| Original Message: Re: Mon, Samon and Pyu |
|---|
|
Dear Jamey, In general I’m a fan of the whole Wikipedia project, but I’m very aware of its limitations if it starts to be thought of as an encyclopaedia – which is what its name implies. With an encyclopaedia we have entries written by “experts” in a given field, the entries are signed and consequently we are able to identify their positions and possible prejudices. With Wikipedia what we have in fact is a huge, ongoing discussion forum, which conceals the steps that have led to the present stage in the discussion. If one looks beneath the surface, this can actually be quite fascinating; it can also be akin to a war zone. Just two examples that I’ve looked at in recent days: entries concerning contemporary Southeast Asian political history (Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand), and ancient Persian and Central Asian linguistics; they are filled with venom and anger, but the outsider who is just looking for information wouldn’t have a clue as to what was going on. I’ve tried sometimes to get a little involved in areas I know something about, so as to correct glaring inaccuracies of fact, or to try to balance what appear to be minority positions pretending to be consensual ones. But it means that one has to be prepared sometimes for an endless series of time-consuming negotiations which frequently are not worth the bother. I know a lot of other people who feel the same way. That said, the entries on Burmese history and culture seem to be very thin and sometimes inaccurate. A case in point that relates to the present thread is the following: “The Pyu arrived in Burma in the 1st century BCE and established city-kingdoms at Binnaka, Mongamo, Sri Ksetra, Peikthanomyo, and Halingyi.” Now this is not a statement of fact at all; it comes from much later histories, which themselves are suspect. In fact, there’s a growing awareness amongst the main archaeologists working at present in Burma (Tanpawaddy Win Maung, Bob Hudson from Australia, Elizabeth Moore from the SOAS in London and Jean-Pierre Pautreau from France) of the likelihood that Pyu society actually developed gradually and organically out of a very advanced Bronze and Iron Age culture that was centred on the Samon Valley. At present the academic trend seems to be to call it that - the Samon (Valley) culture - but my own view is that it’s all really Pyu from at least the beginning of the first millennium BC in a direct continuity up to the fall of the Pyu kingdom in the ninth century. In any case, this is the culture that used and/or produced many of the finest hardstone animal beads in the late first millennium BC. There is very little evidence for those beads being present in any quantity in the Mon territories which at that time were well to the south of the Samon, or for any substantial Mon influence on this stage in the development of Pyu culture. They were really quite discrete societies, though linked later on by their shared commitment to Theravada Buddhism and to a remarkably peaceful coexistence. One more point that may be worth noting: the word Pyu is derived from the Chinese name for the culture we’re talking about; there’s quite a lot of evidence that their own name for themselves was Tircul, so perhaps that’s what we should be calling them. In any case, that’s where I’m heading tomorrow for a few days. I’m taking the plane to Mandalay and then I’ll make my way to Halin, Beikthano and Mount Popa, the holy mountain that was sacred to the Pyu, which was also the source for a lot of agate, carnelian and rock crystal. It’s a wonderful place (picture attached). After that, I’m off to Cambodia for a month, so more from there when I return. All the best, Will All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|