What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Myanmar since Ancient Times: Traditions and Transformations
The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, known amongst English speakers as Burma, is often characterized as a place of repressive military rule, civil war, censorship and corrupt elections – and despite recent attempts to promote tourism to this little-known country, few people visit this region of Asia.In A History of Myanmar since Ancient Times, Michael Aung-Thwin and Maitrii Aung-Thwin take us from the sacred stupas of the plains of Bagan to the grand, colonial-era British mansions, revealing the storied past and rich culture of this country. The book traces the traditions and transformations of Myanmar over nearly three millennia, from the relics of its Neolithic civilization to the protests of Buddhist monks in the early twentieth century, the colonial era of British rule and the republic that followed. The authors also consider the present-day life, culture and society of the largest country in mainland Southeast Asia and examine the 2010 elections – its first in over twenty years – as well as the recent release of Aung San Suu Kyi and increased engagement and dialogue with the West.The most comprehensive history of Myanmar ever published in the English language, this book makes a significant contribution to our understanding of Southeast Asian history and will surprise, challenge and inform in equal measure.
- GenresHistoryAsiaNonfiction
339 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 15, 2012
10 people are currently reading
143 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 27, 2020
The authors provide both a history and a proud argument. The misconceptions and biases against Myanmar are so great, they feel, that fairness requires a firm response. They show the centrality of Myanmar's "dry zone" as the heart of this region's civilization since Paleolithic times. They contest colonial propaganda concerning the backwardness of the country's traditional rulers. Concerning the history of independent Myanmar as generally "known" in the West, maybe one quote will illustrate the authors' critical intent: "Imagine the history of Cuba written only (or mainly) by American observers, using as primary source material only (or mainly) the testimony of the Cuban American community in Miami and the State Department files."
August 2, 2014
Academic, but engaging. Great reflections on ancient Myanmar's influence on modern politics, but Holy Cow, I cannot reconcile their pro-government interpretation of the government's handling of Nargis (among other things). I can understand a compassionate and open-minded look at the military government, but letting them off the hook for everything since 1988 makes author's objectivity severely suspect.
June 20, 2016
A difficult read, but excellent background on the country. Very difference from the perspective portrayed in Western media.
October 1, 2024
It is very difficult to find a general History of Myanmar, especially one that may not be limited to recent years. As a result, and despite previous negative comments regarding the very partial point of view of the authors, I decided that this work was still worth a try. I thought that I knew so little about Myanmar that even having a very "official" narrative, it would be better than nothing. But OMG, this is incredibly uninformative!
Yes, the book is biased towards the justification of the bamars as the "natural rulers" of that part of the world. That's not even what disturbed me.
What shocked me was the whole tone of the book. Its main argument, which is boringly used over and over again, is that Western historians are presenting a distorted view of Burmese History. Who are these "Western historians"? Well, I don't know, as they are never directly referred to by name, but I'd love to read their books !
The authors write in the tone of crazy visionaries in a parallel reality. In the same way that others believe in reptilians conspiracies, these guys seem to think that there is a terrible conspiracy of "Westerners" who misrepresent Myanmar's history. Yet, I am very sorry to say, but as a "Westerner" I know almost nothing about your country, and nobody actually talks about it!
Even from a cynical point of view, this book missed an opportunity: they could have used the general lack of knowledge on their History to tell whatever was most favourable to their political objectives. But they don't even have a narrative.
If you want a summary of the book, this is how a normal section in the book reads:
1. "People in the Dry Zone" (understand, the bamars) were great at the time of History treated in that chapter, even when we don't know anything about them;
2. Westerners misrepresent this part of the Myanmar history;
3. In order to support the previous claim, no reference to anybody but the authors of the book themselves is made;
4. Some vague generalities about that time are introduced, basically saying that people worked the land and rulers were probably strict but fair;
5. If by accident something else is added, the source of the information is never reported (is the claim based in archaeology? some manuscript somewhere? oral tradition? who knows!);
6. As a consequence (although it is unclear as a consequence of what), this supports the predominance of bamars and the "Dry Zone" over Yangon and all the other peoples living in Myanmar (with obvious implications for the current state of affairs).
Frankly, don't waste your time nor your money. Try to read something from Journal-Gyaw Ma Ma Lay, or Mya Than Tint, or any other Burmese author: even if they write novels instead of speaking of the History of their country, at least you'lle get a typically Burmese look on the world, which is original and interesting and so much better than this.
#This review was originally posted on Amazon at the time of the reading.
Yes, the book is biased towards the justification of the bamars as the "natural rulers" of that part of the world. That's not even what disturbed me.
What shocked me was the whole tone of the book. Its main argument, which is boringly used over and over again, is that Western historians are presenting a distorted view of Burmese History. Who are these "Western historians"? Well, I don't know, as they are never directly referred to by name, but I'd love to read their books !
The authors write in the tone of crazy visionaries in a parallel reality. In the same way that others believe in reptilians conspiracies, these guys seem to think that there is a terrible conspiracy of "Westerners" who misrepresent Myanmar's history. Yet, I am very sorry to say, but as a "Westerner" I know almost nothing about your country, and nobody actually talks about it!
Even from a cynical point of view, this book missed an opportunity: they could have used the general lack of knowledge on their History to tell whatever was most favourable to their political objectives. But they don't even have a narrative.
If you want a summary of the book, this is how a normal section in the book reads:
1. "People in the Dry Zone" (understand, the bamars) were great at the time of History treated in that chapter, even when we don't know anything about them;
2. Westerners misrepresent this part of the Myanmar history;
3. In order to support the previous claim, no reference to anybody but the authors of the book themselves is made;
4. Some vague generalities about that time are introduced, basically saying that people worked the land and rulers were probably strict but fair;
5. If by accident something else is added, the source of the information is never reported (is the claim based in archaeology? some manuscript somewhere? oral tradition? who knows!);
6. As a consequence (although it is unclear as a consequence of what), this supports the predominance of bamars and the "Dry Zone" over Yangon and all the other peoples living in Myanmar (with obvious implications for the current state of affairs).
Frankly, don't waste your time nor your money. Try to read something from Journal-Gyaw Ma Ma Lay, or Mya Than Tint, or any other Burmese author: even if they write novels instead of speaking of the History of their country, at least you'lle get a typically Burmese look on the world, which is original and interesting and so much better than this.
#This review was originally posted on Amazon at the time of the reading.
September 1, 2025
A book that begs some questions
You don’t run across that many histories of Myanmar, or Burma as it was once known, so it behooves you, if interested in that country, to read the ones you can find. I never knew the authors, but I knew Michael Aung-Thwin’s mother many years ago at Cornell and on the Miccosukee Reservation in Florida. She was a very good person. So I had a double reason to read this book.
Beyond any personal connections, I found this book, as they say, “problematic”. For many years it was very difficult to get a visa to Burma (as it was then known), especially for scholars. If you were likely to write critically of the government and state of affairs there, you would not be able to enter, or if you wrote criticism after leaving the country, you would not be able to return. I felt, or at least suspected, that if you wanted to be a Myanmar scholar, you had to diverge from previous works and say that many of those who preceded you were inaccurate or had ulterior motives for their criticism; they were imbued with a colonial viewpoint perhaps. The present authors wanted to be different—they also wanted to be able to visit the country occasionally. Of course, in academia, there are always controversies and that is quite acceptable. However, I found this book written in a very pugnacious tone—something like “you guys don’t know much. You take the wrong view. You are too concentrated on Western images and viewpoints. I represent the REAL Myanmar.” The early chapters are full of italics which give a youthful, argumentative tone. The authors speak of Western scholars as not quite up to the mark; such scholars have “penchants” and “fetishes’ and of course they are all lumped together. While ethnicity always can play a role in a person’s point of view, it seems to me that these authors are also Western scholars, having been trained in the West and working in western style universities. There is no need to use that sort of opposition to make your points more strongly!
There is, they claim, a contrast between those who see Myanmar as unitary and those who see it as being split among ethnic groups. The authors see the first, but given the decades of civil war among the groups, it’s obvious that some people don’t feel the same. Yugoslavia/Serbia comes to mind. It’s certainly a book that raises many questions that I, only a reader, cannot answer. The authors consistently argue with previous versions of Myanmar history. If you aren’t familiar with those (unnamed) writers’ work, you won’t be able to decide if these writers are accurate or not. Wishing to play down ethnic/linguistic rivalries can only go so far before the question of obscuring them appears.
When we come to the Pagan period (approx. 832 A.D.—1300 A.D.) I thought that they over-glorified it as a “golden age”, at least I felt so because of the previous tone. No doubt it was a time of a flourishing culture and many achievements. The succeeding period of Mongol invasions is lightly covered with no descriptions of the wars or assessment of the damages.
We move on to the Ava-Pegu period. Here the authors declare that it was an upstream-downstream geo-political contrast, not a binary ethnic struggle between Burmese and Mon. I cannot say which idea is correct. Of course, the authors may disagree, but I would say that the Mon people and their history are basically written out of this book. Why was that? I may hint that it was to please the powers that be in Myanmar of 2012 when the book was published. And later, on page 108, an attack is made again on “Western historians” saying that they’ve tried to fit the history of Myanmar into a Western framework of classical, medieval and modern. Maybe the use of the word “medieval” could be considered a step too far if anyone took it, but the Aung-Thwins themselves divide their history into an early, a middle and a modern period. That’s the nature of history, not of Myanmar.
Some facts needed to be checked more carefully. On p.118… “by the second quarter of the fourteenth century, in 1385.” And on p.144 they state that India took Goa in 1963, but it was two years earlier. Some of the maps are dysfunctional as well.
When we come to the British period, things change. There’s a very good introduction. Information on the Anglo-Burmese wars in the 19th century is plentiful and it shows here; the writing becomes far more specific. The British gave more recognition to the existence of various minority communities and so, the authors say, set the stage for the ethnic wars of the 20th and 21st centuries. But similar things happened all over the world with the spread of European ideas and the subsequent transformation of societies. Just because the Burmese kings did not recognize them, does not mean that such communities didn’t exist, though if we think about Leach’s anthropological work on highland Burma, we may realize that such communities were more fluid than in the standard European imagination.
“Tradition” is linked to the Burmese way, while “modernization” is linked to the West and arbitrary, unfamiliar colonial rule, thus giving the impression that everything modern bears a stigma of being an imposition. But the same thing happened and is still happening everywhere.
When we come to the 20th century, the authors blame minority groups for identity politics, but if you have a democracy, such tendencies will certainly appear. They say such groups were indistinguishable from “ordinary Burmese”. It seems that that was not a widespread opinion—at least among those groups! World War II devastated Burma. I remember hearing that it was the country most destroyed in that war except for Belarus.
But almost nothing is said about the war at all.
As we move closer to the present, the constant theme becomes blaming the Western press and excusing the military government. “Myanmar is misunderstood.” I am not one who finds the Western press wonderfully honest or accurate, so I don’t wish to proclaim their virtue, but I think the Myanmar government appeared to be and now appears more than ever to be brutal, oppressive, and corrupt.
I think you can learn a lot from this history, but it comes with a few pitfalls, which I have pointed out, perhaps more than I should have, but such a technique surprised me. One may say that the colonial writers looked at the world with biased eyes and it’s certainly true. Do we need to exchange one set of biases for another?
You don’t run across that many histories of Myanmar, or Burma as it was once known, so it behooves you, if interested in that country, to read the ones you can find. I never knew the authors, but I knew Michael Aung-Thwin’s mother many years ago at Cornell and on the Miccosukee Reservation in Florida. She was a very good person. So I had a double reason to read this book.
Beyond any personal connections, I found this book, as they say, “problematic”. For many years it was very difficult to get a visa to Burma (as it was then known), especially for scholars. If you were likely to write critically of the government and state of affairs there, you would not be able to enter, or if you wrote criticism after leaving the country, you would not be able to return. I felt, or at least suspected, that if you wanted to be a Myanmar scholar, you had to diverge from previous works and say that many of those who preceded you were inaccurate or had ulterior motives for their criticism; they were imbued with a colonial viewpoint perhaps. The present authors wanted to be different—they also wanted to be able to visit the country occasionally. Of course, in academia, there are always controversies and that is quite acceptable. However, I found this book written in a very pugnacious tone—something like “you guys don’t know much. You take the wrong view. You are too concentrated on Western images and viewpoints. I represent the REAL Myanmar.” The early chapters are full of italics which give a youthful, argumentative tone. The authors speak of Western scholars as not quite up to the mark; such scholars have “penchants” and “fetishes’ and of course they are all lumped together. While ethnicity always can play a role in a person’s point of view, it seems to me that these authors are also Western scholars, having been trained in the West and working in western style universities. There is no need to use that sort of opposition to make your points more strongly!
There is, they claim, a contrast between those who see Myanmar as unitary and those who see it as being split among ethnic groups. The authors see the first, but given the decades of civil war among the groups, it’s obvious that some people don’t feel the same. Yugoslavia/Serbia comes to mind. It’s certainly a book that raises many questions that I, only a reader, cannot answer. The authors consistently argue with previous versions of Myanmar history. If you aren’t familiar with those (unnamed) writers’ work, you won’t be able to decide if these writers are accurate or not. Wishing to play down ethnic/linguistic rivalries can only go so far before the question of obscuring them appears.
When we come to the Pagan period (approx. 832 A.D.—1300 A.D.) I thought that they over-glorified it as a “golden age”, at least I felt so because of the previous tone. No doubt it was a time of a flourishing culture and many achievements. The succeeding period of Mongol invasions is lightly covered with no descriptions of the wars or assessment of the damages.
We move on to the Ava-Pegu period. Here the authors declare that it was an upstream-downstream geo-political contrast, not a binary ethnic struggle between Burmese and Mon. I cannot say which idea is correct. Of course, the authors may disagree, but I would say that the Mon people and their history are basically written out of this book. Why was that? I may hint that it was to please the powers that be in Myanmar of 2012 when the book was published. And later, on page 108, an attack is made again on “Western historians” saying that they’ve tried to fit the history of Myanmar into a Western framework of classical, medieval and modern. Maybe the use of the word “medieval” could be considered a step too far if anyone took it, but the Aung-Thwins themselves divide their history into an early, a middle and a modern period. That’s the nature of history, not of Myanmar.
Some facts needed to be checked more carefully. On p.118… “by the second quarter of the fourteenth century, in 1385.” And on p.144 they state that India took Goa in 1963, but it was two years earlier. Some of the maps are dysfunctional as well.
When we come to the British period, things change. There’s a very good introduction. Information on the Anglo-Burmese wars in the 19th century is plentiful and it shows here; the writing becomes far more specific. The British gave more recognition to the existence of various minority communities and so, the authors say, set the stage for the ethnic wars of the 20th and 21st centuries. But similar things happened all over the world with the spread of European ideas and the subsequent transformation of societies. Just because the Burmese kings did not recognize them, does not mean that such communities didn’t exist, though if we think about Leach’s anthropological work on highland Burma, we may realize that such communities were more fluid than in the standard European imagination.
“Tradition” is linked to the Burmese way, while “modernization” is linked to the West and arbitrary, unfamiliar colonial rule, thus giving the impression that everything modern bears a stigma of being an imposition. But the same thing happened and is still happening everywhere.
When we come to the 20th century, the authors blame minority groups for identity politics, but if you have a democracy, such tendencies will certainly appear. They say such groups were indistinguishable from “ordinary Burmese”. It seems that that was not a widespread opinion—at least among those groups! World War II devastated Burma. I remember hearing that it was the country most destroyed in that war except for Belarus.
But almost nothing is said about the war at all.
As we move closer to the present, the constant theme becomes blaming the Western press and excusing the military government. “Myanmar is misunderstood.” I am not one who finds the Western press wonderfully honest or accurate, so I don’t wish to proclaim their virtue, but I think the Myanmar government appeared to be and now appears more than ever to be brutal, oppressive, and corrupt.
I think you can learn a lot from this history, but it comes with a few pitfalls, which I have pointed out, perhaps more than I should have, but such a technique surprised me. One may say that the colonial writers looked at the world with biased eyes and it’s certainly true. Do we need to exchange one set of biases for another?
May 13, 2023
I picked this book to understand the ancient history of Burma based on its title. Unfortunately, the title is misleading. More than 60% of the book dwell in British occupation and recent years rather than the ancient history. Also, there are many errors (such as name of kings) and omissions in the ancient history part.
There is a chapter for describing the pre-history in this book, which is basically a useless chapter. Unnecessary details of evolution are given there.
One interesting turning point of Burma should be when the Buddhism was introduced in Burma. Unfortunately, I could not understand how Burma became a Buddhist nation or how was the life of ancient times in Burma before Buddhism hit it. There is no chronological list of rulers or kings either. Ironically, the book is worse than Wikipedia.
The tone of the book is also an issue. It is not written with an academic tone, and feels like it has a hidden political agenda to (1) boost morale of its citizen by disregarding the foreign influences (which is similar to the one practised by the Indian authors to blame british rule) and, (2) to support the Bamar people as being supreme than other indigenous people.
Overall, the book helps to understand the recent dilemma in Myanmar based on the brief introduction (or influence) from the ancient history and more elaborated details of British occupation and freedom movement.
There is a chapter for describing the pre-history in this book, which is basically a useless chapter. Unnecessary details of evolution are given there.
One interesting turning point of Burma should be when the Buddhism was introduced in Burma. Unfortunately, I could not understand how Burma became a Buddhist nation or how was the life of ancient times in Burma before Buddhism hit it. There is no chronological list of rulers or kings either. Ironically, the book is worse than Wikipedia.
The tone of the book is also an issue. It is not written with an academic tone, and feels like it has a hidden political agenda to (1) boost morale of its citizen by disregarding the foreign influences (which is similar to the one practised by the Indian authors to blame british rule) and, (2) to support the Bamar people as being supreme than other indigenous people.
Overall, the book helps to understand the recent dilemma in Myanmar based on the brief introduction (or influence) from the ancient history and more elaborated details of British occupation and freedom movement.
June 1, 2025
I picked this book up because I was looking for a travelogue-type book about another country, but kept reading anyway because I dislike dropping books. I don't know enough about Myanmar's cultural or historical context to comment on the author's choices in writing about communities or history, so I will leave that aside. I found the book informative, annoyingly so. It wasn't very engaging or interesting to read as someone not working on a paper on Burma. I also found it a little unnecessarily informative at times, given the entire chapter on prehistorical details and human evolution.
October 24, 2024
Read as part of a university course under one of the authors. I do not speak on the quality of sourcing due to lack of language ability to get into the sources and deep knowledge of relevant historiography.
This text is a well-written, self-aware push back against revisionist schools of Burmese history that elevates the role of ethnic minorities in Burmese history or interprets Burmese history as one of liberty against tyranny. Instead, it emphasizes the role of the dominant ethnic Burmese elite in forming the Burmese state. It also emphasizes deep patterns or cycles within Burmese history that seem to have a larger role than the struggle for freedom - elites fighting elites; upriver vs downriver influence; consolidation and deconsolidation of the Burmese state.
At points, the text can appear a little too sympathetic towards authoritarian rule. For instance, the lack of deep coverage of the ongoing civil war and insurgency during the Ne Win period creates the impression of a more unified Myanmar than one with an increasingly brutalised military and consolidated rebel armies, identities, and economic (i.e., drug and smuggling) networks.
This text is a well-written, self-aware push back against revisionist schools of Burmese history that elevates the role of ethnic minorities in Burmese history or interprets Burmese history as one of liberty against tyranny. Instead, it emphasizes the role of the dominant ethnic Burmese elite in forming the Burmese state. It also emphasizes deep patterns or cycles within Burmese history that seem to have a larger role than the struggle for freedom - elites fighting elites; upriver vs downriver influence; consolidation and deconsolidation of the Burmese state.
At points, the text can appear a little too sympathetic towards authoritarian rule. For instance, the lack of deep coverage of the ongoing civil war and insurgency during the Ne Win period creates the impression of a more unified Myanmar than one with an increasingly brutalised military and consolidated rebel armies, identities, and economic (i.e., drug and smuggling) networks.
September 3, 2019
I enjoyed this book despite the negative reviews I had previously seen. The authors are pretty clear with easy lenses they will view the history and politics of the various kingdoms and states. Overall the book challenged (but maybe did not entirely change) the way that I viewed the country, the impact of colonialism, and trajectory of the nation.
The chapters cover everything from the Paleolithic to 2013. I enjoyed each segment and learned a lot about each era. I’d recommend it to those wanting to learn more about this very interesting place other than in the media.
The chapters cover everything from the Paleolithic to 2013. I enjoyed each segment and learned a lot about each era. I’d recommend it to those wanting to learn more about this very interesting place other than in the media.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews