Some Annotations to The Chiang Mai Chronicle: The Era of Burmese Rule in Lan Na Ken Kirigaya Abstract—The account of the era of Burmese rule in Lan Na in The Chiang Mai Chronicle includes many flaws and fictions, especially during the Nyaungyan period. As the original text is primarily a duplicate of another chronicle from Chiang Sæn, its 19th century author inserted or fabricated some episodes in order to shift the center of its narrative from Chiang Sæn to Chiang Mai, thereby distorting some historical facts. As a result, The Chiang Mai Chronicle’s account of this era needs to be read with the utmost caution, and scholars should always compare its narrative with other sources from Lan Na and Burma. Introduction As Lan Na was endowed with a “long and rich tradition of history-writing”, there are more than a hundred extant versions of the chronicles of Chiang Mai, which, according to the late David K. Wyatt’s classification, can be largely divided into three groups: short-abbreviated, middle-length, and longer-detailed versions (CMC, xxxi-ii).1 Several of the long-detailed versions have been translated into Thai, and have become an indispensable source for the study of Lan Na history by those without knowledge of the Northern Thai alphabet, locally known as tua tham (tham or dhamma script).2 For a long time, the only translation into a Western language available to those unable to read Thai, was the work of Camille Notton, the French Consul in Chiang Mai in the 1920s and 1930s. Notton’s scrupulous text was a valuable reference work for scholarship outside Thailand for over sixty years until 1 Abbreviations of chronicle titles are explained at the foot of this article. 2 These include: Phongsawadan Yonok (a secondary work of the late 19th century by Phraya Prachakitkorachak, a high-ranking Siamese official in charge of the administration of Northern Thailand), edited by Sanguan Chotisukkharat in 1971; Tamnan Sipha Ratchawong [Chronicle of the 15 Dynasties] published by the Social Research Institute of Chiang Mai University in 1981-90, and later revised by Sommai Premchit in 1997; and Tamnan Phün Müang Chiang Mai, chabap Chiang Mai 700 Pi [The 700th Anniversary Volume of the Chiang Mai Chronicle] compiled by Udom Rungruangsri, et al. in 1995. For a concise account on the tradition of translating various texts of the Chiang Mai chronicle, see CMC, pp. xxxii-xv, and LNCH, pp. 9-10. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 102, 2014 258 Ken Kirigaya the publication in 1995 of The Chiang Mai Chronicle (CMC), meticulously translated by the late David K. Wyatt and Aroonrut Wichienkeeo. With this publication, one of the most important historiographical works of Lan Na became accessible to a wider readership without access to indigenous primary materials or knowledge of Thai. The CMC, however, contains errors and flaws because of mistakes in the Northern Thai manuscript known as the Tamnan Phün Müang Chiang Mai (TPMCM), which was the source of the original text (here abbreviated as CMC/1288), on which the translation is based.3 Like other classical works of history-writing found throughout the region, the TPMCM includes many later additions and revisions as well as faulty accounts of dates and events, especially during the era of Burmese rule in Lan Na which is mostly “centered on Chiang Sæn rather than Chiang Mai.” (CMC, p. xxxix) As Wyatt correctly detected, the first five folios of the sixth fascicle of the CMC/1288 are a virtual duplicate of a certain chronicle from Chiang Sæn. The unknown author of the TPMCM had not simply copied these passages but had “clearly edited them to suit his own understanding of history,” or more correctly, garbled some of the sentences to make the account centered on Chiang Mai. As a result, some references in the text during the Burmese years are irreconcilable with the context. Furthermore, these folios have only a series of simple headings, without detailed narratives of each event, thus providing only a sketchy account of Lan Na with many lacunae during the Nyaungyan era. Following Wyatt’s wish that future scholarship would improve the “imperfect” text (CMC: xliii), this article offers a fuller account of the era of Burmese rule in Lan Na by consulting a wider range of sources, principally Burmese and Lan Na, occasionally Chinese, Siamese, as well as European, thereby setting some of the hitherto debatable and uncertain records straight, and bringing a few unknown factual matters to light. Burmese domination of Lan Na lasted intermittently for more than two centuries, from Bayinnaung’s conquest of the region in 1558 until the final liberation of Chiang Mai in 1775 by the allied forces of local leaders and the new Siamese king, Taksin.4 The two hundred-year period, despite its length and significance in the history of Lan Na and, to some extent, of Burma, has been a subject largely neglected by scholars,5 in part because the Burmese era, especially the Nyaungyan period, is “only 3 The late-1820s archetype of the CMC/1288 and of another transcription dated 1854 is the Tamnan Phün Müang Chiang Mai [Chronicle of Chiang Mai], abbreviated as TPMCM. The 1854 version is abbreviated as CMC/1216. It is not clear whether the CMC/1216 is the master copy of the CMC/1288. There are a few minor differences in the spelling, perhaps due to scribal errors. 4 The Burmese, however, would keep a hold on Chiang Sæn until 1804. 5 Two notable exceptions to this academic trend are Latdawal Sænsiao’s 200 Years, a book-length study of the Burmese presence in Lan Na, and Sarassawadee Ongsakul’s History of Lan Na, with a whole chapter on the same topic. Meanwhile there seem to be few Burmese scholars whose research focus is on Lan Na, the territory once under Burmese monarchy but currently in a neighboring country. U Kala, a celebrated historian of the early 18th century, was also indifferent to affairs in Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 102, 2014 Some Annotations to The Chiang Mai Chronicle 259 cursorily reflected” in the CMC and other indigenous sources. In addition, the image of a “dark age” in Lan Na under ruthless Burmese oppression, particularly when compared to the preceding “golden age” under the Mangrai Dynasty, has further deterred scholarly attention. For example, the TPMCM has very thin coverage of the Nyaungyan period compared to its rich detail on the succeeding Konbaung Dynasty, especially the anti-Burmese resistance by Kawila and his younger brothers.6 This article focuses on the years of Nyaungyan rule, the period with the most fragmentary and insufficient coverage in the CMC. A note on Lan Na sources for the Burmese period The TPMCM seems to have been written as an eulogy to King Kawila and his younger brothers, whose anti-Burmese struggles and close alliance with the Thonburi- Bangkok leaders are the dominant subjects in the sixth and seventh fascicles. The chronicle thus reflects the view from Chiang Mai with anti-Burmese and pro-Siamese biases. The author of the TPMCM showed far less enthusiasm about the Nyaungyan years, drawing on a single source and spending only a few pages on a period of more than a century. For the period of Burmese rule, the historian must consult records from other Lan Na domains to neutralize this Chiang Mai-centric perspective. The Burmese chronicles, renowned for their factual accuracy, are also useful to cross- check and supplement the accounts of the CMC. Chinese and Siamese records and European observations are also useful, but to a much smaller extent. The account in the CMC up to 1706, including the era of Nyaungyan rule, is virtually a verbatim copy from a Chiang Sæn chronicle, written according to Wyatt by “a certain Suriyavamsa Bhikku of Chiang Sæn in 1741.”7 Although I have so far had no access to this chronicle, known as MS1741, it was probably part of a long tradition with both earlier and later versions. Accordingly, I came across a manuscript titled Phün Müang Chiang Rai Chiang Sæn, abbreviated as CSC/1251, which has an account of Burmese rule that is identical to that in the CMC, and hence to that in MS1741.8 The CSC/1251 was transcribed into Thai by Sarassawadee Ongsakul, a prominent historian of Lan Na, who also transcribed a chronicle entitled Phün Müang Chiang Sæn that provides a longer, more detailed, and somewhat different the imperial periphery, and has little in his magnum opus on Burmese administration in Lan Na. 6 The sixth and seventh fascicles of the chronicle that vividly depict the princely brothers’ heroic battles against the Burmese were probably compiled under their auspices (LNCH, p. 11). Wyatt was “inclined to think that fascicles 7 and 8 were written together in 1827 or 1828 by a single author.” (CMC, p. xxxvi) 7 CMC, p. xxxviii. The manuscript is titled History of the Lineage of the Kings of Lan Na Thai, abbreviated as MS1741. 8 The accounts in the CSC/1251 and CMC respectively begin to converge in the year 1564/65 and diverge in the mid-1710s. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 102, 2014 260 Ken Kirigaya account.9 Since it is generally unlikely that the longer version was expanded from a shorter original, CSC/1251 may be an abridged version of CSC/065.10 In any case, both chronicles of Chiang Sæn are valuable for deconstructing the Chiang Mai- centric perspective prevalent in the CMC.11 The chronicles of other Lan Na domains and neighboring Tai polities provide only supplemental information, as their accounts of the Nyaungyan era are minimal and very brief, but include some information not found in either the CMC or PMCS.12 Other than the local chronicles, a travel poem called Khlong Mangthra Rop Chiang Mai is a valuable reference, as it has uniquely rich detail on the events from Bayinnaung’s annexation of Lan Na in 1558 to its reconquest by Anauk-hpetlun in 1614-15, including the succession dispute in the ruling house of Chiang Mai in the late 1600s and the associated court intrigue that would eventually invite Siamese interference and ultimately the Burmese invasion.