVIth Century”, Bengal Past and Present 19 (1919): 64–69; Revs. Besse, L. and Hosten, H., “List of Portuguese Jesuit Missionaries in Bengal and Burma (1576–1742)”, Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 7, 2 (1911): 15–35Google Scholar.

¹⁴ The main passage wherein Pimenta describes his informants reads: “… adiungam ea, quae a fide dignis accepi, qui huius regni Pegu rebus turn adversis, tum prosperis, multo tempore interfuerunt, & suis oculis eius ruinam perspexerunt”. Pimenta, , Epistola, p. 33Google Scholar. The fact that on p. 32 these people are said to have arrived near St. Thomas on “ships of the Peguans (naves Pegusiorum)” tells us little about their identity, as Peguan ships of this period frequently carried merchants and crews of various nationalities. Conceivably Pimenta's informants were themselves Peguans (Mons), who are known to have traded as far as Aceh in the 16th century. Yet the Jesuit's apparent ease in communicating with his contacts, and the fact that Portuguese and south Indians dominated the Coromandel-Peguan trade, makes one or both of the latter groups more likely. Merchants are the most obvious group to have resided at Pegu for several seasons and to have acquired knowledge about the court, but it is not impossible that sailors also served as informants. I interpret adiungam ea, quae a fide dignis accepi (“I shall impart those things which I have accepted from persons worthy of trust”) to mean that Pimenta had personal contact with the recent arrivals from Pegu.

¹⁵ The extremely disturbed conditions at Pegu in the mid- and late 1590s militated against the editing and collating of daily court records before the Toungoo restoration of the early 17th century. The raw records themselves would have been too voluminous and stylized for use by untrained persons, even Burmans or Peguans. Nor is there the slightest internal evidence in Pimenta's account that he or his informants had access to court appointment orders, military lists, edicts, or other such documents.

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 33: “Ut autemclarius V.P. innotescat, quo loco sint res, & quas maxime ob caussas hance missionem … distulerimus.” Pimenta had concluded that conditions were too disturbed to permit missionary work in Lower Burma for the time being.

¹⁷ Expanded title: Histoire des choses plus memorables advenues tant ez Indes Orientales, que autres païs de la descouverte des Portugais, en l'establissement & progrez de la foy Chrestienne, & Catholique, 3 vols. (Bordeaux: S. Millanges, 1608–1614)Google Scholar. The first volume I have read at the British Library, London; for the second and third, I have obtained microfilms from the University of Minnesota Library. On du Jarric's life and work, see A. Sauliere, “A Missionary Tour in Bengal”, loc. cit., p. 147.

¹⁸ Apart from quotations, which will be footnoted separately, page citations for the following discussion may be found in Table 1.

¹⁹ MYG, III, p. 72 is clearly referring to the same incident as Pimenta, , Epistola, p. 35Google Scholar. See too the rather hyperbolic description of the executions in “Gasparo Balbi, his Voyage to Pegu, and Observations There…”, Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes, ed. Purchas, Samuel, vol. X (repr., Glasgow, 1905), pp. 160–61Google Scholar.

²⁰ Pimenta, , Epistola, p. 37Google Scholar (from which du Jarric, , Histoire, p. 620Google Scholar derives) claims that the “winter flood” (hyberna inundatione) normally came during March, when in fact the Menam rarely overflowed its banks before August or September.

²¹ Pimenta, , Epistola, p. 38Google Scholar says that he was killed by a “lead bullet” (plumbea glande); MYG, p. 91 says he was shot by a Siamese jingle (sein-pyaung).

²² Pimenta, , Epistola, p. 39Google Scholar.

²³ MYG, p. 92: “At Han-tha-wadi (Pegu), because all the royal guard troops were so mixed together that easy identification was impossible, the king ordered them to be tattooed (or marked) (hto-hmat) with characters (indicating whether they belonged to units of) the left, the right, the front, or the rear.” Pimenta, , Epistola, p. 39Google Scholar: “He ordered especially that all Peguans, from oldest to youngest, be branded (stigma inureretur) on the right hand, by which means their name, district, and status might be fixed.” Tattooing, a well-known measure of popular identification in later periods, is more probable than branding.

²⁴ Pimenta, , Epistola, p. 42Google Scholar says the siege began 23 January 1596 (ad 10 Cal. Februarij), and ended 25 March 1596 (octavo Cal. Aprilis). MYG, pp. 94–95 says that Siamese and Moulmein forces joined to begin their march on Pegu during the period 19 December 1595 to 18 January 1596 (the month of pya-tho, 957). When the siege itself began is not stated, but MYG claims it ended 30 March 1596. The five-day discrepancy between Latin and Burmese dates for the end of the siege could reflect differences in the departure of various units. Calendrical conversions from Latin and Burmese in this paper follow Handbook of Dates for Students of English History, ed. Cheney, C. R. (London, 1970)Google Scholar; Irwin, A.M.B., The Burmese and Arakanese Calendars (Rangoon, 1909)Google Scholar; idem, “Elements of the Burmese Calendar From A.D. 638 to 1752”, Indian Antiquary, pp. 289–315 (Nov., 1910).

²⁵ Pimenta, , Epistola, pp. 41–42, 44–45Google Scholar indicates that Prome revolted during or shortly after the Peguan assault on Moulmein; he also claims that the assassination of the rebel lord of Prome initiated civil wars that thoroughly devastated Prome district. By contrast, MYG, p. 95 dates the Prome revolt to the period during or shortly after the Siamese siege of Pegu, and claims that the assassin of the Prome rebel maintained peaceful control over the district for another decade. Without knowing how long the Moulmein campaign lasted, we cannot determine how large a chronological discrepancy (if any) exists between the two accounts. For material supporting U Kala's version of subsequent Prome history, however, see below nn. 37, 38.

²⁶ Pimenta, , Epistola, pp. 43–44Google Scholar; MYG, p. 96.

²⁷ Pimenta, , Epistola, p. 47Google Scholar mentions the Arakanese attack on a much-weakened Pegu; but the European account of Pegu's fall depends on du Jarrich, , Histoire, I, pp. 627–28Google Scholar and III, pp. 840–42.

²⁸ MYG, p. 106 identifies him as a “European (kala-bayin-gyi) known as Nga-chan-ga (= Nga-zin-ga).” “Nga” is a common prefix for personal names. According to the 17th-century historian Manuel y Sousa, de Faria, The Portugues Asia, trans. Stevens, John (London, 1695), III, p. 131Google Scholar, “Changa” was the name by which de Brito was known to his Mon and Burmese followers. So too Peter Floris: His Voyage to the East Indies in the Globe 1611–1615, ed. Moreland, W. H. (London, 1934), p. 118Google Scholar refers to de Brito as “Xenga”.

²⁹ Du Jarric, , Histoire, I, pp. 613, 629Google Scholar. Accusations of sodomy figure in 16th-century European accounts of other Southeast Asian countries as well.

³⁰ Epistola, p. 35; but on the previous page, he says 36 years, a figure repeated in du Jarric, , Histoire, I, p. 617Google Scholar.

³¹ Bayin-naung's reconquest of Toungoo, which marked his effective accession to power, is dated in MYG, II, p. 257 to 9 January 1551; and in a 1557 bell inscription erected by Bayin-naung to 11 January 1551. Sheihaung mon-kyauk-sa baung-gyok, ed. Thein, U Chit (Rangoon, 1965), pt. II, p. 106Google Scholar. A one-digit scribal error in either source would explain the two-day discrepancy.

³² When Gasparo Balbi arrived at Pegu, Nan-da-bayin had already been on the throne for some time. See “Gasparo Balbi, his Voyage…,” pp. 157–61.

³³ Cf. MYG, pp. 76–83, 86–92, and “Events in Ayuddhya (sic) from Chulasakaraj 686–966”, trans. Frankfurter, O., Journal of the Siam Society 6, 3 (1909): 15–17Google Scholar. On the reliability of the Luang Prasert chronicle translated by Frankfurter, see Wyatt, David K., “Chronicle Traditions in Thai Historiography”, in Southeast Asian History and Historiography, p. 119Google Scholar; Griswold, “Foreword”, loc. cit., pp. xiii–xiv. My thanks to Prof. David Wyatt and to Prof. Chatthip Nartsupha and Prof. Prasert Na Nakorn for providing Western conversions for the Luang Prasert dates. Precise Burmese/Thai comparisons are not always possible, in part because U Kala and Luang Prasert rarely date the same specific event, and in part because a few conversions provided by the aforementioned scholars of Thai history diverge from one another, in some cases by as much as a month. The problem of Thai/Western conversions is especially apparent during the last two campaigns. Thus, for example, Prof. Wyatt has the Burmese Heir-Apparent killed 19 December 1592, whereas Prof. Chatthip dates the Heir-Apparent's death to 18 January 1593. The latter date would conform closely to U Kala's claim that the Burmese forces arrived outside Ayudhya 31 December 1592, and that between 21 January and 20 February 1593 (the Burmese month of tabaung), immediately after the Heir-Apparent was killed, the Burmese army returned to Pegu. Richard D. Cushman, cited in Wyatt, David K., Thailand: A Short History (New Haven, 1984), pp. 102–103, 316Google Scholar also says 18 January 1593, but it is unclear which Siamese chronicle Cushman relied on. Note also that Luang Prasert — but not U Kala — refers to fighting in 1588, after the defeat of Nan-da-bayin's third invasion. After reviewing this discrepancy between Burmese and Siamese chronicles, the Damrong, Siamese Prince, “Our Wars with the Burmese”, trans. Thein, U Aung, Journal of the Burma Research Society 40, 2 (1957): 152–53Google Scholar agrees with U Kala that no serious fighting occurred between mid-1587 and late 1590.

³⁴ Same as previous note. Cf. Pimenta, , Epistola, pp. 37–38Google Scholar and above n. 20.

³⁵ Cf. Pimenta, , Epistola, pp. 34, 37Google Scholar; and MYG, II, pp. 407–413; III, 81. The last entry in MYG contains variant manuscript readings, one claiming 552,000 troops in 1586, the other claiming 252,000 for the same expedition. For total population estimates, see Reid, Anthony, “Low Population Growth and Its Causes in Pre-Colonial Southeast Asia”, Paper read at 9th Conference of IAHA,Manila,21–25 Nov. 1983Google Scholar.

³⁶ Eight days in du Jarric, , Histoire, p. 626Google Scholar.

³⁷ For the biography of the Yanaing-sa and his role in early Restored Toungoo history, see MYG, III, pp. 116–17, 135–36, 145.

³⁸ Cf. MYG, III, pp. 135–36, 143–45, and “A Brief Account of the Kingdom of Pegu”, trans. Macgregor, A., Journal of the Burma Research Society 16, 2 (1926): 115 ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Cf. du Jarric, , Histoire, pp. 627–28Google Scholar; MYG, III, pp. 99–100; Peter Floris, pp. 53–54.

⁴⁰ Pimenta, , Epistola, p. 36Google Scholar relates: “An agreement was reached that the two [kings] would do battle on their elephants, and that whoever came out alive would possess the scepter. Emerging victorious in this duel, with his paternal uncle having been killed, the king of Pegu gained control over the kingdom of Pegu and Ava (Rex in hoc duello victor existens, occiso patruo Peguani & Avani regni gubernacula suscepit).” Cf. “Gasparo Balbi, his Voyage…”, p. 161: “… in which furie he so coupled with the other Elephant, that the King of Pegu killed the King of Avva.” It should be said, however, that Balbi was not present in Upper Burma and that his account of the campaign is full of exaggerations and overdramatizations. Conceivably both he and Pimenta relied on popular stories circulating at Pegu; hence perhaps their similarly exaggerated figures on the size of Bayin-naung's armies.

⁴¹ y Sousa, Faria, Portugues Asia, III, pp. 134, 138–39Google Scholar.

⁴² See Harvey, , History, pp. 333–5Google Scholar, discussing habitual numerical exaggerations in the chronicles.

⁴³ See Watson, Burton, Ssu-ma Ch'ien: Grand Historian of China (New York, 1958), pp. 166–67Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ MYG, I, pp. 1–112. This and the other seven sections are my own designations. They correspond poorly, or not at all, to 21 formally-marked subdivisions of the MYG, which in many instances seem to be drawn arbitrarily. On the stylistic affinities of this opening section, see Okell, John, “Nissaya Burmese”, Lingua 15 (1965): 188–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁵ MYG, I, pp. 113–41.

⁴⁶ Ibid., pp. 141–66.

⁴⁷ Ibid., pp. 166–324.

⁴⁸ Ibid., pp. 351–457; II, pp. 1–155. I am uncertain how the material on the chiefs of Myinsaing, Pinya, and Sagaing (c. 1298–1365) relates to the Ava material. Note that epigraphic checks on pre-1365 chronicle accounts show some chronological errors; see above, n. 11.

⁴⁹ E.g., MYG, II, p. 157. The history of the First Toungoo dynasty runs, ibid., pp. 155–451; III, pp. 1–112.

⁵⁰ These invasions were launched by Tabin-shwei-hti and Bayin-naung. Cf. MYG, II, pp. 231–45, 348–63, 402–32, and “Events in Ayuddhya”, pp. 10–14. For example, according to U Kala, Bayin-naung departed for Ayudhya during his first invasion 9 November 1563; while Luang Prasert claims that Bayin-naung “raised an army” to attack Siam during the month of 16 October to 14 November 1563. U Kala has Bayin-naung depart Pegu on his second campaign 18 October 1568; Luang Prasert (Chatthip) says c. 20 October 1568. At the climax of this second campaign, according to U Kala, Ayudhya fell 1 August 1569; Prof. Wyatt's conversion of Luang Prasert says 24 July 1569; and Prof. Chatthip and Prof. Prasert say 7 August 1569. Cf. above n. 33.

⁵¹ Shei-haung mon-kyauk-sa, pt. II, pp. 105–108 gives five dates from the bell inscription that can be checked against MYG, II, p. 257 (conquest of Toungoo), p. 261 (conquest of Prome), p. 286 (conquest of Ava), pp. 309–310 (departure from Momeik), p. 312 (departure from Mogaung). The first comparison is off by two days; the second agrees exactly; the third and fifth are each off by several days, but different phases of the same event are perhaps being compared; the fourth comparison suggests that U Kala's date is nine days too early. Cf. above n. 31.

⁵² The Restored Toungoo section to 1665 runs from MYG, III, pp. 113–283, ending with the stabilization of the authority of Pye (r. 1661–72). Peter Floris, pp. 118–19 reports that Philippe de Brito was defeated and executed by impaling in March 1613; MYG, III, pp. 164–65 says that the Burmese captured de Brito's fort 18 March 1613, and that de Brito was impaled 28 March. The dates given for the death of Tha-lun, the death of his Heir-Apparent, and the deposition of Pindale (r. 1648–61) in MYG also agree exactly with Thi-ri-uzana, , Law-ka-byu-ha-kyan, ed. Lat, U Hpo (Rangoon, 1968), pp. 185, 245Google Scholar. Although composed after the MYG, the latter book contains independent information of a non-political nature.

⁵³ This last section spans MYG, III, pp. 283–398. MYG dates for Pye's death, Naya-waya's death, Min-ye-kyaw-din's death, and Banya-law's appointment (pp. 291, 295, 345, 280), coincide precisely with Law-ka-byu-ha-kyan, pp. 188, 245, 200. On the other hand, MYG, p. 312 and Law-ka-byu-ha kyan, p. 201 disagree as to the date when three ministers were appointed. The MYG date is embedded in a thick, internally-consistent chronology, whereas the Law-ka-byu-ha-kyan date stands alone; so one suspects a scribal error in the latter source.

⁵⁴ Vickery, “Ayudhya and Cambodian Chronicles”, Ioc. cit., pp. 152–53.

⁵⁵ Geiger, , “Introduction”, The MahavamsaGoogle Scholar; Basham, A.L., “The Kashmir Chronicle”, in Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, ed. Philips, C.H. (London, 1961), p. 58Google Scholar; L.S. Perera, “The Pali Chronicle of Ceylon”, ibid., pp. 32–33.

⁵⁶ Mendelson, E. Michael, Sangha and State in Burma (Ithaca, 1975), pp. 62–63Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ See Lieberman, Victor, “A New Look at the Sasanavamsa”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 39, 1 (1976): 140–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁸ On the robe-wrapping dispute, which concerned different vinaya interpretations as to the correct method of wearing the monastic costume, and the central role of textual evidence in that dispute, see Lieberman, Victor, Burmese Administrative Cycles: Anarchy and Conquest, c. 1580–1760 (Princeton, 1984), pp. 178–79, 238, 262Google Scholar; The History of the Buddha's Religion (Sasanavamsa), trans. Law, B.C. (London, 1952), chap. 6Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ At the outset, U Kala — sensitive to criticism that his worldly narratives would hinder the attainment of nirvana — claimed that his history illustrated the Buddhist law of impermanence and thus actually aided religious understanding. MYG, I, pp. 1–5. In truth this was a stylized chronicle defense, also used in the 16th century Nidana Ramadhipati-katha.

⁶⁰ Glass Palace Chronicle, p. ix.

⁶¹ Indeed, a Cambodian chronicle of 1903 began with a royal exhortation to reconcile discrepancies in earlier texts not unlike the exordium at the outset of the “Glass Palace Chronicle”, but the Cambodian product was not a notable improvement on earlier histories. Vickery, “Ayudhya and Cambodian Chronicles”, pp. 151–52.

⁶² See Lieberman, , Administrative Cycles, chaps. 1, 2Google Scholar; Aung, Maung Htin, A History of Burma (New York, 1967), p. 148Google Scholar. On the development of secretarial posts, including the offices of provincial secretary, cavalry secretary, territorial secretary, and senior writer, see too Zam-bu-di-pa ok-hsaung-kyan, ed. Furnivall, J.S. and Tin, Pe Maung (Rangoon, 1960), pp. 60–66Google Scholar, reproducing edicts of 1367 and 1638; and U Tin, Pagan Wundauk, Myan-ma-min ok-chok-pon da-san, 5 vols. (Rangoon, 1931–1933), III, pp. 187–96Google Scholar.

⁶³ Shin Thi-la-wun-tha's Ya-zawin-gyaw, as indicated above in n. 2, also fits this description. Apart from six lines on Srikshetra, Shin Thi-la-wun-tha's list of kings and royal donations was exclusively concerned with the dry zone regional capitals of Pagan, Pinya, Sagaing, and Ava.

⁶⁴ Lieberman, , Administrative Cycles, chaps. 1, 2, 4, 5Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ For his biography, see MYG, I, “At-htok-pat-ti”, pp. 1–2; Thu-ta, Maung, Sa-hso-daw-myaat-htok-pat-ti (Rangoon, 1971), pp. 179–81Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ MYG, I, “Ni-dan”, p. 5.

⁶⁷ Ibid., I, p. 178.

⁶⁸ Ibid., I, pp. 229–30. Other titles for this king were included in this list.

⁶⁹ Tin, Pe Maung and Luce, G.H., “Introduction” to Glass Palace Chronicle, pp. xvi–xviiGoogle Scholar; Than Tun, “Historiography”, loc. cit., p. 13; Thu-ta, Maung, Sa-hso-daw-mya, pp. 235–38Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ U. Tet Htoot, “Burmese Chronicles”, pp. 54–56; Thu-ta, Maung, Sa-hso-daw-mya, pp. 318–21Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Kasetsiri, Charnvit, “Thai Historiography from Ancient Times to the Modern Period”, in Perceptions of the Past, pp. 159–60Google Scholar. Cf. Wales, H.G. Quaritch, Ancient Siamese Government and Administration (repr., New York, 1965), chap. 5Google Scholar; Lieberman, , Administrative Cycles, pp. 286–87Google Scholar.

⁷² Reynolds, , “Religious Historical Writing and the Legitimation of the First Bangkok Reign”, in Perceptions of the Past, pp. 90–107Google Scholar; Vickery, “Ayudhya and Cambodian Chronicles”, pp. 130–54.

⁷³ Vickery, , “Ayudhya and Cambodian Chronicles”, pp. 153–54Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ See Lieberman, , Administrative Cycles, pp. 239–40, 299–300Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ See U Tet Htoot, “Burmese Chronicles”, pp. 50–55; Tin Ohn, “Historical Writing”, pp. 88–89; and Kon-baung-zet-maha-ya-zawin-daw-gyi, ed. U Tin, , 3 vols. (Rangoon, 1967–1968)Google Scholar, incorporating the “Glass Palace Chronicle” and the “Second Chronicle”. It is clear that the charge of wholesale falsification of the account of the First Anglo-Burmese War, a charge originally levelled by John Crawfurd in 1827 and repeated sadly as late as 1985 (Pye, Lucien, Asian Power and Politics, Cambridge, Mass., 1985, p. 97Google Scholar) is attractive only to people who have never read the chronicle. See Kon-baung-zet, II, p. 407 ff., wherein the treaty of Yandabo with all its humiliations is reproduced.

⁷⁶ Ohn, Tin, “Historical Writing”, p. 86Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Prof. Hla Pe of the School of Oriental and African Studies, personal communication, 1973.

⁷⁸ MYG, III, pp. 61, 96, 113–15, 188–89. The convention of quoting what was probably a spurious speech by a king to legitimate retroactively his son's accession was taken over from U Kala by early Konbaung chroniclers.

⁷⁹ Conceivably, however, U Kala sought to magnify Bayin-naung's legitimacy.

⁸⁰ This last consideration apparently led the compilers of the “Glass Palace Chronicle”, started in 1829, to stop their account in 1821, before the First Anglo-Burmese War. The record of that conflict was thus left to the compilers of the “Second Chronicle”.

⁸¹ See Wyatt, “Thai Historiography”, pp. 115, 119; Vickery, “Ayudhya and Cambodian Chronicles”, pp. 150, 152–53; Griswold, “Foreword”, loc. cit., pp. xiii–xiv; Wyatt, , Thailand: A Short History, p. 81Google Scholar.