Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 at Sale and Their Cultural Implications

Abstract

This article describes Buddhist murals illustrating some unusual features and surviving in the small brick temple number 36 at Sale, one of the major satellite towns during the Pagan period. The town is located on the east bank of the Irrawady River, 30 miles downstream from Old Pagan. The temple and its principal Buddha image can be stylistically dated to the 13th century. A dated inscription, a later intrusion on the murals, provides solid proof that the murals predate AD 1582. Likely postdating the temple, the murals show mixed features, some indigenous but others perhaps introduced from Sri Lank and north-central Thailand into the area during the mid-14th century, the proposed date of the murals. These features had never been combined in such a fashion before and the resulting combination perhaps lasted only shortly in the mural tradition of central Burma. This is evidenced when the content of Sale 36 is compared with Pagan-era murals and others surviving from the 15th century. The intrusive status, in the mural tradition of central Burma, of the Sale 36 materials is explained in a context of trans-regional movements of the Mahavihara monastic lineage, originated in Sri Lanka, widely active in lower Burma and parts of Thailand during the 14th and 15th centuries. The Sale 36 murals might reflect the presence of this Sinhalese order in central Burma as well during the mid-14th century. These rare murals, a later addition in an already existing small temple, might correlate with a temporary role played by the Sinhalese order in central Burma during a limited period. It probably ultimately yielded to a more popular and more powerful Aran sect of the area.

Full text

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple
36 at Sale and Their Cultural Implications
Samerchai Poolsuwan
Journal of Burma Studies, Volume 19, Number 1, June 2015, pp. 145-197
(Article)
Published by NUS Press Pte Ltd
For additional information about this article
Access provided by Thammasat University (10 Jul 2015 08:24 GMT)
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jbs/summary/v019/19.1.poolsuwan.html

145
The Journal of Burma Studies Vol. 19 No. 1 (2015), pp. 145–197 © 2015 Center for Burma Studies
Northern Illinois University
145
Buddhist Murals Illustrating
Unusual Features in Temple
36 at Sale and Their
Cultural Implications
Samerchai Poolsuwan
I. Introduction
Quietly situated on the east bank of the Irrawaddy River
about 30 miles downstream from Old Pagan is the small town
of Sale. Do ing its rugged semi-arid landscape are more than
a hundred Buddhist monuments of which the majority can
be dated stylistically to the Pagan Period between the 12th
and 13th centuries. These monuments, currently in various
stages of preservation from seriously ruined to regularly
maintained, a est to the importance of this locality as one of
the major Buddhist centers during Pagan’s dynastic period.
In many of the cave-temples (in Burmese “gu-hpaya”) are
mural paintings illustrating various narratives, most of them
extracted from Pāli sources, and decorative designs. Their
pa erns and styles conform to the Pagan mural tradition
from the same period.1
The Sale temple 36 is adjacent to the local museum within
the town area. Its murals—exhibiting unusual features, the
1 Based on the author’s survey of the murals in the area with guidance
provided to him by the unpublished inventory of the monuments in the
Sale area, compiled for the Archaeological Department of Burma by its
former Deputy Director General, U Aung Kyaing, and by U Aung Kyaing
who kindly led the survey himself.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
146
only ones of their kind to survive so far evidenced—are the
topic of this article. The following describes and dates these
murals on the basis of their style, contextualizing their cul-
tural implications in the broader se ing of central Burma’s
religious atmosphere at the time when these murals likely
materialized on the temple’s walls.
II. The Temple
Facing north, the small brick temple number 36 at Sale (fi g. 1)
resembles architectonically its contemporary counterparts
common during the Pagan Period. Its square shrine, approx-
imately 5x5 m2 on ground plan, is roofed with two receding
terraces, each with a crenellation running along its border
and four corner pillars, supporting śikhara crown of the typical
Pagan type. The śikhara is square at its base and bulging at
its sides. On each of the four facets of the śikhara are three
Figure 1 Sale Temple 36 (east side).

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 147
planes receding symmetrically toward the corners. Tiers of
horizontal grooves stretch outward from the central plane
with cusp at each corner. Each central plane of the śikhara is
adorned with a stucco decoration in low relief (fi g. 2). The
decorative frame that borders the central plane contains a
depiction of swirl motifs branching off symmetrically from
their central stem that is vertically placed on top of the mon-
strous lion face. The śikhara, supported by a blooming lotus
fl ower, is mounted on a molded plinth. The stūpa fi nial that
crowns the śikhara has lost its conical top part.
The vestibule, extended on the shrine’s anterior, is topped
with a crenellated terrace supported by a plinth with recessed
waist. The vestibule and the porch, with arched roof, provide
the shrine’s only accessibility. Plain solid walls, without a
Figure 2 Stucco decoration on the śikhara crown, Sale temple 36.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
148
false window in the middle of each, constitute the shrine’s
other three sides. On its exterior, the temple is decorated at
the corners with false pillars and on its base with a plinth
shaped as a kalaśa pot.2 Plaster and stucco decoration that
once would have covered the temple’s external walls and
plinth have completely fl aked off . In the interior, the temple
comprises two main compartments: the square shrine and the
rectangular entrance hall, or anterior vestibule of the shrine.
The temple is comparable stylistically to the Pagan temple
architecture of the 12th and 13th centuries. Examples of
similar structures (except for the false windows on their
shrine walls in some temples) that also parallel Sale 36’s
external appearance and internal ground plan can be found
at Pagan, including temples 1580 (Loka-hteik-pan) and 2157
tentatively dated to the 12th century,3 and temples 1164, 1763,
and 2105 from the 13th century.4
The principal image, enshrined on a high pedestal against
the shrine’s back wall, features the Buddha seated cross-
legged in māravijaya gesture (fi g. 3). Traces of later renova-
tions are observable but the statue preserves several major
characteristics of 13th-century Pagan Buddha sculpture.5 The
2 A plinth of the same type found adorning façades of the terrace of
Pagan temple 447 (Le-myet-hna-hpaya), in the Minnanthu area, is recorded
in an inscription dated AD 1233 to represent a kalaśa pot, one of the auspi-
cious symbols of fertility. See Than Tun, “Religious Buildings of Burma
1000–1300,” in Essays on the History and Buddhism of Burma, ed. Paul Stra-
chan (Arran, Scotland: Kiscadale Publications, 1988), 23–45.
3 See Pierre Pichard, Inventory of Monuments at Pagan, Vol. 6 (Paris:
UNESCO, 1995), 198–202 (monument 1580); Vol. 8 (Paris: UNESCO, 2001),
123–3 (monument 2157).
4 Ibid., Vol. 5 (Paris: UNESCO, 1995), 41 (monument 1164); Vol. 7 (Paris:
UNESCO, 2000), 32–3 (monument 1763); Vol. 8 (Paris: UNESCO, 2011),
57–8 (monument 2105).
5 Although numerous similar Buddha sculptures have survived in
Pagan, and elsewhere, only a few are accurately dated. The published
example is a small bronze, on which the date equivalent to AD 1293 was
inscribed. See John Guy, “A Dated Buddha of the Pagan Period,” in Indian
Art and Connoisseurship: Essays in Honor of Douglas Barre , ed. John Guy
(New Delhi: Mapin Publishing Pvt. Ltd., 1995), 162–9. Two wooden Buddha

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 149
Buddha’s relatively large head rests on a stocky torso. His
forehead is broad and his eyes are downcast. The Buddha’s
face turns considerably downward, creating a short-necked
appearance of his image when viewed frontally. The
us
.n
.īs
.a is shown by a bump on top of his shaved head, without
a fi nial representing the Buddha’s emancipated power located
Figure 3 The principal Buddha image, Sale temple 36.
sculptures, with the date equivalent to AD 1260 inscribed on the back of
their bases, have recently been rediscovered from the museum storage at
Pagan. U Thein Lwin, Deputy Director General, Archaeology of Myanmar,
personal communication, January 2012.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
150
above it. His fi ngers, except the thumbs, are of equal length.
These characteristics of the principal Buddha image, likely
constructed at the same time as the temple, are compatible
with dating the temple to the 13th rather than the 12th century.
III. The Murals
Temple 36’s murals have survived only fragmentarily in the
shrine and entrance hall, due to heavy fl aking of wall surfaces
and devotees’ generous whitewashing. The shrine’s vault
ceiling, divided by decorative bands of murals into four equal
spaces, features numerous Buddhas, probably representing
those of the past (fi g. 4).
Each Buddha is seated in māravijaya pose under the Bodhi-
tree and situated in square cells forming a larger grid panel.
Each cell measures approximately 17 × 17 cm2. In contempo-
rary Pagan shrines, the vault’s center is normally occupied
Figure 4 Vault ceiling of the shrine, Sale temple 36.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 151
by a blooming lotus, on the perpendicular intersection
between the decorative bands, and this is the case for Sale 36
as well. This depiction, however, has largely fl aked off . The
vault ceiling is demarcated from the shrine’s side walls by a
horizontal band of repetitive motifs, alternating between
swirl symmetric designs and motifs with their external outline
shaped like an upside-down lotus petal, with its round upper
end followed by the bulging part tapering symmetrically
toward the pointed lower end. The la er element has a deco-
rative rim along its border and another swirl design arranged
inside it (fi g. 5).
The design’s details and fl uidity generally resemble the
Pagan style of the 13th century (fi g. 6). The mentioned Pagan
decorative pa ern had been preserved in the mural tradition
of the area until well after the dynastic period’s termination,
in the late 13th century. Post-Pagan examples of the decora-
tion are found in murals of the Pagan monument 225 (Mya-
daung-ok-kyaung), dating epigraphically from the mid-15th
Figure 5 Decorative band, upper part of the shrine’s wall, Sale
temple 36.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
152
century6 (fi g. 7), and the Pagan monument 65 (Kyanzi ha-
umin), dated on a stylistic ground to the same period7 (fi g.
8). The design of these late examples is, however, more rigidly
formalized than their earlier Pagan counterparts.
The same mural pa ern portraying numerous seated
Buddhas in a grid panel, as found on the shrine’s ceiling, was
also featured on the shrine’s east and west walls. Li le of the
Figure 6 Decorative band of the 13th-century Pagan style, Pagan
temple 1845.
6 The monument, a monastery building, is most likely the one whose
construction was recorded in an inscription dated AD 1442, now kept
under a nearby modern shed; see an English translation of this long inscrip-
tion in Tun Nyein, Inscriptions of Pagan, Pinya and Ava (Rangoon: Superin-
tendent, Government Printing, 1899), 37–47. The construction sustains the
Pagan-period style, in its programs as well as mural elements. Notable are
the pointed crowns, similar to the Pagan type, worn by divine and royal
personages and the architectural style of tiered roof pavilions depicted in
various narrative scenes; see fi g. 30; also, Pichard, Inventory of Monuments,
Vol. 1 (1992), 341, fi g. 225i. New characteristics, i.e., after the Pagan Period,
observed in the murals include, for example, usage of the yellowish pale-
green color not seen in the murals of the Pagan Period and a dummy corner
pillar decorated at its upper and lower ends with acuminated triangular
fl ame.
7 For dating ma ers, see below, section VI.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 153
pa ern has survived on the vestibule’s walls. The shrine’s
east and west walls’ mural panels preserve narrative scenes,
in square cells measuring approximately 30 × 30 cm2, arranged
in two stacked rows. These largely damaged narrative scenes
Figure 7 Decorative band, Pagan monument 225 (AD 1442).
Figure 8 Decorative band, Pagan monument 65.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
154
are be
er preserved on the shrine’s west wall. The wall
spaces’ width, approximately 235 cm on each side, would
have accommodated two rows containing mural scenes. Each
row likely harbored about eight narrative scenes, suggesting
space for a total of 32 narrative images.
On the west wall of the shrine, only scenes 1 to 4 in the
upper row and scenes 2 to 5 in the lower one have remained
visible (bracketed number represents order of the scene in
that row). The upper-row scenes can be identifi ed by their
contents as follows: (1) Nativity, Queen Mahāmāyā holding
a branch of the Sāl tree and supported by her sister,
Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, on the left part of the composition, and
a seated court lady (probably holding the newborn Bodhisa a)
on the right (fi g. 9); (2) off ering of the cow-milk rice by Sujātā,
with the lady seated to the left of the Bodhisa a off ering the
meal to him, and a woman, probably her maid, Pun
.n
.ā, stand-
Figure 9 “Nativity,” the fi rst scene of the upper row, west wall.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 155
ing to the right of the Bodhisa a and paying homage to him8
(fi g. 10); (3) the Buddha (in seated posture with both hands
holding an ecclesiastical fan erect on his lap) accepting the
invitation of the Great Brahmā God Sahampati to preach the
supreme dhamma to the world at the Ajapāla-nigrodha tree,
a territory of the goat-keepers, with the God present to the
Buddha’s left, the goat on his right (fi g. 11); and (4) Pārileyya,
the Buddha accepting donations from the monkey and
the elephant, the story derived from Dhammapadat
.t
.hakathā.9
The composition of the Pārileyya scene, with both animals
Figure 10 Off ering of the cow-milk rice to the Buddha by Sujātā, the
second scene of the upper row, west wall.
8 According to the Jātaka-Nidāna, it was Pun
.n
.ā who saw the Bodhisa a
seated in the shade of the banyan tree and who thought he was a tree-spirit
because of the radiance miraculously issuing from his body; she then con-
veyed the message to her mistress, Sujātā. See Mahāmakutarājavidyālaya,
Phra-sūtra Lae A hakathā Plœ¯ (A Translation of the Su as and their Commentar-
ies), Vol. 55 (Bangkok: Mahāmakutarājavidyālaya Press, 1982) (Nidānakathā,
Jātakat
.t
.hakathā), 111–5.
9 Ibid., Vol. 40 (Dhammapadat
.t
.hakathā), 78–93.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
156
included, conforms to the pa ern found in Pagan era murals
(fi g. 12).10 The scenes’ order, from left to right, agrees with a
chronology in the Buddha’s life.
The scenes in the lower row are more damaged but can be
identifi ed as follows: (2) Mahājanaka Jātaka, the sea goddess
rescuing the Bodhisa a after shipwreck (fi g. 13); (3) two per-
sonages seated under a canopy structure on the left half of
the scene (fi g. 14); (3) Nimi Jātaka, the Bodhisa a seated in a
horse chariot ridden by God Mātali (fi g. 15); and, (4) A male
personage with one follower portrayed behind a fence, on the
surviving left half of the scene (fi g. 16).
Figure 11 “Ajapāla,” the third scene of the upper row, west wall.
10 The Pārileyya scene of the Pagan era always presents both the elephant
and monkey a ending the Buddha. In an Indian prototype of the scene,
only the monkey was normally depicted accompanying the Buddha.
Though the image resembles Pagan examples in terms of iconographic
composition, the Buddha of the Sale 36’s Pārileyya scene wears his monas-
tic robe, covering both shoulders, in an unusual fashion never seen in other
Pagan-era murals.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 157
Figure 12 “Pārileyya,” the fourth scene of the upper row, west wall.
Figure 13 Mahājanaka Jātaka, the second scene of the lower row, west
wall.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
158
Figure 14 Suvan
.n
.asāmaJātaka (?), the third scene of the lower row, west
wall.
Figure 15 Nimi Jātaka, the fourth scene of the lower row, west wall.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 159
Only two narrative scenes have survived, their upper parts
much eroded, on the shrine’s east wall. From left to right,
they are the second and third scenes of the upper row. The
left scene (fi g. 17) depicts a standing ascetic, his head much
eroded, wearing the monastic robe leaving his right shoulder
bare. He could be either the Buddha himself or his disciple.
The ascetic places both his hands on his chest, palms com-
pletely inward. His ankles are crossed. He turns his body
towards a cetiya, located on his left. In the middle of the
frame, between the ascetic and the cetiya, is a thin column,
the middle of its shaft wrapped with a decorative ribbon, its
upper part sporting an ornamental fringe. Perhaps it is a shaft
of the canopy shading the ascetic. The cetiya has a tall base
supporting its elongated bell-shaped middle structure, the
āṇ ḍ a .11 The top part of the cetiya over the ān ̣ḍ a has eroded.
Figure 16 Mahosatha Jātaka, the fi fth scene of the lower row, west wall.
11 The cetiya of a similar type and proportion can also be seen in murals
of the Pagan monument 65 (Kyanzi ha-umin), possibly dating from the
15th century (see the discussion in section VI of this article).

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
160
The right scene shows the Buddha in his walking pose. He is
followed on one side by a monk-disciple and a ended on the
other side by seated devotees (fi g. 18).
The narrative murals on these walls illustrate programs
common in the mural traditions of the Pagan and later
periods, i.e. Jātakas and Buddha stories.12 The narrations may
Figure 17 Buddha (?) paying respect to the Cetiya, the second scene of
the upper row, east wall.
12 For Pagan Period murals, see: Gordon H. Luce, Old Burma—Early Pagan
(New York: J.J. Augustin Publisher, 1969), chapters 9 and 16–19; Claudine
Bau e-Picron, The Buddhist Murals of Pagan (Bangkok: Orchid Press, 2003),
chapters 2 and 3; for detailed investigation on the various ways in which
the Buddha biography was conceptualized and illustrated in Pagan murals,
see Samerchai Poolsuwan, “Buddha’s Biography: Its Development in
Pagan Murals vs. the Vernacular Literature in the Theravādin Buddhist
Context of Southeast Asia,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (forthcoming);
for narrative themes of the post-Pagan Burmese murals, see Alexandra
Green, “Deep Change? Burmese Wall Paintings from the Eleventh to the
Nineteenth Centuries,” Journal of Burma Studies 10 (2005/2006): 1–50.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 161
start on the left rim of the west wall of the shrine and continue
contra-clockwise to end at the last scene on the right rim of
the opposite wall. Scenes of the Buddha stories are contained
in the upper row and those of the Jātakas series in the row
immediately beneath it.
The order in a row of the clearly identifi able Jātakas scenes
on the West wall, the second scene for Mahājanaka and the
fourth one for Nimi, agrees with the Sinhalese recension for
the last ten Jātakas stories, Mahānipāta.13 Most likely, the third
scene of the same row illustrates Suvan
.n
.asāma, the third Jātaka
of the series; the two personages seated under a canopy rep-
resent the hermit father and mother of the Bodhisa a Sāma.
Figure 18 Walking Buddha with a monk follower and lay a endants,
the third scene of the upper row, east wall.
13 Illustration of the last ten Jātaka stories as a set was also found in Pagan
murals. Examples can be found in Pagan temples 1580; see Bohmu Ba Shin,
The Lokahteikpan (Rangoon: The Burma Historical Commission, 1962),
91–111 and 137, and the Sale temple 69.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
162
The fi fth scene, with two men behind a fence, could represent
Mahosatha, the fi fth Jātaka of the series.14 Perhaps this illus-
trates the Bodhisa a Mahosatha and his follower in the
Mithilā capital of the Videha country; they are confronting
the a acking armies of King Cūḷan
.i-Brahmada a of Kam-
pilla, possibly depicted on the right half of the scene, now
lost. The row could accommodate illustration of the fi rst eight
Mahānipāta stories. The second row of narrative scenes on the
opposite shrine’s wall would have depicted the last two
stories of the Mahānipāta, Vidhura, and Vessantara, and prob-
ably other narrative scenes as well.
Several points remain unclear concerning the Buddha epi-
sodes depicted in the upper row of narrative scenes on the
east and west walls of the shrine, most of them lost. The exact
meanings of the two visible scenes on the east wall still remain
problematic. Usually, a stūpa-shaped cetiya, as illustrated in
one of the scenes (fi g. 17), represents a funerary monument
for enshrinement of a relic of the holy person. According to
the Pāli canonical text, Mahāparinibbānasu a, there are four
kinds of holy persons worthy of such veneration: the Buddha
himself, a Pacceka Buddha, a Buddha’s disciple, and a univer-
sal monarch.15 The standing ascetic’s posture, associated with
the Sri Lankan iconography, suggests that he is paying respect
to one of these, whose relic is enshrined inside the stūpa. If
this ascetic is the Buddha himself, the cetiya could house the
relic of his father16 or one of his senior disciples that had
14 This is also agreeable with the standard Pagan-era recension of the last
ten Jātaka stories (Temiya, Mahājanaka, Sāma, Nimi, Mahosatha, Candakumāra,
Bhurida a, Nāradakassapa, Vidhura, and Vessantara) found, for example, at
Ananda, Myinkaba Kubyauk-gyi, Shwe-zigon, and Sale temple 69; the
exceptions are Loka-hteik-pan temple’s murals wherein Mahosatha scenes
are located the ninth of the series (ibid., 18–9).
15 Phra-sūtra Lae, Vol. 13 (Mahāparinibbānasu a), 310–1.
16 King Suddhodhana, the Buddha’s father, had a ained the arhathood
by considering the supreme dhamma taught to him by the Buddha; shortly
after, he entered nibbāna. The Buddha himself led his father’s cremation
ceremony. As an arhat disciple of the Buddha, his relic deserved its
enshrinement within a stupa.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 163
entered nibbāna before him.17 If, on the contrary, the ascetic is
his disciple, it would be the Buddha’s relic that had been
enshrined in the stupa. The scene of a walking Buddha pro-
vides no clue for narrative identifi cation.
The “Nativity” and “Pārileyya,” included among the nar-
rative scenes of the Buddha’s episode on the west wall, were
usually incorporated into a set of the “eight life scenes” of
the Buddha18 in the Pagan Buddhist iconography during the
12th and 13th centuries. It is unclear whether other compo-
nents of this series appeared on the Sale 36’s walls. Position-
ing the two above-mentioned Buddha scenes, intertwined
with others not included among the “eight life scenes,”
perhaps suggests that the murals’ designer regarded them as
being outside the coherent “eight life scenes” arrangement.
The arrangement of the Buddha scenes on both walls may
simply be chronological, as also utilized for narratives in
other Pagan era19 and later murals.20 Under such arrange-
ment, the stūpa of the fi rst surviving scene on the east wall
then could not have contained a Buddha’s relic since the
Buddha was still alive at that moment, as confi rmed by his
presence in the following scene. The ascetic paying respect to
the stūpa then could be the Buddha himself.
Other murals, now badly fl aked or damaged by white
wash, served as a background to the principal Buddha image.
The only remaining visible slivers are on the left half of the
back wall at the level of the Buddha’s torso and on the right
17 Worth mentioning are the Buddha’s two chief disciples, Sāripu a and
Moggallāna, who entered nibbāna shortly before him.
18 The set includes the following Buddha episodes: nativity, enlighten-
ment, fi rst sermon, yamaka-pāt
.ihāriya (twin miracle), descent from Tāvatiṃsa,
taming the Nālāgiri elephant, Pārileyya, and mahāparinibbāna.
19 A discussion on various narrative themes in which the Buddha epi-
sodes were organized in the Pagan murals can be found in Poolsuwan,
“Buddha’s Biography.”
20 See Jane Terry Bailey, “Some Burmese Paintings of the Seventeenth
Century and Later (Part I: A Seventeenth-Century Painting Style near
Sagaing),” Artibus Asiae 38, 1 (1986): 267–86; Green, “Deep Change?”.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
164
half at the level of his head. Still covered with thin white-
wash, the area on the left half of the wall reveals a large monk
fi gure, probably in an a itude of worshipping the shrine’s
Buddha image (fi g. 19). His high status is underscored by a
semi-oval nimbus surrounding his head and another in a
semi-circular shape surrounding his body. The image is an
artistic masterpiece, beautifully delineating the monk’s por-
trait, indicating great artistic talent. The monk is probably
Shin Sāripu a, the fi rst chief disciple of the Buddha. He was
usually portrayed in the murals together with Moggallāna,
the Buddha’s second chief disciple, fl anking the principal
Buddha image of Pagan shrines, Sāripu a to the right and
Figure 19 Sāripu a, eastern section (lower part) of the shrine’s back
wall.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 165
Moggallāna to the left. In Sale 36, Moggallāna is most likely
hidden under thick whitewash.
Still visible on the right half of the shrine’s back wall is a
part of the murals that originally would have covered the
wall spaces symmetrically on both sides of the principal
Buddha image (fi g. 20).
On the far left of the surviving composition is a curved
nimbus supposed to radiate from the Buddha who presides
over the shrine; it is delineated in two layers, the inner one
decorated with a tidy fl ame-like design. The composition’s
middle space is occupied by fi gure of a large, multi-armed
god holding in his hands weapon-like objects. Only his body’s
upper half is free of heavy whitewash. The god wears a
diadem and a coiff ure shaped as a Jat
.āmukut
.a. The third eye
centering his forehead, and the hairpin shaped like a waning
moon adorning his Jat
.āmukut
.a, confi rm that this is Śiva, one
of the chief Brahmanical Gods. To the left of Śiva is a portrait
of another Brahmanical god, Gan
.eśa (fi g. 21). Only the right
half of his elephant head, haloed and crowned, has escaped
Figure 20 curved nimbus (left), Śiva (middle), Gan
.eśa (right), and
Vis
.n
.u (above); western section (upper part) of the shrine’s back wall.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
166
whitewashing. Ganesa’s crown is of a tall conical shape, dec-
orated with embracing rings. Above and behind Śiva in the
upper tier is a severely damaged depiction of another god.
Nothing survives above his waist. He holds in one of his
hands a club resembling a long bone. His skin color was dark,
another iconographic feature.
Figure 21 Gan
.eśa, western section (upper part) of the shrine’s back
wall.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 167
IV. Inscriptions
Four ink-inscriptions are readable on the walls of the shrine
and vestibule of Sale 36.21 All are later intrusions inscribed
over the original murals. The style of writing, using round-
shaped syllables, indicates these inscriptions’ later, i.e., post-
Pagan, dates.
One dated inscription, on the shrine’s east wall, states:
In the Burmese year 944 [equivalent to AD 1582], on
Monday, the third day of Tawthalin month ... Min Gaung
[probably the king who reigned, under this regnal title,
at Prome between AD 1568 to 1582] ... at Shinbinkera
Pagoda [the name of this temple?] ... in front of the
Buddha image that has been damaged ... provides a
renovation with the red color of mercuric oxide being
applied onto the robe [of the Buddha?] ... He would like
to share his merit with all beings from the Avīci hell to
the highest Brahmā realm.
The vestibule’s west wall carries an undated inscription:
“Lime wash was applied [on the principal Buddha image] by
a monk named Dhamma Nāri Guna of the Nanthā monas-
tery; because of his merit accomplishment, may the peace rest
on his mind and may he never be poor.”
Two personal names are recorded on the shrine’s walls.
On the south wall’s eastern section, the name “Shwe-thon-
nga Shin Min” is inscribed. Beneath the Nativity scene on the
west wall, the name “Nanda Nyaw San” is recorded.
V. Typological and Iconographic Analysis of
the Murals
The murals of the Sale temple 36 share a few characteristics
with those of the Pagan Period: a depiction of blooming lotus
21 Reading and translation of these inscriptions were kindly provided to
the author by Saya U Aung Kyaing, former Deputy Director General,
Myanmar Department of Archaeology.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
168
fl ower at the center of the shrine’s vaulted ceiling; depictions
of numerous past Buddhas; a decorative pa ern on the band
running along the top part of shrine’s walls; a likely depiction
of the Buddha’s two chief disciples, Sāripu a and Moggallāna,
fl anking the principal image in the shrine; and an inclusion
of both the elephant and the monkey in the Pārileyya scene.
These components indicate the murals’ indebtedness to the
Pagan tradition.
Several other characteristics of the murals, however,
appear to be unique on iconographic and stylistic grounds.
This raises the question of the murals’ date of origin, whether
they were contemporaneous with the temple’s construc-
tion—probably in the 13th century—or were they added
later. The dated inscription on the shrine’s east wall, an intru-
sion on the original murals, confi rms that the murals predate
AD 1582.
The Buddha is portrayed in the murals in a way that seems
to deviate deliberately from the standard maintained in 13th-
century Pagan murals (fi g. 22). The Buddha of the Pagan
Figure 22 A māravijaya Buddha of the typical 13th-century Pagan style,
Pagan temple 1471 (Thein-mazi).

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 169
murals is normally portrayed with a relatively large head on
a stocky torso. He has an extra-broad forehead, making his
facial outline roughly triangular. His face, with half-closed
and down-gazing eyes, turns considerably downward, thus
creating a “short neck” appearance of his image when viewed
frontally. The Buddha in māravijaya pose always wears the
monastic robe in a style leaving his right shoulder bare. A big
band of the folded outer lobe, Saṃghāt
.ī, worn on his left
shoulder, usually has its overlapping U-shaped lower edge
decorated with a vertically pleated rim. He is seated cross-
legged in vajrāsana pose with his shins angled with each
other. The lower edge of his monastic robe, neatly pleated,
fl ares out in a fan-liked fashion between his angled shins.
In Sale 36 murals, the Buddha is shown with his head
proportional to his body (fi g. 23). He has an oval-shaped face,
Figure 23 Past Buddhas, shrine’s east wall, Sale temple 36.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
170
wide opened eyes, broad shoulders, an elongated torso, and
plump legs. The māravijaya Buddha wears his monastic robe
relatively loosely, compared with the more tight-fi  ing
pa ern observed in the Pagan murals, leaving his right shoul-
der bare. When seated in vajrāsana pose, the lower edges of
his shins almost form a single straight line, thus leaving no
angular space between them for the pleated edge of his lower
garment to fl are out in a fan-like fashion. This characteristic
makes a seated posture of the Buddha looking superfi cially
similar to vīrāsana pose, with his right calf simply put on top
of the left one. The Buddha’s la er pose has its prototype in
the arts of Sri Lanka and South India. Though not found in
the Pagan art, late examples of this Buddha’s pose, originally
derived from South Asia, are prevalent in the Sukhothai,
Lānnā, and Ayu haya arts in Thailand, dating from the 14th
and 15th centuries. The Buddha portrayed with a round or
oval-shaped face and fully opened eyes, as observed in Sale
36’s murals, is also frequent in the two aforementioned South
Asian traditions.22
In Sale 36, the folded Saṃghāt
.ī worn by the Buddha on his
left shoulder lacks the U-shaped lower edge decorated with
a pleated rim, as commonly found in Pagan counterparts. The
image’s bodily proportions and other characteristics—his
oval-shaped face, broad shoulders, and plump legs—resem-
ble a group of Buddha sculptures of the Lānnā School in
Northern Thailand, which exhibits Sinhalese infl uence and
dates most likely from the 14th to 15th century.23 These sim-
ilarities observed between the Sale 36’s and the Lānnā School’s
images of the Buddha could be a result of religious contacts
between Sri Lanka and various Buddhist communities in
22 See examples in: A. Aiyappan and P.R. Srinivasan, Story of Buddhism
with Special Reference to South India (Chennai: Government of Madras, 1960);
Ulrich Von Schroeder, Buddhist Sculptures of Sri Lanka (Hong Kong: Visual
Dhamma Publ., 1990); and The Golden Age of Sculpture in Sri Lanka (Hong
Kong: Visual Dhamma Publ., 1992).
23 Hiram W. Woodward, Jr., The Sacred Sculpture of Thailand (Bangkok:
River Books, 1997), 216; Carol Stra on, Buddhist Sculpture of Northern Thai-
land (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2004), 184.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 171
Southeast Asia, considerably pronounced during the 14th
and 15th centuries.24
In the Nativity scene on the west wall, Queen Maya does
not wear the pointed crown, bodily ornaments, and garments
of the Pagan type commonly seen in the Pagan-era murals
and sculptures. Instead, the queen wears a big hair knob
braced with two ornamental rings on the back of her head
and simple bracelets on her arms. Her body garment, a long
piece of cloth wrapping her body’s lower part and covering
only one of her shoulders, is similar to the sārī, traditionally
worn by native women of South Asia. It is distinct stylistically
with no comparable examples found in the Pagan era and
later Burmese arts.
In another narrative scene on the same wall, Sujātā wears
a long skirt with its upper part folded about her body by a
waistband. The upper edge of her lower garment fl ares out
from the front rim of the waistband in a semi-circular shape.
A small fabric strip protrudes from the lower rim of this
waistband on her left side. A similar dress type, characterized
by fl aring out, in semi-circular shape, of the lower garment’s
upper edge, also appears on male fi gures in the Mahājanaka
Jātaka and the Nimi Jātaka scenes. This dress type is unique in
the Burmese arts in general, but often observed in the Khmer
art of the Angkor and later periods.25 The type also survives
on some Thai divinity sculptures, modeled after the Khmer
infl uence, in the Sukhothai and Ayu haya schools from the
14th to the 16th centuries.26 Pun
.n
.ā, who shares the scene with
24 See a detailed discussion in section VII of this article.
25 For late Khmer example dating from the 14th century, see Hiram
W. Woodward, Jr., “Bronze Sculptures of Ancient Cambodia,” in Gods of
Angkor, ed. Louise Allison Cort and Paul Je (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books,
2010), 72–3, 76–7.
26 Thai examples include the two large bronze divine-sculptures: Vis
.n
.u
of the Sukhothai style dating from the mid-14th century. See Woodward,
The Sacred Sculpture, 155; Peter Skilling, ed., Past Lives of the Buddha, Wat Si
Chum—Art, Architecture and Inscriptions (Bangkok: River Books, 2008), 30
(fi g. 1.16) and Śiva of the Ayu haya style from Kampaeng Phet, date AD
1510.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
172
Sujātā, wears a long undecorated loincloth, a type of dress
not commonly seen in Burmese murals.
In the “Ajapāla” scene on the shrine’s west wall (fi g. 11),
the seated Buddha wears a monastic robe covering both
shoulders. He holds a short-handled ecclesiastical fan, erect,
on his lap. This iconographic depiction has its counterparts
in other Pagan era murals as well as in the Khmer and Thai
iconographies.
In some 13th-century Pagan murals, the Buddha, preach-
ing the Abhidhamma in Tāvatiṃsa, is shown seated and
wearing the monastic robe covering both shoulders. He holds
a long-handled fan, angled, on his lap, with its tip pointing
in the direction of the Buddha’s right shoulders (fi g. 24). This
prevents obscuring the Buddha’s face by the fan, which
would be the case if the fan was held erect. Found in Pagan
structure 225, dating epigraphically from the mid-15th
Figure 24 Buddha holding a long-handled ecclesiastic fan angled on
his lap while preaching the Abhidhamma in Tavatimsa, the Pagan
temple 1150.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 173
century, is a depiction of the seated Buddha wearing the
monastic robe covering both shoulders; held erect on his lap
is the ecclesiastic fan of a short-handle type (fi g. 25).
A Khmer example of this iconography is found in central
Thailand and can be dated stylistically from the 12th to the
middle of the 13th century.27 It shows the preaching Buddha
seated cross-legged and wearing the monastic robe leaving
his right shoulder bare; he touches the earth with his right
hand and holds in his left hand a monastic short-handled fan,
erect, on his lap. Later Thai examples, dating from around
the middle of the 14th century onward, include both Buddha
and Bodhisa a examples.28 They share the features of the
Figure 25 The Future Buddha Me eyya holding an ecclesiastic fan
of a short-handle type erect on his lap while preaching, Pagan monu-
ment 225.
27 Pa aratorn Chirapravati, “Illustrating the Lives of the Bodhisa a at
Wat Si Chum,” in Past Lives of the Buddha: Wat Si Chum—Art, Architecture
and Inscriptions, ed. Peter Skilling (Bangkok: River Books, 2008), 13–40.
28 Ibid.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
174
Khmer prototype, except that the Buddha or Bodhisa a always
uses his right hand to hold the fan’s upper rim.
The characteristic of showing the seated Buddha wearing
the monastic robe covering both shoulders and holding the
ecclesiastical fan on his lap, as observed in Sale temple 36’s
and Pagan monument 225’s murals could be in situ continu-
ation of the Pagan pa ern. But the presence of a short-han-
dled fan, held in erect position by the Buddha in the two
structures’ murals, also recalls connection with the Khmer/
Thai prototypes. The la er connection, however, needs to be
explained in the context of cultural relationships between
central Burma and the Khmer/Thai areas during the 14th
century, the topic that shall be explored in section VII of this
article.
The murals of the Sale temple 36 also show several char-
acteristics that suggest their fresh introduction directly from
Sri Lanka. Evidence for this can be seen in the shrine’s east
wall image illustrating the Buddha with a hand gesture
unique to Sri Lankan arts. He puts his hands on his chest,
palms completely inward and his arms are crossed.29 A high
conical-shaped crown with round fi nial, sometimes adorned
with bracing rings, worn by Brahmā in the “Ajapāla” scene
and by Gan
.eśa portrayed on the shrine’s back wall, has its
direct Sri Lankan prototypes, dating from the Anurādhapura
Period.30 Śiva, portrayed on the shrine’s back wall, has an
oblong face; opened, thin, almond-shaped eyes; a wide prom-
inent nose with its small tip slightly pointed; and well-
proportioned full lips. Shin Sāripu a depicted on the wall’s
other side, with only his face’s lower half that survives, shares
some of these characteristics. These god’s and disciple’s
images illustrate facial appearances deliberately diff erent
29 D.T. Devendra, “An Unusual Hand Position in Ceylon Statuary,”
Artibus Asiae 19, 2 (1956): 126–36; L. Prematilleke, “The Identity and Sig-
nifi cance of the Standing Figure at the Gal-vihāra, Polonnaruva, Ceylon,”
Artibus Asiae 18, 1 (1966): 61–6.
30 See an example in Senake Bandaranayake, The Rock and Wall Paintings
of Sri Lanka (Pannipitiya: Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, 2006), 79 (fi g. 40).

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 175
from the traditional Pagan type. The la er is normally char-
acterized by rather protruding eyes, a sharp nose with its tip
pointed like a parrot’s beak, and a V-shaped mouth. They
bear impressive resemblance, on the other hand, to compo-
nents found in the Buddhist murals of Sri Lanka,31 as well as
in the Coḷa and early Vijayanagara religious paintings of
South India32 that are contemporaneous with or slightly later
than the Pagan Period.
The Buddha is illustrated in his walking pose in one of the
narrative scenes on the east wall of the shrine. He wears the
monastic robe leaving his right shoulder bare. While raising
his left hand to his chest, palm partially outward and fi ngers
pointing upward, his right arm suspended. His right foot is
grounded ahead of the left, indicating walking posture. This
walking pose diff ers from comparable examples in other
Pagan murals. In the la er case, the Buddha, although in
walking pose, appears as if standing still, without one of his
feet stepping forward ahead of the other; he raises one of his
hands before his chest, palm completely inward, and leaves
the other hand hanging downwards, in varada-mudrā (fi g. 26).
More comparable to the walking Buddha of Sale 36’s
murals is the Buddha in the posture of moving while descend-
ing from Tāvatiṃsa Heaven portrayed in the 12th-century
murals at the Tivaṅka Temple, Polonnaruva, Sri Lanka.33 He
grounds his right foot ahead of the left on the same ladder’s
step. Striking stylistic similarity is also observed between the
walking Buddha from Sale 36 and that of the Thai-Sukhothai
31 Similar treatment creating such facial characteristics can be observed
in the Buddhist murals of Sri Lanka at the Tivaṅka Temple, Polonnaruva,
dating from the 12th century AD; ibid., 89–95 (plates 35–38).
32 A comparable Coḷa example can be seen in the murals of the Brihad-
ishvara Temple, Tanjavur, dating from the early 11th century. See Mira
Seth, Indian Painting: The Great Mural Tradition (Ahmedabad: Mapin Pub-
lishing Pvt. Ltd., 2006), 83–9 (fi gs. 72–79); the more rigid style, still compa-
rable to the Sale 36 murals, can also be seen in the murals of the
Tirupparutikanram Jain Temple dating from the early Vijayanagara Period
in the 14th century; ibid., 92 (fi gs. 81–82).
33 Bandaranayake, The Rock and Wall, 81 (fi g. 43).

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
176
style, probably developed during the course of the 14th
century.34 This does not necessarily imply mutual interac-
tions and infl uences between local traditions—Sukhothai
over central Burma or vice versa—but such interpenetrations
are plausible. Through the venue of the Sinhalese Sāsanā’s
spread in Southeast Asia during the 14th and 15th centuries,
some characteristics of the Buddhist arts originated in Sri
Figure 26 The Buddha walking on the caṅkama walkway, the 13th-
century mural of the Pagan temple 1471 (Thein-mazi).
34 See a discussion on iconic development of the Sukhothai walking
Buddha in Woodward, The Sacred Sculpture, 158–9; a diff erent theory for
an origin of the Sukhothai walking Buddha from an older Mon prototype
in lower Burma can be found in Pamela Gutman, “A Burmese Origin of the
Sukhothai Walking Buddha,” in Burma: Art and Archaeology, ed. Alexandra
Green and T. Richard Blurton (Chicago: Art Media Resources, 2002), 35–43.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 177
Lanka could have found their way to reach and to circulate
among Buddhist communities of the region.
Illustration of the nimbus of a semi-oval or semi-circular
shape to signify a person’s high status, as in the cases of Shin
Sāripu a and God Gan
.eśa depicted in Sale 36’s murals, is
another component frequently observed in the Buddhist
murals of Sri Lanka.35 The incorporation of Brahmanical gods
into the Buddhist pantheon to serve as guardians or protec-
tors of the Buddhist world, as observed in Sale 36’s murals,
was also an ancient phenomenon on the island. This kind of
syncretism is evident, for example, in the murals of the relic
chamber at Mahiyangana, where Śiva, Vis
.n
.u, and other
Lokāpalas are depicted.36 The murals date from the 9th to the
11th century AD.
The Sri Lankan examples from the Gampola Period at
Laṅkātilaka Rajamahāvihāra in Kandy District, completed
around AD 1344, show compositional similarities to the
murals on the Sale 36’s back wall, and perhaps provided its
prototype. The Gampola ensemble features an assembly of
Brahmanical gods—Śiva, Vis
.n
.u, Indra, and Brahmā are iden-
tifi able—in a symmetric composition behind a makara torana
that crowns the throne of the principal Buddha image of the
temple’s shrine.37 In the surviving Sale 36 murals, Śiva and
Gan
.eśa can be clearly identifi ed. Another god, portrayed
with a dark complexion, situated above and behind Śiva in
the murals, could be Vis
.n
.u, also incorporated into the Bud-
dhist pantheon of Sri Lanka. The god’s skin is painted blue
in the Sri Lankan prototype.38 It is likely that this Sri Lankan
format, which portrayed the Brahmanical gods symmetri-
cally behind the principal Buddha image of the temple’s
35 An example can be seen in the murals of the Tivanka temple, dating
from the 12th century; see Bandaranayake, The Rock and Wall, 80 (fi g. 41).
36 William E. Ward, “Recently Discovered Mahiyangana Paintings,”
Artibus Asiae 15, 1 (1952): 108–13; Bandaranayake, The Rock and Wall, 68
(fi g. 31).
37 Nandana Chutiwongs, personal communication; Bandaranayake, The
Rock and Wall, 136 (pl. 63).
38 Ward, “Recently Discovered.”

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
178
shrine, was transmi ed from Sri Lanka to reach central Burma
sometime during the mid-14th century, probably shortly
after the completion of the Laṅkātilaka temple in AD 1344.
The above evidence indicates that temple 36’s murals illus-
trate a mixture of inspirations from diverse sources: the older
Pagan characteristics of the 13th century, the art tradition of
Sri Lanka during the mid-14th century, and some elements
of the Khmer/Thai arts of the la er period. The fact that there
are no earlier murals beneath the layer now visible suggests
that the la er is original and was executed on plain walls.
Although the temple and its principal Buddha image can be
stylistically dated to sometime during the 13th century, the
murals are probably a later addition, completed around the
mid-14th century, and affi liated with contemporary Sri
Lankan and Khmer/Thai prototypes.
VI. Comparison with Other
Post-Pagan Murals
The relationship between Sale 36’s and 13th-century Pagan
murals was clarifi ed in the previous section. We now need to
explore the relationships between the murals that are the
subject of this article and other Burmese murals dated con-
temporaneously or slightly later. This is meant to answer the
question of whether there was an established tradition that
linked Sale 36’s murals with those mentioned. Unfortunately,
securely dateable murals from the period of concern are espe-
cially rare, even in the Pagan area. Probably most relevant to
our purpose of comparison are the murals surviving in Pagan
monument 225 (Mya-daung-ok-kyaung), an old brick mon-
astery dated epigraphically to the mid-15th century,39 and
their stylistically comparable example, dating probably from
39 Monument 225, a two-story monastery building, is probably associated
with a stone inscription dated AD 1442 describing construction of the
monastery, dedication of land, and donation of the Buddhist texts; see Tun
Nyein, Inscriptions of Pagan, 37–47; Pichard, Inventory of Monuments, Vol. 1
(1992): 339–41.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 179
the same period, found in Pagan monument 65 (Kyanzi ha-
umin), a man-made meditation cave located near Nyaung U.
The mural program of monument 225 comprises depictions
of Jātaka stories in grid panels on both inner and outer walls
of the ambulatory corridor surrounding the inner chamber,
on the building’s second fl oor, and of detailed life episodes
of Me eyya, the future Buddha, inside this inner chamber.
The murals are accompanied by ink-glosses in Pāli and Old
Burmese. The murals of Pagan monument 65, lacking glosses,
depict Buddha life episodes and several other unidentifi ed
scenes.
The murals of Pagan monument 65 have usually been
dated to the very end of the 13th century, i.e., shortly after
submission of Pagan to the Mongols’ sovereignty of the Yuan
Dynasty in AD 1287.40 This dating seems to be based entirely
on a belief that the soldiers found depicted in the murals (fi g.
27) represented those of the Mongols arriving Pagan at about
40 Charles Duroiselle, “Mongol Frescoes at Pagan,” A.S.I.-A.R. (1912–
1913): 146–8; Luce, Old Burma, Vol. 1: 256; Paul Strachan, Pagan, Art and
Architecture of Old Burma (Arran, Scotland: Kiscadale Publications, 1989),
1, 94.
Figure 27 Mongol (?) soldiers, Pagan monument 65.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
180
that time and being witnessed by Pagan artists themselves;
the artists then drew upon their personal experience when
composing the murals of this monument.
On stylistic ground, however, the murals show close affi n-
ity with the mid-15th century murals of the Pagan monument
225. The two share the same decorative pa ern of mural
bands running along the upper part of the wall, more formal-
ized than the similar style of the Pagan Period (fi gs. 7 and 8,
compared with fi g. 6). Moreover, the soldiers resembling
those believed to be Mongols, once utilized to date monu-
ment 65 murals to the end of the 13th century, also appear in
Pagan monument 225’s murals (fi g. 28), securely dated to the
mid-15th century. This makes it highly likely that monument
65’s murals date to the same period as those of Pagan monu-
ment 225, i.e. sometime during the mid-15th century.41
Figure 28 Mongol (?) soldiers, Pagan monument 225.
41 Whether the soldiers depicted in murals of the Pagan monuments 65
and 225 represent those of the Mongols during the late 13th century or not,
their characteristics were stills preserved in the mid-15th-century murals
of monument 225.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 181
Pagan-era artistic elements survived into the period in
which these two structures’ murals materialized indicating
in-situ continuation of styles well after the kingdom’s demise.
This is evident in how monument 225 depicts the Jātaka stories
in grid panels on the ambulatory corridor’s walls surround-
ing the inner chamber;42 in the structural pa ern of the deco-
rative bands running along the upper rim of the building’s
inner wall; and from the pointed crown worn by divine or
royal personage as well as in the shape of tiered-roof pavil-
ions resembling Pagan mural typology (fi gs. 29 and 30).
The narrative murals in the two structures are arranged
chronologically and continuously along a tier, the mode of
illustration almost universally observed in later Burmese
murals from the 17th century onward43 but only rarely found
42 This pa ern can be found in the Pagan murals of temples 1202 (Abe-
ya-dana-hpaya), 1192 (Naga-yon-hpaya), and 1323 (Kubyauk-gyi at Myink-
aba); see Gordon H. Luce, Old Burma, Vol. 1, chapters 16 and 18.
43 For this mode of narrative illustration in later Burmese murals, see
Bailey, “Some Burmese Paintings” and Alexandra Green, “Deep Change?”.
Figure 29 Tiered-roof pavilion (right) and pointed crown worn by
royal personages (bo om left) of the Pagan-related types, Pagan
monument 65.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
182
Figure 30 Tiered-roof pavilion and pointed crown worn by royal per-
sonage of the Pagan-related types, Pagan monument 225.
in Pagan-era murals.44 Other post-Pagan characteristics
observed in the murals of monuments 65 and 225 include a
more rigid decorative pa ern, as previously mentioned, and
usage of the yellowish pale-green color never seen in murals
44 For example, illustration of the Mahānipāta stories at the Loka-hteik-
pan temple, dating from the early 12th century. Most of the chronological
narrative murals of the Pagan era are clearly segmented, i.e., each story
contained in a rectangular frame.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 183
of the Pagan Period. The absence in Sale 36 of these rather
“later” characteristics does not confl ict with dating them to
the mid-14th century, about a century before the murals of
the Pagan monuments 65 and 225. The three structures and
their contents provide rare examples that fi ll a gap between
the two be er established sets of Burmese murals: those
from the Pagan Period and others likely from the 17th century
onward.
The Sale 36 murals lack some of the Pagan features surviv-
ing in the 15th-century murals of monuments 65 and 225, i.e.,
a pointed crown worn by divine or royal personage and the
architectonically distinct tiered-roof pavilion. Also, the new
iconographic and stylistic infl uences freshly introduced from
Sri Lanka and Thailand during the mid-14th century, as
observed in Sale 36, lack direct parallels in the other two. This
perhaps indicates that Sale temple 36’s materials were tem-
porary “intrusion” that had a short shelf life and disappeared
subsequently.
VII. The Cultural Context
Pagan’s defi nition of the dharma, from the mid-11th to the
late 13th centuries, was primarily based on Pāli Tipit
.aka. The
Pagan’s knowledge on Pāli Buddhist scriptures was probably
fi rst achieved from the Mon civilization centered in the pres-
ent-day lower Burma, as stated in later Burmese records,45 or
from the Pyu progenitor in the middle Irrawaddy area, whose
knowledge on Pāli sources is a ested archaeologically.46 It is
45 Taw Sein Ko, trans., The Kalyānī Inscriptions Erected by King Dhammaceti
at Pegu in 1476 A.D., Translation (Bangkok: Bangkok Times Press, Limited,
1925), 6; Pe Maung Tin and Gordon H. Luce, trans., The Glass Palace Chron-
icle of the Kings of Burma (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923), 77–80.
46 J. Stargardt, “The Oldest Known Pāli Texts, 5th–6th Century; Results
of the Cambridge Symposium on the Pyu Golden Pāli Text from Sriksetra,”
Journal of the Pali Text Society XXI (April 1995): 199–213. For heated debates
on who was the civilization’s progenitor of Pagan, whether the “Mon” of
lower Burma or the “Pyu” of central and lower Burma, which is beyond
the scope of this article, see, for example: Michael A. Aung-Thwin, The

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
184
beyond dispute that Buddhist knowledge based on Sinha-
lese Pāli sources had been established at Pagan at least
since the late 11th century.47 This could have been a result
of direct contacts between Pagan and Sri Lanka, recorded
in the Sinhalese Chronicle Cūlavaṃsa, several Pagan-era
inscriptions, and Burmese legendary accounts composed
subsequently.48
King Anawratha, the fi rst fully a ested monarch of the
Pagan dynasty, known in the Cūlavaṃsa’s account as the king
of Rāmañña country, was said to provide assistance to
Vijayabāhu I in driving out the Coḷas from Sri Lanka and
making Vijayabāhu a master of the whole island.49 Vijayabāhu
I initiated purifi cation of the sangha, with the aid of monks
said to have come from Pagan, where earlier, Sinhalese monks
were presumed to have found refuge from the Cola invad-
Mists of Rāmañña: The Legend That was Lower Burma (Honolulu, HI: Univer-
sity of Hawaii Press, 2005); Victor Lieberman, Review article: “Excising the
‘Mon Paradigm’ from Burmese Historiography,” Journal of Southeast Asian
Studies 38, 2 (2007): 377–83; Pierre Pichard, “Remarques sur le chapitre IX.
[Aung-Thwin 2005] ‘The Mon Paradigm and the Evolution of the Pagan
Temple’,” Aséanie 18 (2006): 203–6; Donald M. Stadtner, “The Mon of Lower
Burma,” Journal of the Siam Society 96 (2008): 193–215.
47 Numerous narrative murals of the Buddha’s life found in Pagan are
accompanied with ink captions linking them with Pāli sources of the Sin-
halese origin. Early examples include those of the Patho-tha-mya temple,
dating from the late 11th century and of Myinkaba Kubyauk-gyi, Nagayon,
and Alopyi temples, from the early 12th century; see Luce, Old Burma, Vol.
1, chapters 15–19.
48 Taw Sein Ko, trans., The Kalyānī Inscriptions, 6–15; Luce, Old Burma,
chapter 2; W.M. Sirisena, Sri Lanka and South-East Asia: Political, Religious
and Cultural Relations from A.D. c. 1000 to c. 1500 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978),
chapter 3; Pierre Pichard, The Pentagonal Monuments of Pagan (Bangkok:
White Lotus, 1991), 41–2; Tilman Frasch, “The Buddhist Connection: Sin-
halese-Burmese Intercourse in the Middle Ages,” in Explorations in the
History of South Asia, ed. Georg Berkemer, Tilman Frasch, Herman Kulke,
and Jurgen Lu (Manohar, 2001), 85–97.
49 Luce, Old Burma, Vol. 1, 39.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 185
ers.50 Vijayabahu’s successor, Parākramabāhu I, who reigned
at Poḷonnaruva from AD 1110–53, conducted another refor-
mation that united the various Sinhalese San
.gha lineages
under the Mahāvihāra umbrella. The fame of Pārakramabāhu
I’s purifi cation enterprise, and demand that all monks adhere
to the Pāli Vinaya, may have spread to the mainland and
a racted Southeast Asian monks eager to re-ordain in the
Mahavihara lineage. Recorded in one of the Pagan-era inscrip-
tions is an account on foundation of the Dhammayazika
stupa (Pagan monument 947), by King Narapatisithu in AD
1197, to contain precious relics of the Buddha earlier received
from the king of Sri Lanka.51
Preserved in the 15th-century Mons’ memory in lower
Burma, and provided in the Kalyānī Inscriptions erected by
King Dhammaceti of Pegu in AD 1476, is an account describ-
ing a circumstance wherein fi ve monks from diff erent coun-
tries and ethnic backgrounds were trained and received their
higher ordination in the Sri Lankan Mahāvihāra during the
second half of the 12th century.52 These monks later became
missionaries to establish the Sinhalese lineage in Pagan. The
fi ve included: Chapada from the Mon Country in lower
Burma; Sīvalī, from Tāmbralipti in the Bengal area; Tāmalinda,
a son of the king of Kambojā (Cambodia); Ananda, a native
of Kāñcīpura in South India; and Rāhula, a Sinhalese monk.
The reigning Pagan’s monarch, Narapatisithu, sponsored
50 There is a theory that the monks aiding Vijayabāhu in purifi cation of
the Buddhist order were Sinhalese monks who previously took refuge in
Pagan during the Coḷas’ occupation of the island; see W.M. Sirisena, Sri
Lanka and South-East Asia, 61–2; Tilman Frasch, “A Buddhist Network in
the Bay of Bengal: Relations between Bodhgaya, Burma and Sri Lanka, c.
300–1300,” in From the Mediterranean to the China Sea: Miscellaneous Notes,
ed. Claude Guillot, Denys Lombard, and Roderich Ptak (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowi Verlag, 1998), 69–92.
51 Pierre Pichard, The Pentagonal Monuments, 41–2.
52 Taw Sein Ko, trans., The Kalyānī Inscriptions, 6–15; to confi rm this
English translation, there is also a Thai version translated directly from the
Pāli version of the inscriptions; see Phraya Photchanasunthorn, Charuk
Kanlayani (Bangkok: Rongphim Sophonphipha anakorn, 1925), 76–88.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
186
their ordination of numerous local monks. Existence of the
Sinhalese ecclesiastic order during the Pagan era is a ested
by contemporary inscriptions recording presence of monks
of the order, found among the ruins of the “Tamani” (or
“Tamalinda”) monastery complex, located a few miles south-
east of Old Pagan; the monastery was perhaps named after
one of the leading theras in the missionary group from Sri
Lanka already mentioned.53
The unity of the Sinhalese Order, however, did not last
long at Pagan. Rāhula departed to resume his lay life, and
Chapada, the group’s leader, died sometime later. Disagree-
ments among the remaining three theras about minor Vinaya
practices prompted them to establish their own lineages.
The internal problems of the Sinhalese order in Pagan
during the fi rst half of the 13th century occurred at a time
when another local Buddhist fraternity continued to fl ourish
in central Burma.54 Its members called themselves, as recorded
in contemporary inscriptions, the monks of “taw kloṅ” or
“forest monastery.” Occasionally, the name Arañ, most likely
derived from araññaka meaning forest dwellers, was applied
to them in contemporary records. This should not be con-
fused with the Araññavāsī, the forest-dwelling monks in Sri
Lanka, discussed below. Monks of the la er sect strictly fol-
lowed the dhutaṅgas, the 13 severe ascetic practices, according
to the Vinaya. In contrast to the Sinhalese Araññavāsī ortho-
doxy, the taw kloṅ monastics of central Burma pursued a more
lax interpretation of the Vinaya rules. According to the late
Professor Than Tun, epigraphic evidence suggests that they
inhabited great monastic establishments, owned vast estates,
drank liquor while feasting, ate evening meals, and allowed
existence of the bhikkhunī lineage.55
53 Tilman Frasch, “The Buddhist Connection.”
54 Than Tun, “Mahākassapa and His Tradition,” in Essays of the History
and Buddhism of Burma, ed. Strachan, 85–100.
55 Ibid.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 187
The central Burma Arañ are believed to stem from the
lower Chindwin area.56 They seem to be present in Pagan, in
the fi rst quarter of the 13th century, and had enjoyed much
local support there since then. Their success was insured by
the charismatic leader Mahākassapa, who gained royal
support since his arrival in Pagan in AD 1215; the support
lasted till his death in the early years of the last quarter of the
13th century.57 The monastic order’s prosperity stemmed
from its practice of accumulating substantial landholdings,
either through purchase or donation, until well after AD
1500. This prosperity survived the chaotic years at the turn
of the 13th century, as the order was able to sustain their
lands’ agricultural productivity.58 According to U Than Tun,
the Arañ were the most powerful and authoritative Buddhist
order in central Burma, easily overshadowing their Sinhalese
counterparts, during the period from the early 13th to after
the 15th century.
The Sri Lankan record also provides interesting informa-
tion that might relate to this Pagan’s Buddhist order during
the 13th century.59 The Mahānāgakula-sandesa (Mānāvulu-
sandesa), a Pāli work wri en in Sri Lanka in the 13th century,
contains a message sent by Thera Nāgasena of Mahānāgakula
in Rohan
.a, Sri Lanka, via Minister Gñana to the senior-
monk Mahākassapa of Arimaddanapura (Pagan). It invited
Mahakassapa to initiate the Pagan Saṅgha purifi cation, accord-
ing to the pure lineage established in Sri Lanka during the
reign of Parākramabāhu I. This would have ordained the
Burmese monks in the Mahāvihāra lineage and enforced
strict practices in accordance with the Vinaya. Most likely, the
Mahākassapa mentioned in the Sri Lankan record was the
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.; Than Tun, “Religion in Burma 1000–1300,” in Essays of the History
and Buddhism of Burma, ed. Strachan, 23–45.
58 Than Tun, “Mahākassapa and His Tradition”; “History of Burma 1300–
1400,” in Essays of the History and Buddhism of Burma, ed. Strachan, 103–14.
59 Sirisena, Sri Lanka and South-East Asia, 72–3.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
188
same person as the contemporaneous leader of the Arañ sect
at Pagan, also known under that very same name.60 Given the
Arañ monks’ lifestyle, their leader would have rejected the
Sinhalese thera’s suggested reform. The survival of their prac-
tices and Vinaya violations until well after the Pagan Period,
as recorded in several contemporary inscriptions,61 indicates
that the Sri Lankan reform proposal failed.
In the 14th century, when Sale 36 murals likely material-
ized and the Arañ monks remained important for central
Burma, developments of the Sinhalese Buddhist order initi-
ated elsewhere altered the Buddhist landscape of Southeast
Asia. New eff orts to purify existing lineages, in accordance
with the Mahāvihāra tradition, materialized in the Mon
Country of Lower Burma. They substantially impacted other
Buddhist communities of the area.
Wareru, the usurper king of the Mon Country in the 1290s,
his capital at Martaban, was said to be a son-in-law of King
Ram Khamhaeng of Sukhothai.62 Close connections between
the Mon Country and Sukhothai were maintained during the
14th century. King Lüthai of Sukhothai invited the Martaban
senior Thera Medhaṅkara, author of the Pāli cosmological text
Lokappadīpakasāra, who used to study in Sri Lanka, to be
installed as his royal preceptor at Wat Pa Mamuang in Suk-
hothai in AD 1361.63 This confi rms religious connections
between Sukhothai and Martaban during the 14th century.
Such contacts likely resulted in shared stylistic exchanges in
60 Ibid.
61 Than Tun, “Mahākassapa and His Tradition.”
62 D.G.E. Hall, A History of South-East Asia (London: Macmillan, 1958),
140–1.
63 Alexander B. Griswold and Prasert na Nagara, “The Epigraphy of
Mahādharmarājā I of Sukhodaya, Epigraphic and Historical Studies, No.
11, Pt. 2,” Journal of the Siam Society 61, 2 (1973): 91–128; according to an
investigation provided by Sirisena (Sri Lanka and South-East Asia, 93–6),
Medhaṅkara might have been the same person as the contemporaneous
Mahāthera Udumbarapupphā Mahāsāmī of Martaban, mentioned in the
Mūlasāsanā and Jinakālamālī accounts.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 189
the Buddhist arts. One example of such exchanges has been
noted by Woodward, i.e., a group of pre-classic Sukhothai
Buddhas with the characteristic of “broad round shoulders,”
possibly derived from a Mon prototype detected in lower
Burma.64
Two Thai chronicles, the Mūlasāsanā and Jinakālamālī,
record the foundation in AD 1331 of a Sinhalese monastic
lineage, led by a thera named Anumati, at Martaban. The thera
was a disciple of the Mahāthera Kassapa, abbot of the well-
known Udumbaragiri Forest Monastery, a branch of the
Mahāvihāra fraternity, located south of Poḷonnaruva in Sri
Lanka.65 The Martaban foundation was a genuine forest mon-
astery, established according to the Sinhalese tradition in
lower Burma—to be distinguished from the aforementioned
contemporaneous taw kloṅ or Arañ of central Burma. Anumati,
having proved his virtues to the Martaban king, was then
granted the honorifi c title Udumbarapupphā Mahāsāmī. His
fame a racted monastic followers who came to Martaban for
religious training and to receive higher ordination under
him. Among his followers were the two Siamese monks from
Sukhothai—Anomadassī and Sumana—who had studied for
some time in Ayodhyā (in central Thailand). Ten years later,
probably around AD 1341 or 1342, they were granted a status
of mahāthera which qualifi ed them to perform all the acts of
the San
.gha according to the Sinhalese rites. Anomadassī and
Sumana then returned to Sukhothai. They established the
Sinhalese lineage of the forest monks at both Sukhothai and
Si Satchanalai.66
In AD 1369, Sumana accepted the invitation of King Kilanā
of Chiang Mai to establish the Sinhalese lineage of the forest
64 Woodward, The Sacred Sculpture, 148–51.
65 See detailed discussion and investigation in Alexander B. Griswold and
Prasert na Nagara, “King Lödaiya of Sukhodaya and His Contemporaries,
Epigraphic and Historical Studies, No. 10,” Journal of the Siam Society 60, 1
(1972): 21–152.
66 Ibid.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
190
monks in the Lānnā Kingdom. Being warmly welcomed by
the king, he was fi rst installed at Wat Pra Yün in Haripuñjaya,
the Lānnā’s Buddhist spiritual center. Later, he moved to
Chiang Mai where Kilanā built for him the Flower-Garden
Monastery (Wat Suan Dok Mai). While in Haripuñjaya, in AD
1370, Sumana rebuilt Wat Pra Yün. Its main shrine then
housed four Buddha images standing back to back (one older
and the other three added in the 1370 renovation), sheltered
under the cetiya superstructure.67 This architectonic arrange-
ment was a derivative of Burmese prototypes, widely present
in central Burma since the Pagan era. Such structural inter-
penetrations, evident at Wat Pra Yün, could have symboli-
cally represented establishment of the new Buddhist order,
with Martaban connections, in the Lānnā kingdom.68
Another important 14th-century fi gure, disseminating
the Sinhalese Sāsanā in the region, was a Sukhothai monk
with royal connections, Śrīsaddharāchacūḷāmunī Śrīra ana-
laṅkādīpa Mahāsāmī. The honorifi c suffi x “mahāthera” con-
tained in his royally conferred name confi rms his seniority
and right to conduct ecclesiastic rites in line with the Sinha-
lese Order. The history and meritorious activities of Śrīsaddha
are known mostly from the Sukhothai inscription II, found at
Wat Si Chum in Sukhothai.69 The inscription narrates his
pilgrimage as a monk, from Sukhothai via Martaban to India
and then to Sri Lanka, where he would have been granted
the higher ordination in the Mahāvihāra fraternity. After
being trained in Sri Lanka for a period of ten years, to com-
plete the requirement for a aining the mahāthera status,
Śrīsaddha returned to Sukhothai via Tenasserim, Phetchaburī,
67 These details were recorded in the 15th-century chronicle of Northern
Thailand Mūlasāsanā; see a discussion on this issue in Alexander B. Gris-
wold, Wat Pra Yun Reconsidered, Monograph No. 4 (Bangkok: The Siam
Society, 1975).
68 Woodward, The Sacred Sculpture, 207.
69 See translation and analysis of this important inscription in Griswold
and na Nagara, “King Lödaiya of Sukhodaya.”

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 191
Rātchaburī, Nakhon Chaisri, and Ayodhyā. Griswold and na
Nagara date his return to Sukhothai around AD 1343–44.70
Śrīsaddharā was a charismatic monk, also truly energetic
and dedicated. He accomplished substantial meritorious
works in various places: planting Bodhi trees, erecting
Buddha sculptures and religious monuments, repairing
damaged ones, etc. Scholars agree that he was in charge of
erecting the colossal Buddha statue in the image house,
mondop, at Wat Si Chum, Sukhothai, probably during the
second half of the 14th century.71 The building, now without
a roof, has a tunnel inside its thick brick walls accessing a
walkway on top of the mondop’s walls. Such structural inno-
vation, to be seen at Wat Si Chum, perhaps refl ects a Pagan
or Sri Lankan prototype.72 On the original stone slabs serving
as the tunnel’s ceiling, are engravings illustrating the Jātaka
stories, arranged in chronological agreement with the Sinha-
lese recension. Only an incomplete set of the 547 Jātaka stories
is illustrated at Wat Si Chum, since only about the fi rst
hundred of the set are shown in the tunnel’s ceiling engrav-
ings.73 These engravings indicate mixed artistic inspirations,
from Khmer, Chinese, and, most importantly, Sri Lankan
sources. The Sri Lankan infl uence visible in these Jātaka
engravings might represent the fresh infl ux of Sri Lankan
artistic inspiration, transmi ed to Sukhothai,74 probably by
Śrīsaddharā himself.
70 Ibid.
71 For recent reviews and analyses on Wat Si Chum, see the volume of
Peter Skilling, ed., Past Lives of the Buddha.
72 There are numerous examples in Pagan of tunnel passages inside brick
walls of hollow pagodas. The Sri Lankan example is found at the Laṅkātilaka
image-house in Poḷonnaruva, dating from the 12th century.
73 Peter Skilling, Prapod Assavavirundhakarn, and Santi Pakdeekham,
“Part II, The Jātaka Engravings of Wat Si Chum and Their Inscription,” in
Past Lives of the Buddha, Wat Si Chum—Art, Architecture and Inscriptions
(Bangkok: River Books, 2008), 111–265.
74 Woodward, The Sacred Sculpture, 144–71; Chirapravati, “Illustrating the
Lives of the Bodhisa a.”

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
192
The instances, so far discussed, of foreign artistic pa erns
and iconographic elements domesticated in local Buddhist
visual arts and architecture are likely associated with the
spread of the Sinhalese Sāsanā widely in the area during the
14th century (see fi g. 31 for map of the important Buddhist
centers in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia at that time). During
that period, Martaban, closely linked with Sri Lanka, was the
key center of this Buddhist sect in Southeast Asia, from which
the religion spread elsewhere.
Such interpenetrations illuminate our understanding of
the cultural milieu in which the murals of the Sale temple 36
materialized. Obvious Sinhalese infl uence, probably freshly
introduced from Sri Lanka, observed in the murals could
refl ect their association with the Sinhalese fraternity, confi rm-
ing its 14th-century presence in central Burma, though in an
area dominated by the Arañ Buddhist tradition. The complex
diff usion that brought together the Khmer/Thai and Sri
Lankan artistic infl uences visible in the Sale 36 murals could
have originated in the Martaban area of Lower Burma, at that
time a headquarters of the Sinhalese ecclesiastic lineage in
Southeast Asia. Since historical records are silent regarding
Buddhist networks linking Lower Burma with Cambodia in
the 14th century,75 the inspiration from Khmer art observed
in Sale 36 murals could have been indirectly derived from
Thai examples, those modeled after the Khmer prototypes,
spreading to Martaban, along with religious contacts, perhaps
from central Thailand or the Sukhothai area.
Central Burma during the 14th century would have expe-
rienced less penetration of the new Sinhalese ecclesiastic
lineage, compared with lower Burma and the parts of Thai-
land mentioned. Contemporary epigraphic evidence is scarce
about the connection between Pagan and Sri Lanka during
the period of concern.76 This could have been due, at least
partly, to the continuous fl ourishing of the Arañ Buddhist
75 Sirisena, Sri Lanka and South-East Asia, chapter 4.
76 Tilman Frasch, “The Buddhist Connection.”

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 193
Figure 31 Map showing the Buddhist centers of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia during the 14th century.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
194
sect in the area from the late Pagan Period in the early 13th
century until the 16th century. The short popularity and
rarity in central Burma of the type of murals as found in Sale
36, showing strong Sri Lankan artistic infl uence and probably
associated with presence in the area of the Sinhalese ecclesi-
astic lineage, refl ected this historical moment quite well.
The author deeply thanks Senator U Aung Kyaing, Former Deputy Director General
of the Myanmar Department of Archaeology, for his guidance in the author’s fi eld-
work and his assistance in the reading and translation of the ink inscriptions on the
murals; Dr. Hiram W. Woodward, Jr., Dr. Nandana Chutiwongs, Dr. Lilian Handlin,
Dr. Tilman Frasch, and the anonymous reviewers for their critical comments and
valuable suggestions on earlier drafts of this article and who supplemented many
relevant references; Frank Gillespie for the English edition of earlier drafts of this
article; Kriangkrai Kerdsiri and Isarachai Buranaajjana for preparing the map
employed in the article; and Than Zaw and Suddan Wisudthiluck for their fi eld
assistance. The research was supported by the Thailand Research Fund (Grant
BRG5480016).
S P is a professor of anthropology in the Faculty of Sociology
and Anthropology, at Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand. He obtained his
PhD in physical anthropology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. His
current interests involve revealing the se lement and migration history of Southeast
Asian natives via DNA analyses and ethnological research on the Shan of Southern
China and Burma. His recent monograph, Shan State (Muang Tai): Ethnic Dynamism
in Historical and Contemporary Socio-Political Contexts (Bangkok: Sirindhorn Anthro-
pological Center, 2009), won the National Research Council of Thailand National
Award in 2011. Only recently, he has turned his personal interest in ancient Buddhist
art in Burma into an academic pursuit. His recent publications include: “After
Enlightenment: Scenes of the Buddha’s Retreat in the Thirteenth Century Murals at
Pagan,” Artibus Asiae 72, 2 (2012): 377–97; “The Pagan-Period and the Early-Thai
Buddhist Murals: Were They Related?” SUVANNABHUMI 6, 1 (2014): 27–65; and
“The Buddha’s Biography: Its Development in the Pagan Murals vs. the Later Ver-
nacular Literature, in the Theravādin Buddhist Context of Southeast Asia,” JRAS
(forthcoming). He can be reached at samerchai@hotmail.com.
Bibliography
Aiyappan, A. and P.R. Srinivasan. 1960. Story of Buddhism with
Special Reference to South India. Chennai: Government of
Madras.
Aung-Thwin, Michael A. 2005. The Mists of Rāmañña: the Legend that
was Lower Burma. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Ba Shin, Bohmu. 1962. The Lokahteikpan. Rangoon: The Burma His-
torical Commission.

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 195
Bailey, Jane Terry. 1986. “Some Burmese Paintings of the Seven-
teenth Century and Later (Part I: A Seventeenth-Century
Painting Style near Sagaing).” Artibus Asiae 38(1): 267–86.
Bandaranayake, Senake. 2006. The Rock and Wall Paintings of Sri
Lanka. Pannipitiya: Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd.
Bau e-Picron, Claudine. 2003. The Buddhist Murals of Pagan.
Bangkok: Orchid Press.
Chirapravati, Pa aratorn. 2008. “Illustrating the Lives of the
Bodhisa a at Wat Si Chum.” In Past Lives of the Buddha:
Wat Si Chum—Art, Architecture and Inscriptions, ed. Peter
Skilling. Bangkok: River Books.
Devendra, D.T. 1956. “An Unusual Hand Position in Ceylon Statu-
ary.” Artibus Asiae 19(2): 126–36.
Duroiselle, Charles. 1912–13. “Mongol Frescoes at Pagan.” A.S.I.-
A.R.: 146–8.
Frasch, Tilman. 1998. “A Buddhist Network in the Bay of Bengal:
Relations between Bodhgaya, Burma and Sri Lanka, c. 300–
1300.” In From the Mediterranean to the China Sea: Miscellaneous
Notes, ed. Claude Guillot, Denys Lombard, and Roderich
Ptak. Wiesbaden: Harrassowi Verlag.
____. 2001. “The Buddhist Connection: Sinhalese-Burmese Inter-
course in the Middle Ages.” In Explorations in the History of
South Asia, ed. Georg Berkemer, Tilman Frasch, Hermanh
Kulke, and Jurgen Lu . New Delhi: Manohar.
Green, Alexandra. 2005/2006. “Deep Change? Burmese Wall Paint-
ings from the Eleventh to the Nineteenth Centuries.” Journal
of Burma Studies 10: 1–50.
Griswold, Alexander B. 1975. Wat Pra Yun Reconsidered. Monograph
No. 4. Bangkok: The Siam Society.
Griswold, Alexander B. and Prasert na Nagara. 1972. “King Lödaiya
of Sukhodaya and His Contemporaries, Epigraphic and His-
torical Studies, No. 10.” Journal of the Siam Society 60(1): 21–152.
____. 1973. “The Epigraphy of Mahādharmarājā I of Sukhodaya,
Epigraphic and Historical Studies, No. 11, Pt. 2.” Journal of the
Siam Society 61(2): 91–128.
Gutman, Pamela. 2002. “A Burmese Origin of the Sukhothai Walking
Buddha.” In Burma: Art and Archaeology, ed. Alexandra Green
and T. Richard Blurton. Chicago, IL: Art Media Resources.
Guy, John. 1995. “A Dated Buddha of the Pagan Period.” In Indian
Art and Connoisseurship: Essays in Honor of Douglas Barre , ed.
John Guy. New Delhi: Mapin Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

SAMERCHAI POOLSUWAN
196
Hall, D.G.E. 1958. A History of South-East Asia. London: Macmillan.
Lieberman, Victor. 2007. Review article: “Excising the ‘Mon Para-
digm’ from Burmese Historiography.” Journal of Southeast
Asian Studies 38(2): 377–83.
Luce, Gordon H. 1969. Old Burma—Early Pagan, Vol. 1. New York:
J.J. Augustin Publisher.
Mahāmakutarājavidyālaya. 1982. Phra-sūtra Lae A hakathā Plœ¯ (A
Translation of the Su as and their Commentaries), Vols. 13, 40,
55. Bangkok: Mahāmakutarājavidyālaya Press.
Pe Maung Tin and Gordon H. Luce, trans. 1923. The Glass Palace
Chronicle of the Kings of Burma. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Photchanasunthorn, Phraya. 1925. Charuk Kanlayani. Bangkok:
Rongphim Sophonphipha anakorn.
Pichard, Pierre. 1991. The Pentagonal Monuments of Pagan. Bangkok:
White Lotus.
____. 1992. Inventory of Monuments at Pagan, Vol. 1. Paris: UNESCO.
____. 1995. Inventory of Monuments at Pagan, Vols. 5 & 6. Paris:
UNESCO.
____. 2000. Inventory of Monuments at Pagan, Vol. 7. Paris:
UNESCO.
____. 2001. Inventory of Monuments at Pagan, Vol. 8. Paris: UNESCO.
____. 2006. “Remarques sur le chapitre IX. [Aung-Thwin 2005] ‘The
Mon Paradigm and the Evolution of the Pagan Temple’.”
Aséanie 18: 203–6.
Poolsuwan, Samerchai. (Forthcoming). “Buddha’s Biography: Its
Development in the Pagan Murals vs. the Vernacular Litera-
ture in the Theravādin Buddhist Context of Southeast Asia.”
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
Prematilleke, L. 1966. “The Identity and Signifi cance of the Stand-
ing Figure at the Gal-vihāra, Polonnaruva, Ceylon.” Artibus
Asiae 18(1): 61–6.
Seth, Mira. 2006. Indian Painting: The Great Mural Tradition. Ahmed-
abad: Mapin Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Sirisena, W.M. 1978. Sri Lanka and South-east Asia: Political, Religious
and Cultural Relations from A.D. c. 1000 to c. 1500. Leiden: E.J.
Brill.
Skilling, Peter, ed. 2008. Past Lives of the Buddha, Wat Si Chum—Art,
Architecture and Inscriptions. Bangkok: River Books.
Skilling, Peter, Prapod Assavavirundhakarn, and Santi Pak-
deekham. 2008. “Part II, The Jātaka Engravings of Wat Si

Buddhist Murals Illustrating Unusual Features in Temple 36 197
Chum and Their Inscription.” In Past Lives of the Buddha, Wat
Si Chum—Art, Architecture and Inscriptions. Bangkok: River
Books.
Stadtner, Donald M. 2008. “The Mon of Lower Burma.” Journal of
the Siam Society 96: 193–215.
Stargardt, J. 1995. “The Oldest Known Pāli Texts, 5th–6th Century;
Results of the Cambridge Symposium on the Pyu Golden Pāli
Text from Sriksetra.” Journal of the Pali Text Society XXI (April):
199–213.
Strachan, Paul. 1989. Pagan, Art and Architecture of Old Burma. Arran,
Scotland: Kiscadale Publications.
Stra on, Carol. 2004. Buddhist Sculpture of Northern Thailand. Chiang
Mai: Silkworm Books.
Taw Sein Ko, trans. 1925. The Kalyānī Inscriptions Erected by King
Dhammaceti at Pegu in 1476 A.D., Translation. Bangkok:
Bangkok Times Press, Limited.
Than Tun. 1988a. “History of Burma 1300–1400.” In Essays of the
History and Buddhism of Burma, ed. Paul Strachan. Arran, Scot-
land: Kiscadale Publications.
____. 1988b. “Mahākassapa and His Tradition.” In Essays of the
History and Buddhism of Burma, ed. Paul Strachan. Arran, Scot-
land: Kiscadale Publications.
____. 1988c. “Religion in Burma 1000–1300.” In Essays of the History
and Buddhism of Burma, ed. Paul Strachan. Arran, Scotland:
Kiscadale Publications.
____. 1988d. “Religious Buildings of Burma 1000–1300.” In Essays
on the History and Buddhism of Burma, ed. Paul Strachan. Arran,
Scotland: Kiscadale Publications.
Tun Nyein. 1899. Inscriptions of Pagan, Pinya and Ava. Rangoon:
Superintendent, Government Printing.
Von Schroeder, Ulrich. 1990. Buddhist Sculptures of Sri Lanka. Hong
Kong: Visual Dhamma Publ.
____. 1992. The Golden Age of Sculpture in Sri Lanka. Hong Kong:
Visual Dhamma Publ.
Ward, William E. 1952. “Recently Discovered Mahiyangana Paint-
ings.” Artibus Asiae 15(1): 108–13.
Woodward, Hiram W., Jr. 1997. The Sacred Sculpture of Thailand.
Bangkok: River Books.
____. 2010. “Bronze Sculptures of Ancient Cambodia.” In Gods of
Angkor, ed. Louise Allison Cort and Paul Je . Chiang Mai:
Silkworm Books.