I wish to thank Professor C. D. Cowan, Professor Hugh Tinker, Professor H. L. Shorto, Professor Hla Pe, Mr William Koenig, and especially Mr John Okell for their assistance. Responsibility for the content of the article remains my own.

¹ For explanations of the revolt in terms of ‘Mon nationalism’, the ‘Talaing national movement’, the ‘Talaing … nation’, etc., see Hall, D. G. E., Early English Intercourse with Burma, 1587–1743, second edn (London, 1968), pp. 12, 236;Google ScholarPearn, B. R., A History of Rangoon (Rangoon, 1939; repr., Westmead, England, 1971), p. 41;Google ScholarCady, John F., Southeast Asia: Its Historical Development (New York, 1964), pp. 285, 288–9;Google ScholarSirPhayre, Arthur, History of Burma (London, 1883; repr., New York, 1969), pp. 142–3.Google Scholar

² See Harvey, G. E., History of Burma (London, 1925; new impression, London, 1967), pp. 216, 220, 234–6;Google ScholarPhayre, , History of Burma, pp. 150–1; Cady, Southeast Asia, pp. 288–9;Google ScholarHall, D. G. E., A History of South-East Asia, 2nd edn (New York, 1966), pp. 365, 381–6;Google Scholarid., Europe and Burma (London, 1945), p. 60;Google ScholarBritish Burma Gazetteer, 2 vols (Rangoon, 1879–1880), Vol. 2, pp. 168, 481;Google ScholarBode, Mabel Haynes, The Pali Literature of Burma (London, 1909; repr. London, 1966), pp. 68–9, 83.Google ScholarAung, Htin, A History of Burma (New York, 1967), pp. 153–70, 313, is a partial exception to this school of thought in that Htin Aung recognizes the poly-ethnic character of the initial uprising at Pegu. By 1747, however, he claims that the Mons had begun to massacre Burmese in the south. He characterizes the ensuing wars as a ‘racial conflict’ (p. 313) and freely uses the terms ‘nationalism’ and ‘patriot’ in describing Alaùng-hpayà's movement.Google ScholarBrailey, Nigel, ‘A Re-Investigation of the Gwe of Eighteenth Century Burma’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. I, No. 2 (September 1970), pp. 33–47, has escaped the traditional Mon-Burmese dichotomy by focusing with considerable insight on ‘Karen’ involvement at Pegu. Yet he, too, has tended to think in terms of discrete politico-ethnic categories, e.g. ‘Karens’ vs. ‘the Mon party’, See infra.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Kunstadter, Peter, ‘Population and Linguistic Affiliation of Ethnic Groups of Burma’, in Kunstadter, (ed.), Southeast Asian Tribes, Minorities, and Nations, 2 vols (Princeton, 1967), Vol. I, pp. 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ See Halliday, R., The Talaings (Rangoon, 1917).Google Scholar

⁵ Dalrymple, A. (comp.), Oriental Repertory, 2 vols (London, 1808; repr., Rangoon, 1926) [Dal], Vol. I, p. 99.Google ScholarCf. Halliday, , The Talaings, pp. 19–20;Google Scholar and Maha-si-thu, Twìn-thìn-taik-wun, ‘Alaùng-mìn-tayà-gyì ayei-daw-bon’ (Biography of King Alaùng-hpayà) [AA-T], in Alaùng-hpayà ayei-daw-bon hnasaung-dwè (Two Biographies of King Alaùng-hapayà),Google ScholarTin, Ù Hlá, ed (Rangoon, 1961), pp. 161, 186.Google Scholar

⁶ Kòn-baung-zet maha-ya-zawin-daw-gyi (Great Royal Chronicle of the Kòn-baung Dynasty) [KBZ], 3 vols (Rangoon, 1967), Vol. I, p. 114.Google Scholar

⁷ Lehman, F. K., ‘Ethnic Categories in Burma and the Theory of Social Systems’, in Kunstadter, Southeast Asian Tribes, pp. 93–124;Google ScholarLeach, E. R., Political Systems of Highland Burma (London, 1964);Google ScholarMoerman, Michael, ‘Ethnic Identification in a Complex Civilization: Who Are the Lue?’, American Anthropologist, Vol. 67 (1965), pp. 1215–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Kalà, Ù, Maha-ya-zawin-gyi (The Great Chronicle), Vol. 2, Pwà, Hsaya (ed.) (Rangoon, n.d.), pp. 214–16;Google ScholarShorto, H. L., ‘A Mon Genealogy of Kings: Observations on “the Nidāna Ārambhakathā”’, in Hall, D. G. E. (ed.), Historians of South East Asia (London, 1961), p. 68.Google Scholar

⁹ Tambiah, S. J., World Conqueror and World Renouncer (Cambridge, 1976), Ch. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ See Adas, Michael, The Burma Delta (Madison, Wisc., 1974), pp. 17–19, 57.Google ScholarSimilarly, Moerman, , ‘Ethnic Identification in a Complex Civilization’, p. 1222, has stated that within lowland northern Thailand, all changes among minority Thai communities have been ‘toward the language, culture, and identification of the politically dominant people which, for the last 50 to 100 years, has been the Siamese.’ Note, however, that people can adopt another group's language and culture without adopting that group's ethnic self-identification; indeed, this is often the case in Lower Burma. See Lehman, ‘Ethnic Categories in Burma’, p. 116.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Moerman, , ‘Ethnic Identification in a Complex Civilization’, p. 1219.Google Scholar

¹² The period is subdivided into the First Taung-ngu-Dynasty, c. 1539–99, with the capital at Pegu; and the Restored Taung-ngu Dynasty, c. 1597–1752, when the capital was usually at Ava.

¹³ Page 82 of a typescript MS which is a translation by Shorto, H. L. of the Mon Nidāna Rāmādhipatī-kathā, Candakanto, Phra, ed. (Pak Lat, Siam, 1912), p. 152. At Ayut'ia during the seventeenth century Japanese, Mons and even a Greek adventurer achieved high office; while in Arakan Portuguese, Japanese, Afghans and Indians served in the royal forces.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Tabin-shwei-htì ‘became a Mon’ only towards the end of his reign, and none of his successors followed suit.

¹⁵ See, inter alia, Lieberman, V. B., ‘The Burmese Dynastic Pattern, c. 1590–1760’ (Univ. of London Ph.D. Thesis, 1976), Ch. 2;Google ScholarThwin, M. Aung, ‘The Nature of State and Society in Pagan’ (Univ. of Michigan Ph.D. Thesis, 1976), Chs 2, 4;Google Scholar Shorto, ‘Genealogy’, p. 68. See, too, Reynolds, Craig J., ‘Buddhist Cosmography in Thai History, with Special Reference to Nineteenth-Century Culture Change’, Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 35, No. 2 (February 1976), p. 210, for a discussion of Buddhist literature as an instrument of poly-ethnic political integration in Siam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Shorto, , ‘Genealogy’, pp. 63–72.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Lieberman, , ‘The Burmese Dynastic Pattern’, Chs 1, 4.Google Scholar

¹⁸ We might note that the patterns we are about to describe were by no means peculiar to the Irrawaddy valley, but in varying degrees must have characterized a great many pre-national societies in which quasi-feudal modes of political organization, a universalist Great Tradition, and strong particularist tendencies were note-worthy features. For example, in medieval Britain ‘Welsh’ and ‘English’ constituted. distinct ethnic categories, each with its own language, culture, and political traditions. English and Welsh authors composed scathing attacks on the moral qualities of their opposite numbers, while a ruler of Snowdonia in the thirteenth century sought to unify the Welsh on the basis of anti-English sentiment. Yet if we examine the course of the so-called Welsh Wars of the thirteenth century, we find that local rivalries, and family and personal jealousies were always more potent than any ‘national sense’, and that the English infantry on occasion consisted principally of Welshmen. So, too, the ‘Mon’ army, on occasion, consisted chiefly of Burmese. See Morris, John E., The Welsh wars of Edward I (Oxford, 1901);Google ScholarPoole, Austin Lane, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087–1216, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1955);Google ScholarSirPowicke, Maurice, The Thirteenth Century, 1216–1307, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1962).Google Scholar

¹⁹ For contemporary and nearly-contemporary accounts of these events, see the Burmese translation of the Mon history of the monk of Athwa, British Library, London, Oriental MS no. 3464 [BL OR 3464], pp. 139–41; an abridged version of the same work on unpaginated palmleaves in the Henry Burney Papers of the Royal Commonwealth Society, London, Talaing ya-zawin (Talaìng History) [RCS-TY] Thi-rí-ú-zana, , Làw-ká-byu-ha kyàn (Treatise on Customary Usages) [LBHK], Lat, Ù Hpò (ed.) (Rangoon, 1968), p. 4 India Office Library, London,Google ScholarLetters to Fort St. George, Vol. 26 (1741) (Madras, 1916), pp. 8–9, 35–7.Google Scholar For somewhat later accounts, see Hman-nàn-ya-zawin-daw-gyi (Great Glass Palace Royal Chronicle) [HNY], 3 vols (Mandalay, 1909), Vol. 3, pp. 380–4;Google Scholar and the summaries in Yi, Yi, Myan-ma-naing-ngan achei-anei, 1714–1752 (Burma's Condition, 1714–1752) (Rangoon, 1973), pp. 67ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ BL OR 3464, pp. 139–40.Google Scholar

²¹ Letters to Fort St. George, Vol. 26 (1741), p. 9.Google Scholar

²² India Office Records, London, Abstract of Letters Received from ‘Coast’ and ‘Bay’ 1734–44, in Correspondence with India (Examiner's Office), E/4/4, p. 332. See, too, Yi Yi, Myan-ma-naing-ngan achei-anei, pp. 165, 179 for evidence that the Burmese identified their Peguan foes as ‘Talaings’.Google Scholar

²³ HNY, Vol. 3, pp. 383, 390–1.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., pp. 387–8; Yi Yi, Myan-ma-naing-ngan achei-anei, pp. 164–6; See too, Ibid., p. 178.

²⁵ H. L. Shorto, personal communication, 1974. A 1759 report in Dal, Vol. I, p. 99 said, ‘Even in Pegu their Numbers [i.e. Burmese to Mons] are 100 to 1’. For other evidence of a significant Burmese population south of Prome during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, see Dal, Vol. I, pp. 133–42 passim; Zam-bú-di-pá ok-hsaùng kyàn (Treatise of the Crown of Jambudipa Island), Furnivall, J. S. and Tin, Pe Maung (eds) (Rangoon, 1960), pp. 46, 58; KBZ, Vol. I, p. 105.Google Scholar

²⁶ We do not know whether their ethnic distinctiveness within southern society was due to separate ahmu-dan roles, to a specialized economic function, to continual infusions of northern migrants, or to some other factor(s). On the determination of Chin communities within Lower Burma to maintain their separate identity, see Lehman, ‘Ethnic Categories in Burma’, pp. 112–13.Google Scholar

²⁷ It is probable that a number of bi-lingual ‘Burmese’ at this time found it desirable to pass as ‘Mons’. Unfortunately, we have no firm evidence of such conversions prior to 1752.

²⁸ 1766 Martaban Land Roll MS in the possession of H. L. Shorto.

²⁹ KBZ, Vol. I, p. 55; AA-T, p. 199. This is apparently the same individual identified as Nan-dá-balá-kyaw-thu in KBZ, Vol. I, pp. 170, 235; and in Let-wè-naw-yahta, ‘Alaùng-min-tayà-gyì ayeì-daw-bon’ (Biography of King Alaùng-hpayà) [AA-L], Alaùng-hpayà ayei-daw-bon hnasaung-dwè, p. 93.Google Scholar

³⁰ Tin, U, Myan-ma-min ok-chok-pon sa-dàn (Record of Administration under the Burmese Kings), 5 vols (Rangoon, 1931–1933), Vol. 2, pp. 242–3;Google ScholarHNY, Vol. 3, pp. 391–2. This is probably the same man as Let-ya-bo-chok Min-nge-kyaw, BL OR 3464, p. 141.Google Scholar

³¹ Yi Yi, , Myan-ma-naing-ngan achei-anei, pp. 76, 81.Google Scholar

³² ‘The Testimony of an Inhabitant of the City of Ava’, Salarak, Phra Phraison (trans.), Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 45, Pt 2 (October 1957), p. 32. See, too, HNY, Vol. 3, p. 405.Google Scholar

³³ Yi Yi, , Myan-ma-naing-ngan achei-anei, pp. 74–5.Google Scholar

³⁴ Mon leaders who remained loyal to Ava between 1744 and 1752 included Banyà-ú-pá-ya-za, Banyà-kyàn-dàw, Banyà-damá-ya-za, Ya-za-di-ya-zá, and probably Banyà-sú, Banyà-byat-tá, and Banyà-thi-há.

³⁵ Cf. HNY, Vol. 3, p. 384, and the 1766 Martaban Land Roll.Google Scholar

³⁶ AA-L, p. 17.Google Scholar

³⁷ Brailey, , ‘Re-investigation of the Gwe’, pp. 33–47.Google Scholar

³⁸ HNY, Vol. 3, p. 383;Google ScholarPyin-nya, Ù, Kayin ya-zawin (History of the Karens) (Rangoon, 1929), pp. 145ff.Google Scholar

³⁹ HNY, Vol. 3, pp. 382–3; Zam-bú-di-pá ok-hsaùng kyán, pp. 83, 98;Google ScholarKalà, Ù, Maha-ya-zawin-gyi, Vol. 3, Sò, Hsaya Ù Hkin (ed.). (Rangoon, 1961), pp. 332–40 passim;Google ScholarWilkie, R. S. (comp.), Burma Gazetteer—The Yamethin District, Vol. A (Rangoon, 1934), pp. 26–33, 45 passim;Google ScholarLuce, G. H., ‘Introduction to the Comparative Study of Karen Languages’, Journal of the Burma Research Society, Vol. 42, Pt I (June 1959), pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Yi Yi, , Myan-ma-naing-ngan achei-anei, p. 85 reports that in 1744 an attack by ‘Karens’ forced Smin Dhaw temporarily to abandon Pegu (cf. Brailey, ‘Re-investigation of the Gwe’, p. 34). See, too, HNY, Vol. 3, p. 383.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Damrong, Prince, ‘Our Wars with the Burmese’, U Aung hein (trans.), Journal of the Burma Research Society, Vol. 40, Pt 2(a) (May 1958), pp. 285–6; BL OR 3464, p. 141.Google Scholar

⁴² BL OR 3464, pp. 140–1.Google Scholar

⁴³ Brailey, , ‘Re-investigation of the Gwe’, pp. 35–6. On Banyà-dalà and the coup of 1747 (some sources date it to 1746), see, too, Yi Yi, Myan-ma-naing-ngan achei anei, pp. 89–95, 99; HNY, Vol. 3; pp. 383, 389–93; LBHK, p. 5; RCS-TY; AA-T, p. 209; Hall, English Intercourse, p. 305.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ For Htin Aung's views,Google Scholar see his History, pp. 154–5; for Brailey's, see ‘Re-investigation of the Gwe’, pp. 35–6, 44–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Same as note 30.

⁴⁶ Alaùng-min-tayà ameín-daw-myà (Edicts of King Alaùng-hpayà) [AAm], Sein, Hkin Hkin (comp. and ed.) (Rangoon, 1964), pp. 56–7, 83–4.Google ScholarCf. Yi, Yi, Myan-ma-naing-ngan achei-anei, pp. 99–100, 177, 178.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ BL OR 3464, p. 141.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ These were the uprisings at Madaya and Ok-hpo which Harvey, Hall, Cady, and Brailey have erroneously dated to 1740 rather than 1747.

⁴⁹ See BL OR 3464, p. 142, and KBZ, Vol. I, p. 105.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ LBHK, p. 6. As we shall see, these same sentiments of personal loyalty prevented some Ava officials from swearing allegiance to Alaùng-hpayà.Google Scholar

⁵¹ AA-L, p. 28.Google Scholar

⁵² Letter quoted in Yi Yi, Myan-ma-naing-ngan achei-anei, p. 179.Google Scholar

⁵³ AA-L, p. 29. Cf. AA-T, p. 162.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ AA-L, p. 28; KBZ, Vol. I, p. 44.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ AA-T, pp. 170–71.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ AA-T, p. 186; KBZ, Vol. I, p. 122.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ AA-T, pp. 183–4; KBZ, Vol. I, pp. 104–5.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Thus, for example, he disseminated a chain letter quoting a prophecy which said that the Talaings were not destined to found a kingdom because the Burmese were ‘the principal group’ (AAm, p. 28). See, too, AAm, pp. 3–4, 9–10, 28, 129; and KBZ, Vol. I, p. 184.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ AA-L, p. 29.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See AAm, pp. 9–10, 12–13, 28–30, 212–13.Google Scholar

⁶¹ KBZ, Vol. I, p. 237. Cf. AAm, p. 28.Google Scholar

⁶² Mon adherents included Banyà-ú-pá-ya-za and Ya-za-dí-ya-zá.

⁶³ KBZ, Vol. I, pp. 187–9, 191, 257. Dàw-zwe-yá-set's successor at Martaban was also a Mon. Moreover, Symes, Michael, An Account of an Embassy to the Kingdom of Ava (London, 1800; repr., Westmead, England, 1969), pp. 38–9, says that Alaünghpayà gave a ‘distinguished station’ to the Martaban Mon leader, Talaban. An edict (AAm, pp. 9–10) which Alaüng-hpayà issued at the start of his southern campaign, although addressed to ‘my Burmese subjects…’, specifically invited Talaings to do homage on equal terms.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ This follows BL OR 3464, p. 144. AA-L, pp. 25–6 and KBZ, Vol. I, p. 38 also refer to the incident of the carts, but identify the Mon hero as Ngá-thaik-sat. KBZ, Vol. I, p. 29 lists Ngá-htaw-aing as myin-yei-tet No. 14.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Dal, , Vol. I, p. 204;Google Scholar‘Some Historical Documents’, Furnivall, J. S. (ed. and trans.), Journal of the Burma Research Society, Vol. 6, Pt 3 (1916), pp. 213–23; Vol. 8, Pt I (1918), pp. 40–52; Vol. 9, Pt I (1919), pp. 33–52passim.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Halliday, R., ‘Immigration of the Mons into Siam’, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 10, Pt 3 (September 1913), pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ AA-T, pp. 194–5. There is no evidence to suggest that Yè-gaung-san-kyaw changed his hairstyle to mark these changes in political allegiance.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ AA-L, p. 29. Cf. AA-T, p. 162.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Bá-thaùng, , Sa-hso-daw-myà at-htok-pat-tí (Biographies of Royal Authors) (Rangoon, 1971), pp. 241–52.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ AAm, p. 149.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Symes, , An Embassy to the Kingdom of Ava, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

⁷² They garrisoned Hson-gùn fort–see AA-L, p. 112. For additional references to Burmese defenders, see AA-L, p. 116; AA-T, p. 202; KBZ, Vol. I, pp. 128, 141, 159, 184; Dal, Vol. I, p. 166; and supra, note 32. The total Peguan army by 1757 probably did not exceed twenty-five thousand, so Burmese represented a significant element indeed.Google Scholar

⁷³ KBZ, Vol. I, p. 55.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Phayre, , History of Burma, p. 165.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ I am particularly indebted to F. K. Lehman for the perspectives offered in his article ‘Ethnic Categories in Burma’. Other sources on which I have relied for the post-colonial period include: four publications by the Ministry of Information of the Union of Burma entitled A Brief Review of Disturbances in Burma (1949?), KNDO Insurrection (1949), Events Relating to the Karen Rising (1949), and Burma and the Insurrections (1949);Google ScholarTinker, Hugh, The Union of Burma, 4th edn (London, 1967);Google ScholarCady, John F., A History of Modern Burma (Ithaca, 1958; 4th print. with supp., 1969);Google ScholarTrager, Frank N., Burma: From Kingdom to Republic (London, 1966);Google ScholarGuyot, Dorothy, ‘Communal Warfare Between Burmans and Karens in 1942’ (Paper Presented to the 29th Congress of Orientalists, Paris, July, 1973);Google ScholarSilverstein, Josef, ‘Part Two—Burma’, in Kahin, George M. (ed.), Governments and Politics of Southeast Asia, 2nd edn (Ithaca, 1964);Google Scholarvarious editions of The Nation newspaper, Rangoon, 1952–1958; The Washington Post, April 11, 1976.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Lehman, , ‘Ethnic Categories in Burma’, p. 103.Google Scholar