Urban and Regional Planning Review

Vol. 6, 2019 | 22

Research on the Spatial Structure of Outer City of Burmese Capital Cities

From an Analysis of Mandalay, the Last Royal City of Burma

Koji Yamada*

Abstract
Mandalay, which is the second largest city in Burma (Myanmar) today, was the last capital city
of the Kingdom of Burma. Mandalay was planned and built by King Mindon in the middle of the
nineteenth century. This research examines the chronological processes of Mandalay’s city
planning, based on the Royal Orders of Burma, and revealed the following characterizations of
Mandalay: 1) it was based on Buddha’s Prophecy; 2) it was intended to be a City of Buddhism;
and 3) it followed preceding city models. The characterizations above indicated that there had
been a city model unique to Burma, like the well known Ancient India and China models. The
research further examined this possible city model for Burma from four viewpoints: 1) structure;
2) orientation: 3) land use; and 4) size. Consequently, a city model unique to the capital cities in
Burma was proposed. One of the unique aspects of the Burmese city model is the eastward
orientation, which is seen neither in India nor China models.

Keywords: Mandalay, Yangon, Burma, Myanmar, King Mindon, Palace, Capital, City Model

1. Introduction
1.1 Background of Research
After a long period of rule under a military regime, Myanmar, the nation formerly known as
Burma, has been in a process of democratization since 2011, and is now becoming a focal point
of economic development in Asia. Under such circumstances, international donors, including the
Japan International Cooperation Agency, provide technical and financial assistance to Myanmar
for the purpose of improving infrastructure and enhancing urban planning practices.
While attention is focused on the major cities of Myanmar as targets for investment and
economic cooperation, little remains known about the physical features of the major cities in
Myanmar, or how they were planned and built.
This research focuses on Mandalay, the last royal city of the Kingdom of Burma. Mandalay is
a major city in Upper Burma, an inland part of Myanmar. Mandalay is located on the eastern bank
of the Irrawaddy River, which runs from north to south through a large part of Myanmar.
Mandalay was a royal city that housed the Royal Palace and the seat of the Burmese king when
it was built by King Mindon Min1 in the mid-nineteenth century. Its location is relative to its
predecessors, Ava (or Inva in Burmese) and Amarapura.

1.2. Overview of Capital Cities in Burma During Konbaung Dynasty

In Burma, kingdoms existed before British rule started in 1886, and each kingdom had its own
capital city where the king’s seat was set. The capital city was often relocated when a new king
would take the throne, so there have been a number of capital cities in Burma. In the following
the capital cities during the Konbaung Dynasty is reviewed. The Konbaung Dynasty was started
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
* Member of CPIJ, Chief Engineer (Planning) of Tamano Consultant Co., Ltd., Tokyo Branch Office.
Email: [email protected]

(c) 2019 City Planning Institute of Japan

http://dx.doi.org/10.14398/urpr.6.22
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 23

by King Alaungpaya2 in 1752, and was enhanced when it reunified Burma in 1759, and ruled it
until 1885 when Burma fell to the British. The Konbaung Dynasty was the last dynasty of Burma.

1.2.1 Shwebo and Sagain

The first capital of the kingdom for the Konbaung Dynasty was set at Shwebo in 1752. The
founder, Alaungpaya, then reunified the kingdom, and set the capital in Sagain in 1760. Both of
the capital cities were located in the vicinity of present day Mandalay.

1.2.2 Ava
In 1764, Ava, or Inva in Burmese, which had already served as the seat of the king several times
since fourteenth century, was rebuilt by King Hsinbyushin3 as the capital, and a new palace was
constructed (Fig. 1). Ava was also sometimes called Ratanapura, or the “City of Gems.”

1.2.3 Amarapura
In 1782, King Bodawpaya4 built a new capital, Amarapura (meaning “City of the Immortals”),
10 km northeast of Ava. The plan of Amarapura followed the immemorial usage of a capital city
in Burma, with a square site, a moat, and crenellated walls [O’Connor, 152] (Fig. 2). Amarapura
is “an enormous, perfectly square enclosure, with walls over a mile, surrounded by a wide moat
and then by numerous supporting towns and villages [Thant Myint-U, 54]”.

1.2.4 Alterations between Ava and Amarapura

Henceforward, the relocation of the capital city between Ava and Amarapura took place a few
times in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: Amarapura to Ava in 1821, and Ava to
Amarapura in 1842, where it remained the capital until the subsequent relocation to Mandalay.
The shift in 1821 from Amarapura to Ava was done by King Bagyidaw5. Crawfurd, who visited
Ava in 1826, observed that Ava had circumference of 5–6 miles [8.0–9.6 km] and was surrounded
by a brick rampart. He also noted that the northeast area was separated from the larger part of the
town by a brick wall, constituting a second town that contained the palace and public offices
[Crawfurd, 743]. Thus, Ava had two walls: an outer wall for the settlements and an inner wall for
the palace.
Before relocating to Mandalay, the center of Amarapura comprised a 1.6-km square-shaped
grand wooden palace [Kan Hla, (1978), 99]. Amarapura was the capital until Mandalay was newly
built in 1859. As will be discussed later, the plan of Amarapura and Mandalay resemble one
another. Henry Yule visited Amarapura in 1855 and observed that it was laid out as a square,
bounded by a defensive brick wall about 12–13 feet [3.7–4.0 m] high with a battlemented parapet.
He also noted that the four sides were each a little short of a mile in length, and that each side had
three gates and from 11 to 13 bastions [Yule, 132].

1.2.5 Shift to Mandalay

Mindon was born on 5 July 1814. In 1824, the first Anglo-Burmese war broke out. The British
side overwhelmed the Burmese, and Burma was forced to surrender the two coastal provinces of
Arakan (present day Rakhine) and Tenasserim (present day Thaninthayi). Since the second half
of 1851, the Anglo-Burmese relationship became more and more uneasy, and finally, in April
1852, the second Anglo-Burmese war was declared by the British. In December 1852, the British
proclaimed the annexation of the area along the coast of Burma between the two minor provinces,
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 24

Arakan and Tenesserin, and made it part of their territory in the East.
The British started the planning of the new capital city of Rangoon. The plan of Rangoon was
under the direction of Arthur Phayre, Commissioner of Pegu. The plan was completed in the early
part of 1853, and the building of the new city was started shortly afterwards [Yamada (2014)].
By the time Mindon took the throne in February 1853, the Burmese Kingdom had lost all parts
of its territory along the sea, and that the kingdom would be landlocked. Since some time after
the accession to the throne in 1853, King Mindon was thinking of moving the capital from
Amarapura to a new site, Mandalay, and he decided to do so in 1856.

Source: Kan Hla (1978), 94 Source: Kan Hla (1978), 94

Fig.1. Ava at the end of the 18th century Fig.2. Amarapura – plan of the Citadel in
1782

1.3 Previous Research

1.3.1 Planning of Mandalay and Burmese Capital Cities
Some of early twentieth century works regarding Mandalay described the origin of the urban
planning of Mandalay in connection with the ancient model of capital cities in Asia, which some
called the “Pan-Asiatic model.” Scott (1916) discussed that the planning of Mandalay was under
the influence of Chinese ideas, naming Peking as its model. Duroiselle (1925) followed this idea
and discussed more specifically that Mandalay was planned on the model of Khblai Khan’s capital
city of Peking built in 1264 [Duroiselle, 11].
Ohno (1983) discussed that Mandalay was designed basically on the same plan as the preceding
capitals of Ava and Amarapura. Ohno also mentioned that the construction of Mandalay was based
on a prophecy of Buddha that a great Buddhist capital would arise in the 2400th year after the
parinbbana (passing away) of Buddha [Ohno, 82]. Moore (1993) wrote that “features from most
of Myanmar’s known enclosed settlements could easily be cited as predecessors of Mandalay
such as Toungoo, Ava and Amarapura among others, without the need for Chinese prototypes”
[Moore (1993), 338].
Ishikawa (2014) looked into the allocation of urban functions supported by ethnic groups in the
outer cities of Mandalay and Amarapura, and concluded that Mandalay, which had been built on
the pattern of Amarapura, follows a structure common to Southeast Asian port cities
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 25

1.3.2 Ancient Asian City Models and Mandalay

(1) Ancient India and China Models
In the early part of the twentieth century, many researchers seemed to think that a common plan
of capital cities in Asia, which they called the “pan-Asiatic plan,” could be applied to most Asian
capital cities. Recently, however, two separate models for Asia have been proposed, namely, the
Ancient India and Ancient China models.
The Ancient India model traces back to Arthasastra, a book written between the second
ceentury B.C. and the fourth century A.D. that contains chapters on the making of the capital
(castle) city. Arthasastra’s capital city design, according to Kirk, is as follows. Ideally, the city is
of geometrical form, normally square, so as to allow the layout to conform to the cosmological
principles of urban planning. It is surrounded by a series of moats, fed by a perennial source of
water and containing crocodiles, and by an earthen rampart surmounted by brick-built parapets
and towers. On each side, it is recommended that three gates should be located, allowing three
royal roads to run east–west and three north–south, thereby dividing the interior of the city into
16 wards. The King’s Palace, with its internal courtyards, is to occupy the two north-central wards
[Kirk, 71].
The Ancient China model follows from the Rites of Zhou, which was probably compiled in the
third century B.C. The Rites of Zhou described capitals as being designed as squares, nine li in
length and having three gates on each side. Located in the very center is the Imperial Palace, with
an Imperial Ancestral Shrine on the left, an altar of land and grain on the right, the government
office in the front and the commercial district in the back [Ge Feng et al., 12].
Conceptual patterns of both the Ancient China and India models according to Ohji are shown
in Fig. 3 [Ohji, 213]. Both models are similar in that they have walls around the square castle,
with three gates on each side. However, there are at least two major differences between the two
models. One difference is that the Ancient India model has a concentric structure without a clear
distinction of orientation, while the Ancient China model has a central north–south belt structure,
with the supreme ruler facing the south. Most of capital cities affected by the Ancient China model
in China, Japan and Korea have a clear north–south orientation. The other difference is the central
facility: the Ancient India model has a religious facility, such as a temple, while the Ancient China
model has a palace.
(2) Relation of Burma with India and China
Funo (2006) pointed out that Mandalay is a city of Mandala, a symbol of the universe in
Hinduism and Buddhism. Indeed, some of the kings of Burma, such as Alaungpaya, Hsinbusin
and Bodawpaya identified themselves as cakravartin who ruled ethically and benevolently over
the entire world [Funo, xix–xx]. Thus it would be natural that knowledge and art in Burma,
including those for the planning and building of a city, had come from ancient India.
King Bodawpaya, who built Amarapura, was known to have diplomatic missions sent to China.
Thus it may not be surprising if some knowledge of capital city planning in Burma had also come
from China though the diplomatic exchanges.
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 26

Source: Ohji (2003), P.203, translated into English by the author.

Fig.3 The Ancient India (left) and Ancient China models (right) by Ohji
Fig.4 shows the areas in Asia under the influence of Ancient India and China models according
to Ohji [Ohji, 529]. This figure shows that Burma was under the influence of Ancient India model,
and the influence of Ancient China model stopped in Vietnam, but Ohji did not provide detail
discussion on the city model in the Southeast Asia.
Contrary to this, Funo, who did a variety of analyses regarding capital cities in Asia, including
those in Burma, discussed that Amarapura and Mandalay look to have realized the structure of
the Rites of Zhou almost exactly [Funo, xxi.]. Therefore, city model in Burma is not well
cultivated in theory, and there do not seem to be an agreement over the nature of Burmese capital
cities in comparison with the Ancient India and China models. Burma, which is located in an
intermediary zone between the two, mixing of ideas as well as transformation of models to adapt
to its region could have happened. A viewpoint such as discussed above has not been studied yet
in depth, and a research on the Burmese City Model will be helpful to fill this gap.

Note:
A1: Ancient India model and its influences
A2: Ancient China model and its influences
Source: Ohji, 529

Fig.4 Two Zones in Asia in View of

Capital City Models by Ohji
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 27

1.4 Research Objective

As mentioned earlier, there are two City Models known; the Ancient India model and Ancient
China model, whereas no specific mode has been proposed for Burma. This research looks in the
historical process of planning and building of Mandalay and other Burmese capital cities, and
discusses unique aspects of Burmese capital cities, including 1) structure; 2) size; 3) orientation;
and 4) land use. Based on these, a city model that might have been the base for Burmese capital
cities is discussed. Consequently, the city model of Burmese Capital City, which has similarity
and difference with the Ancient India and China models, is proposed for consideration.

1.5 Method
In this study, first the Royal Orders of Burma (ROB) by Than Tun (1983-1990), a translated
commentary regarding the Royal Orders of Burma in chronological order, are used to clarify the
historical processes of planning and building of Mandalay. Next, the spatial features of Mandalay
are analyzed using maps, drawings, and documents describing physical features of Mandala and
other Burmese capital cities. Based on these, this paper focuses on proposing a city model that
have provided a basis of the planning and building of Burmese capital cities, comparable to the
already known Ancient India and China models.

1.6 Primary and Supplementary Sources

This research is based on the following primary and supplementary sources. This research
utilizes the following supplementary sources, most of which are in English.
(1) Primary Source
Than Tun: The Than Tun (1983-90) is a 10-volume edited compilation of the Royal Orders of
the Kingdom of Burma from AD 1598 to 1885, with an introduction including notes and
summaries of each order by Dr. Than Tun. The planning of Mandalay is covered in Part Nine: AD
1853–1885.
(2) References Containing Some Primary Information
Oertel: The Oertel (1893) is based on his journey to Burma in March and April 1892 for the
purpose of making architectural and archaeological studies. This note was first published in
Rangoon in 1892 (or 1893), and contained precious information regarding Burmese architecture.
This note had long been missing from most bibliographies until a reprint was published in 1995.
This reference detailed spatial information on the King’s Palace and included the Plan of
Mandalay Palace prepared by British Intelligence as early as February 1887.
DAS: The DAS (1963), while owing most of the text to Duroiselle (1925), contains detailed
drawings of plans and elevations of then-existing buildings of Mandalay Palace made in 1908 by
DAS, which are an important source for determining the spatial structure of Mandalay.
Muray (1911): This publication was a handbook for travelers in India, Burma, and Ceylon, with
various geographical and social information. The fourth edition, published in 1911, contained a
color map of Mandalay, which is one of the oldest maps of Mandalay after its completion.
(3) References on Planning of Burmese Cities
Duroiselle: Charles Duroiselle was Superintendent of the Directorate of Archeological Survey
(DAS) of the Ministry of Union Culture of Burma in the early twentieth century, when he wrote
the “Guide to Mandalay Palace” (1925).
O’Connor: O’Connor (1907) wrote extensively about historical cities in Burma in “Mandalay and
Other Cities of the Past.” This book was widely read and referenced by researchers and authors
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 28

in later periods, and continues to be utilized today.

Damrong: Prince Damrong Rajanubhab HRH of Thailand, who was known as a distinguished
scholar and historian, paid a second visit to Burma in 1936 for nearly 4 weeks. Prince Damrong
wrote a note in Thai just after the journey that contained numerous descriptions of Mandalay at
the time of his visit. In 1991, an English translation was published. This reference provided spatial
information about the Royal Palace.
Kan Hla, (1978): Kan Hla, (1978) has an extensive review of historical capital cities of Burma
and various plans showing the structure of them.
(4) References on Burmese Architecture
Ma Thanegi, Moore (2000), Moilanen & Ozhegov, Myo Myint Sein: Thanegi (2005) contains
extensive review on Burmese historical architecture, including Mandalay, Amarapura and Ava.
Moore (2000) contains a review on the religious architecture and the palace in Burma. Moilanen
& Ozhegov has chapters on wooden structures, monasteries and palaces and various detail
drawings of them. Myo Myint Sein (2015) contains review on wooden buildings in Burma with
a focus on monasteries.

2. Planning and Building of Mandalay Recorded in ROB

This chapter provides analysis of the planning and building of Mandalay based mainly on the
Royal Orders of Burma (ROB).
Building of Mandalay took place roughly between 1856 and 1874: In September 1856, an
intimation was made for a new city, Mandalay. Then, in January 1857, a royal order to build
Mandalay was issued. The Royal Palace was completed in July 1858. The construction of the
outer city was ordered in April 1859, and was continued until 1876, when all the gates of the outer
city wall were finished. In this section, the actual process of planning and building Mandalay is
described in detail in chronological order based on various primary sources.

2.1 Chronological Process of the Planning and Building of Mandalay

The following is the sequence of events related to the planning and construction of Mandalay
as depicted in the Royal Orders of Burma (ROB6) from 1856 to 1876.

(1) King’s Expedition (7 Apr. 1856)

The Royal Order dated 7 April 1856 mentioned that the king [Mindon] was sending expeditions
and the territory of Mandalay, referred to as the Golden Chain Reserved Area, was set out. [ROB-
IX, 43].
(2) Intimation for Mandalay Approved (16 Sep. 1856)
An intimation dated 16 September 1856 said, “The king … follows all the good examples of
his ancestors because he wants to rule with benevolence.” It went on to mention, “There are the
Buddha’s prophesies … that in AB 2400 (AD 1856) Mandalay would become the Golden Capital
called Yadanabon and it would prosper beyond precedence; places around Mandalay are rich in
natural resources and it is necessary to get them for use in the king’s development schemes [ROB-
IX, 43]”.
(3) Order to Build a New Capital (13 Jan. 1857)
A royal order was issued on 13 January 1857 to select a proper site for the new city of Mandalay
and realize the Buddhahood, which said, “Prince Siddhartha7 has chosen a place good enough
for him to get the Buddhahood so it is appropriate for the king to get a site that would enhance
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 29

his future success, according to them the proper site is Mandalay where the ground level is even
and the water in the surrounding channels runs clockwise. Such a site is rare and it is certainly a
Jayabhumi - Land of Victory.” The royal order went on to say that in all the old records of
prophesies, phenomena, and stories of monuments, “by AB 2400 (AD 1856) Mandalay would
grow into a big capital city … where a Tuesday-born king would start a dynasty that would last
for many, many generations.” It concluded that this was also the place of a big and marvelous city,
thus, “Start building it in 1856 and complete the construction in 1859; the king would have the
benefits of glory, long life and victory. A new capital city and a new palace would bring prosperity
to both the Religion and the Kingdom [ROB-IX, 46–47]”.
(4) Aung Pinle and Nanda Reservoirs Repaired (2 Feb./12 Apr. 1857)
On 2 February 1857, the Aung Pinle and Nanda reservoirs were repaired [ROB-IX, 50].
(5) Boundary of New Capital Approved (28 Sep. 1857)
On 28th January 1857, a map showing the boundary limits of the Gold Chain Reserved Area
was submitted, and the limits were approved [ROB-IX, xvii].
(6) Jungle Cleared (1 Feb. 1857)
Then, a royal order dated 1 February 1857 said, “the site [of the new capital] must be cleared
of forest on 1 February 1857, as it is the auspicious day named by the Pandits [ROB-IX, 48–49.]”.
Thus, on this day, a jungle area encircled by Mandalay Hill on the north, earthwork north of
Mahamuni Pagoda to the south, the embankment of Aung Pinle Lake to the southeast, and the
Shwetachaung channel to the west was cleared by 2,000 workers.
(7) Plan of City Marked and Pegged (13 Feb. 1857)
The city, palace, and fortification plan, among others, were marked and pegged on 13 February
1857 [ROB-IX, xvii].
(8) A Temporary Palace Built (14 Mar. 1857)
On this day, the temporary palace, which was said to have been located at the northwestern
corner of the walled city, was built [ROB-IX, xvii].
(9) King Moved to New Palace (2 Jul. 1857)
A royal order dated 13 June 1857 said, “Pandits suggested that 2 July 1857 would be the best
day for the king to move to the new capital city [ROB-IX, 60]”. On this day, the king moved to
the new palace to supervise the construction.
(10) New Capital Area Divided (Aug. 1857)
In August 1857, date unknown, the new capital area was divided into residential and
commercial quarters [ROB-IX, xvii].
(11) Construction of Hlutdaw Started (2 Jul. 1857)
On 26 October 1857, the foundation work for the Primary Ministerial Council, Hlutdaw, was
started by bearing holes and erecting pillars.
(12) Date of Laying the Foundation of Capital Decided (1 Dec. 1857)
To establish a new capital city and palace would mean three things, as noted in a royal order
dated 1 December 1857: “the prosperity of the Buddha’s Religion, the well being of the subject
people and the abundance of all sustenance in life for everybody and this prosperity would
continue in all the generations to come.” [ROB-IX,60] It instructed to study the records “at the
time of making Ava capital city for the second time in 1763” and “when Amarapura was built in 1782”.
It continued, “The time of laying the foundation of the new capital city would be sometime on 4
December 1857; get the program drawn after having consulted the said records first [ROB-IXI,
60.]”.
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 30

(13) Palace Construction Finished (16 Jul. 1858)

On 16 July 1858, the construction of all the buildings in the Palace was finished including
Tooth Relic Tower and Clock Tower 8 just in front of the Eastern (Main) Gate to the palace. A
ceremonial “Palace Taking” was then performed [ROB-IX, xviii].
(14) Bringing Tooth Relics and Others in front of Procession (3 Feb. 1859)
An order was given on 3 February 1859 to bring the Buddha's Tooth and Bodily Relics, Gems, the
Buddha's images and other things right in front of the procession from the temporary palace to Golden
Palace in order to give the impression that the Buddha had moved into the new capital [ROB-IX, 93],
(15) Building Mandalay Outer City (27 Apr. 1859)
A royal order dated 28 April 1859, stated, “The Mandalay Golden Hill Area is considered to be
the best or right site for building a new capital city” and thus ordered to build the outer city of
Mandalay. The order also mentioned that there would be trees along the avenues and street lights
at night so that the city would be as magnificent as Mitthila and Cappilavatthu (cities in India of
the Buddha's lifetime). [ROB-IX, 106–107]”.
(16) Laying Foundation of Seven Monuments (23 May 1859)
The same order dated 28 April 1859 cited above mentioned the most important monuments of
the Capital city as: 1) city [wall]; 2) moat; 3) pagoda; 4) library; 5) hall; 6) monastery; and 7)
ordination hall. [ROB-IX, 106–107]. On 23 May 1859, foundation stones were laid at the seven
monuments mentioned above, and name plates were added to the 12 city gates [ROB-IX, xviii].
(17) Kandy Tooth (Replica) Enshrined (7 Mar. 1860)
On 7 March 1860, a replica of the Tooth Relic of Kandy was enshrined in the Lokamarajina
pagoda, and one Bodhi tree was planted in the south of the city (near the present University of
Mandalay) [ROB-IX, xix].
(18) Shwe Laung Channel Improved (26 Apr. 1863)
The Shwe Laung channel, which had been built by Bodawpaya in the late eighteenth century, was
improved and renamed the Yadana Nadi [ROB-IX, xxi].
(19) Ceremony for New Capital (6 June 1874)
A ceremony for the new capital, “Taking the Capital” was held to commemorate the completion
of the new capital on 6 June 1874 [ROB-IX, xiv].
(20) Gates of City Wall Finished (Apr. 1876)
In April 1876, Mandalay was extended to the west of the Shewetachaung stream, and all 57
gates of the outer city wall were finished [ROB-IX, xiv].

2.2 Characterization of Mandalay as Depicted in ROB

The descriptions about the planning and building of Mandalay depicted in ROB as summarized
in the previous section lead to the basic characterization of Mandalay as follows: 1) Mandalay
was based on Buddha’s Prophecy; 2) Mandalay was intended to be a City of Buddhism; and 3)
Mandalay followed preceding city models. In this section, each of the three of the
characterizations above will be envisaged in depth, using some of references on each of the
specific topics.
(1) Mandalay was based on Buddha’s Prophecy
The royal order mentioned the Buddha’s prophecies that in AB2400 Mandalay would become
the Golden Capital called Yadanabon, and it would prosper beyond precedence (dated 16
September 1856). The prophecies also said that a Tuesday-born king would start a dynasty that
would last for many generations (dated 13 January 1857). These prophecies were well known to
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 31

the Burmese court, and King Mindon put himself in the figure of the king to build this new city,
as he, himself was a Tuesday-born king. The year in which this new capital would be built,
AB2400, was to be built into the design of Mandalay as the length of the periphery of the walled
city, as will be discussed in Sub-section 3.4.2.
(2) Mandalay was intended to be a City of Buddhism
Mandalay was intended from the outset for Buddhahood and a site was believed to have been
selected by Prince Siddharta, a legendary figure who was thought to become Buddha (dated 13
January 1857). When the Palace was finished, a procession to enter the new Palace accompanied
the Buddha’s Tooth Relics and Bodily Relics as well as Buddha’s image (dated 3 February 1859).
Thus Mandalay was intended to be a City of Buddhism.
(3) Mandalay followed preceding city models
The third of the characterizations of Mandalay as depicted in ROB is that Mandalay possibly
followed preceding city models in Burma at the time of building Mandalay.
In drawing a program for the new capital, the king instructed to study the two preceding
occasions in detail; at the time of making Ava capital city for the second time in 1763 and when
Amarapura was built in 1782 (1 December 1857). It is worth noting that Amarapura was the capital
when King Mindon moved the capital to Mandalay, and Ava was the capital when King Bodawpaya
moved it to Amarapura. Amarapura and Ava were the two immediately preceding capitals before
Mandalay.
If preceding capital cities such as Amarapura and Ava provided some kind of guidance to the
planning and building of Mandalay, what would be specific features of the guidance? ROB did not say
much about this.
In the middle of the eighteenth century, King Alaungpaya (r. 1752 – 1760) wanted to know “how
ancient capitals were founded and what the king is supposed to do at the beginning of a reign”. There
was a record of this incident in ROB on 3 November 1755. Taking an ancient city of Rajagaha9 in
India for an example, King was advised of the following suggestions: 1) astrological considerations
came first; 2) mantras were very important and were recited at all strategic points and written in word
or in symbols on walls, ceilings gates, etc.; 3) figures of various gods including Genesa, Visnu, Asura
etc. were painted on the doors; and 4) the city was built that it was a miniature universe and the clock
tower would be in the cetre of the city as Mt. Meru is in the centre of universe (ROB-III, 9).
It is noteworthy that how the capitals be made was explained to the king by using the example of
an ancient Indian capital city, and the cosmology of the universe was taken into consideration of the
capital city and the clock tower (Pyat-that) in the center of the city is seen as Mt. Meru of the universe.
It is clearly seen that Burmese city model, if existed, was under influence of India rather than China.

3. Spatial Features of Mandalay Royal City in Comparison with Preceding Models

In this Chapter, four aspects of the physical feature of the Royal City of Mandalay will be
considered. The four aspects include 1) structure; 2) orientation; 3) land use and 4) size.

3.1 Spatial Structure

3.1.1 Spatial Structure of Mandalay10
In Burmese, a castle is called myo, and Royal City, or the walled capital city of the kingdom,
is called myo-daw. A Royal City has an enclosed compound for the king and the court of the
kingdom, which is called Royal Palace (nan-daw in Burmese). In the case of Mandalay and
Amarapura, further enclosure called Palace Enclosure existed which segregated the core of the
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 32

Palace buildings. Thus the Royal City was enclosed by three walls.
In the Case of Mandalay, outside of the Royal City extends an outer city, which was again
enclosed by the outer wall. This research focuses on the Royal City and the space inside of it.
(1) Royal City
The Royal City of Mandalay in the early twentieth century is shown in Fig. 5. There were 12
gates in the fort wall of the Royal City, three on each side, equally spaced [Oertel, 11]. Surrounding
the walls of the Royal City is a moat 225 feet (68.6 m) broad and of an average depth of 11 feet (3.4
m) [Duroiselle, 22]. The moat could be crossed on five wooden bridges, namely, one in the middle
of each side and an extra one on the southwest which was formally reserved for funeral
processions [Oertel, 12]. There are 11 bastions on each side plus the one at each of the corners
(total of 48 on the perimeter), dividing the Royal Palace into 12 sub-blocks East West; and 12
sub-blocks North-South, thus making in total 144 sub-blocks (Fig. 7). There are three major east–
west and three north–south roads.
(2) Royal Palace
In the center of the Royal City was the Royal Palace, which was walled once again for enclosure
and security. The Royal Palace occupied 16 of the 144 sub-blocks of the Royal City, with an area
of 45 ha [Ohno, 93]. Oertel published a plan of the Royal Palace which was originally prepared
by the British Intelligence Branch Office in 1887 just after the occupation of the fort, and was
provided to Oertel when he visited Mandalay in 1892.
Oertel explained that the plan exhibited a square fortified enclosure, defended by an outer
palisade of teak posts 20 feet (6.1 m) high and an inner brick wall, with an open esplanade about
60 feet (18.3 m) wide running all round between them [Oertel, 12].
It is important to note that the mausoleum of King Mindon and the Royal Monastery, two of
the important facilities in the Royal City, were located inside the palace closure near the eastern
gate.
(3) Palace Enclosure and Platform
In the center of the Royal Palace was what was called the Palace Enclosure. To the north and
south of the Palace Enclosure were two large walled-in gardens containing royal pavilions, and
laid out with canals, artificial lakes, and grottoes (Fig. 6).
In the large outer court between Palace Enclosure and the east gate, a number of subsidiary
buildings were located, such as the armory, printing press, the mint, a post office, servants’ and
guards’ quarters, the Royal Monastery, King Mindon’s Mausoleum, and the houses of a few of
the highest officials [Oertel, 12].
In the center of the Palace Enclosure was an elevated Platform, some 8–10 feet (2.4 – 3.0m)
high on which a number of Palace buildings were built. On the eastern front of the Platform was
the Great Audience Hall, which was connected in the back to the King’s private quarters. Visitors
to the private quarters had to go through two strictly guarded gates on both sides of the Hall
[Oertel, 12]. The other was the Rear Audience Hall at the western end of the Platform, where
ladies were received. These two audience halls were placed on a clear east–west axis, along which
a number of pavilions were built.
The highest and most prominent pavilion in the Palace Enclosure was Shwepyathat, the seven-
story gilded spire, which stood over the Lion Throne. The Burmese people used to call this “The
Centre of the Universe [Oertel, 13]”.
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 33

Royal Palace
Royal
City

Source: Muray (1911). This

map shows the whole part of
the Royal City with the Royal
Palace enclosure and the
buildings on the platform in the
center.

Fig.5 Royal City (myo-

daw) of Mandalay

1. Reception Halls, 2. Lion Throne and

Royal Palace
Great Pyatthat, 3. Victory Hall with the
Goose Throne, 4. Elephant Throne, 5.
Palace Enclosure Crown Hall with the Conch Throne, 6.
Glass Palace and the Bee Throne, 7.
Residence of the Chief Queen, 8. Hall
of Royal Arms, 9. Treasury, 10.
Peacock Throne, 11. Stable of the
White Elephant, 12. King Thibaw's
Platform Private Apartments, 13. Deer Throne,
14. Hall with a Fountain, 15. Platform
for Monks, Crowned withPyatthat,16.
Watch Tower, 17. Residences for
Queens and Concubines, 18. Southern
Palace and Theatre Drawing Room, 19.
Theatres, 20. Chief Queen's Audience
Halls and Lily Throne Hall, 21. Mint,
22. Tomb of King Minden and his Four
Queens, 23. Clock(or Drum) Tower,
24. Tooth-Relic Tower, 25. Supreme
Court, 26. Royal Monastery, 27.
Armory, 28. Royal Pagoda, 29. Stables
and Elephant Sheds, 30. Royal
Carriage Sheds, 31. Soldier's Barracks,
32. Servants' houses, 33. Gardens, 34.
Garden Palace, 35. Water Palace,36.
SwimmingBath, 37. Brick Wall, 38.
Teak Stockade, 39. Ceremonial Water
Gate, 40. Main Eastern Gate

The drawing was made by Sergey S.

Ozhegov based on the study completed
by the English military administralion
in 1887.

Fig. 6 Royal Palace (nan-

daw) of Mandalay
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 34

3.1.2 Comparison with Other Burmese Cities

Several references point out that Mandalay resembles some of the historical capital cities of
Burma, such as Amarapura and Ava.
O’Connor wrote about the planning of Mandalay: “The greatest care was taken to follow the
traditional plan of the older capitals of the country; and it is in this perpetuation of an ancient
tradition that the true architectural interest of Mandalay resides [O’Connor, 6]”.
From the physical features, it can be said that the plan of Mandalay had a clear similarity with
that of Amarapura. Both plans have a square Royal City surrounded by a wall and moat, and each
side of the square has three main roads running north–south and three running east–west, dividing
the Royal City into 16 (i.e., 4  4) blocks. Each block further divides into nine (i.e., 3  3) sub-
blocks. The Royal Palace is in the center of the Royal City in both plans. Thus, the plans of
Mandalay and Amarapura were almost identical (Figs. 7 and 8). It can be seen that the spatial
structure of Mandala and Amarapura is quite similar to each other.

Source: Plan displayed

in Mandalay Palace Museum Source: Symes (1800), P.124.

Fig. 7 Plan of Mandalay’s Royal City Fig. 8 Plan of Amarapura in 1795

3.2 Orientation11
3.2.1 Orientation of Mandalay Royal City
The main gate to the Palace in Mandalay is on the eastern side. Oertel wrote, “Of the four gates
to the King’s Palace, the main entrance was through the eastern gate [Oertel, 12]”. The entire
Royal Palace was designed to face the east. When one entered the Royal Palace, directly in front
would be the Great Audience Hall and the Lion Throne in the back of it, over which the tallest
structure, the seven-tiered Pyathat Tha, rose. O’Connor wrote, “From his throne in the Great Hall
of Audience, the King of Burma, as he looked down upon his assembled people, could see the
long white road which leads like an arrow to the East gate and out beyond, towards the blue Shan
Mountains and the rising sun [in the east] [O’Connor, 30]”.
To verify the eastern orientation, the elevation drawings made by DAS in 1908 of the then-
existing Palace buildings were investigated. The eastern elevation showed a grand symmetric
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 35

profile of the Palace buildings; however, by contrast, the northern elevation was asymmetric, as
shown in Fig. 9.
The road leading from the East Gate of Royal Palace of Mandalay to the east towards the Shan
Mountains is one of the present day main streets of Mandalay, the 19th Street. These confirm that
the entire Royal City as well as the buildings inside the Royal Palace were designed to face the
east.

Source: DAS (1963) Plates 13, 14

Fig.9 Grand and symmetric eastern elevation (upper) and asymmetric northern elevation
(lower) of the Royal Palace of Mandalay in 1908

3.2.2 Comparison with Other Burmese Cities

(1) Amarapura
Henry Yule, who visited Amarapura in 1855, wrote, “Entering the inner brick wall from the
east, you find yourself in front of the Mye-min or Earthen Palace (as it is called from having a
clay floor), the principal Hall of Audience.” Yule further observed: “The central part of the
building runs back to a depth of sixty or seventy feet [21-24 m], and at the extremity of this is the
throne. Just over the throne rises a graceful phja-sath or wooden spire [Yule, 133]”. The alignment
of the main buildings, including the Hall of Audience, as well as the wooden spire above the main
throne, was almost the same as that in Mandalay (Fig. 10). From this, it is clear that Amarapura
also faced the east.
(2) Ava
Crawfurd, who was sent to Ava in 1826, observed that the principal front of the Palace was the
eastern side, and in this direction, there were three gates. The main gate was the one in the center
of the three gates on the eastern side. The alignment of the major buildings in Ava was thought to
be similar to those of Amarapura and Mandalay, and the Palace was also considered to be facing
the east (Fig. 11).
(3) Other Capital Cities
Aung-Thwin pointed out that eastward orientation was “the cosmic symbolism of the Upper
Myanmar capital cities [Aung-Thwin (1987), 135].” Oka wrote that an eastward orientation is
widely seen in castle cities in Southeast Asia [Oka, 348–356].
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 36

Note: (1) Audience Halls (2)

Pyathat Tha (3) Main entrance
to Palace

Source: Moilanen, 145,

drawing by S. S. Ozhegov.

Fig.10 Plan of Royal

Palace in Amarapura at
the end of the
Eighteenth Century

Note: (1) Royal palace with the watch-

tower in the center of the citadel (2)
Okkyaung monastery (3) Eastern main
gate

Source: Excerpt from Kan Hla (1978),

95

Fig.11 Royal City of Ava in Mid-

Nineteenth Century (Excerpt)

3.3 Land Use

3.3.1 Land Use of Mandalay Royal City
ROB mentioned the new capital area was to be divided in residential and commercial quarters
in August 1857. As the order to build the outer city was yet to come in 1859, the division
mentioned above must have been for the Royal City. This order by the king leads to a thinking
that there was some kind of land use control in the Royal City of Mandalay.
Funo showed data of land use in Mandalay Royal City over about 25 sub-categories over the
12x12 sub-blocks [Funo, 167 (Fig. I-4-39)]. The author compiled a land use map of Mandalay
Royal City based on the data of Funo. In order to simplify the land use sub-categories, the author
classified the land use into three major land use categories, i.e.1) Court; 2) Residential and 3)
Utility, which contains sub-categories as noted below:

1) Court: Minister; Mayor; Secretary, Ambassador, Interpreter, Serviceperson

2) Residential
 Royal Family: King’s Mother, Prince, Princess, Relatives
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 37

 Officer: Officer, Regional Officer

 Religion: Pagoda, Monastery
3) Utility: Doctor, Pharmacist, Hospital, Rice Granary, Warehouse, Factory, Landry, Labor,
Guard, Barack

Fig. 12 (Left) shows the land use in Mandalay Royal City thus recompiled with five (5) land
use sub-categories. It is clear that land use for the Court, or secretarial functions of the kingdom,
occupies the sub-blocks immediately outside of the Royal Palace in the center as well as in the
area between the Palace and the East Gate. On the other hand, the land use for Utility tends to
occupy the outermost subblocks in all directions. The land use for Residential occupies the area
between the above mentioned two land use categories.

3.3.2 Comparison with Other Burmese Cities

For Amarapura, similar data of land use in the Royal City is available [Funo, 160 (Fig. I-4-
32)]. Fig. 12 (Right) shows the land use in Royal Cities of Mandalay and Amarapura thus
compiled with five (5) land use sub-categories as mentioned above. A similar concentric pattern
of land use can be seen here.
For Burmese Capital Cities other than Mandalay and Amarapura, data of land use are not
immediately available for analysis.

Source: Original data of land use and a base map by Jun Source: Original data of land use and a base map by Jun
Hirotomi and Nawit Ongsa Vangchai (Funo, 167 (Fig. I- Hirotomi and Nawit Ongsa Vangchai (Funo, 160 (Fig. I-
4-39). Classification and visualization by the author. 4-32). Classification and visualization by the author.

Fig.12 Land Use in the Royal City of Mandalay (Left) and Amarapura (Right)
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 38

3.4 Size of the Royal City

Despite the similarity in the structure, orientation and the land use of the Royal Cities of
Mandalay and Amarapura, there is a notable difference in the two: the size of them.

3.4.1 Burmese Traditional Measurement Units

Royal City of Mandalay measures about 1 mile and a quarter (2 km) on the side of the square
inside of the wall, whereas most of other Burmese capital cities, including Amarapura, measures
1 mile (1.6 km) or less. It should be noted that, when the Burmese royal cities were built, the
measurement units used were not the English system (mile, yard, feet etc.) nor the metric system.
The Burmese are known to have their own traditional measurement units such as ta and taung,
and for the design of a city, the length unit of ta was normally used. Thus the discussion of the
size of the Royal Cities ought be done in the traditional units.
The conversion of the Burmese traditional units to the metric system does not have a fixed one,
and there is a wide range of conflicting schemes. For the length of ta, there have been several
conversions schemes from around 3.2 meters to around 3.4 meters per 1 ta. The author revealed
that there is a stone inscription on which the scale of 1 taung is engraved, and based on the actual
measurement on site, the length of 1 ta was calculated12. The length of 1 ta was found to be
between 3.36 and 3.40 m, thus this paper uses 1 ta = 3.38 m on an average of the range.

3.4.2 Size of Royal Cities of Mandalay and Amarapura

The only major difference between the plans of Mandalay and Amarapura looked to be their
size. Using satellite photos of the two cities taken recently, as shown in Fig. 13, the length of the
sides of the square of Mandalay and Amarapura was measured. The results are shown in Table 1.
Length (Ln)
Length (Ln)

Length (Le)
Length (Lw)
Length (Le)
Length (Lw)

Length (Ls)
Length (Ls)

Source: Map by Google, Image by DigitalGlobe Source: Map by Google, Image by DigitalGlobe

Fig.13.Measurement of Mandalay (Left) and Amarapura (Right) from 2018 Satellite Photos
Table 1. Measurement of Royal Cities of Mandalay and Amarapura
Side Mandalay Amarapura
m ta m ta
North side (Ln) 2,041 603.8 1,602 474.0
East side (Le) 2,045 605.0 1,596 472.1
South side (Ls) 2,043 604.4 1,600 473.4
West side (Lw) 2,043 604.4 1,610 476.3
Average 2,043 604.4 1,604 474.6
Source: Author
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 39

It can be seen from Table 1 that average length of the side of the square of Mandalay is a little
more than 600 ta, while that of Amarapura is a little less than 480 ta. While the size of Amarapura
was more or less the size of the historical capital cities in Burma, that of Mandalay was
substantially enlarged in size. An observation could be made that the size of the Royal City of
Mandalay was decided to match with the Buddha’s Prophecy in a way that the periphery of Royal
City would be 2,400 ta. This could be achieved by applying an enlargement factor of 1.25 to
Amarapura, as shown schematically in Fig. 14.

Source: Author
Fig.14. Enlargement of Royal City of Amarapura to Derive that of Mandalay

4. Spatial Features of Mandalay Royal City in Comparison with Preceding Models

4.1. Enumeration of Burmese City Model
In the analysis given in the previous chapter, the Burmese Capital Cities such as Mandalay and
Amarapura had a square shaped walled city with three gates on each side, thus dividing the Royal
City in 16 blocks. The Royal City is surrounded by a moat and in the center is the Royal Palace,
where the king resided. The eastward orientation of the palace and the royal city is found to be a
unique feature common to several Burmese capital cities. The land use was found to follow
concentric zone pattern similar to the Ancient India model.
All of these features could be put together in the form of a city model applicable to Mandalay
and possibly to other Burmese Capital Cities is proposed in this research, as shown in Fig. 15.

4.2. Comparison of Burmese City Model with Ancient India and China Models
The proposed City Model of Burma, derived through an analysis of Mandalay and other
Burmese capital cities, has similarities and differences to the Ancient India and China models. A
comparison was made in each of the characteristics of the City Model of Burma as well as those
of Ancient India and China Models after Ohji, as shown in Table 2.
City Model of Burma has similarities with the India and China models in the square shape,
three gates on each side, and 16 blocks composition. Similarity between Burma and India
models is the concentric linear belts seen in the land use pattern, with the court administration
function arranged in the inner belt. Similarity between Burma and China models is the non-
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 40

isotropic structure with a clear sense of orientation, and the central facility being the palace, not
a temple. But the while the China model shows strong southern orientation in the main axis of the
palace and city, the proposed Burma model shows eastern orientation, which is considered unique
to Burma.

Legend

Source: the author.

Fig.15 Proposed model for the

Royal City in Burma

Table 2 Comparison of India, China and Burma models

Item Ancient India Burma Ancient China
Basic Plan Concentric linear belts Concentric linear belts North-south linear belts
Isotropic Non-isotropic Non-isotropic
(Eastward axix) (Southward axis)
Shape Square Square; with a Moat Square
Three gates on each Three gates on each side Three gates on each side
side
Sixteen blocks Sixteen blocks Sixteen blocks
Central facility Temple Palace Palace
Religious Included in the temple Mausoleum on the left Mausoleum on the left
facility in the center (North); (East);
Shrine on the right (South) Shrine on the right (West)
Administration Court in inner belt; Court in inner belt; Court in the front belt;
and Commerce Commerce in outer belt Commerce in the back
belt
Residence Outer belt Intermediate belt East/West ends
Source: Ancient India and China models due to [Ohji, 89; Table 1] (translated by the author); For Burma by the author.
Note: Underlined words show similar entries.

5. Conclusion
In this research, the process of the planning and construction of the city of Mandalay was
examined chronologically based on the Royal Orders of Burma, Consequently, the planning of
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 41

Mandalay was found to be characterized as the following; 1) it was based on Buddha’s Prophecy;
2) it was intended to be a City of Buddhism; and 3) it followed preceding city models. These
indicate that Mandalay might have followed a preceding city model commonly known in Burma.
This City Model of Burma was analyzed in depth in terms of structure, orientation, land use and
size of the capital cities. It was found that the city model based on which the planning of Mandalay
was carried out, which could be called as City Model of Burma, was proposed. This city model
had both similarities and differences with the Ancient India and China models, but it may be closer
to the Ancient India model, as the both had concentric land use pattern.
One unique aspect of Burma Model is the eastward orientation of the Royal City and Palace.
Eastward orientation is also seen in architecture other than that of the Royal Palace. The
monasteries in many cases face the east. Myo Myint Sein wrote, “Monasteries in the Konbaung
Dynasty normally had the main gate in the east, which was reserved for the King and his family,
priests and high officials. The building stretched towards the west with entrances for the public
either on the northern or southern side. After entering the East Gate, one can climb the staircase
to the floor of the elevated platform, and after passing through an engraved gate was a hall called
Py-athat, under which the Statue of Buddha is enshrined [Myo Myint Sein, 11]”. Qingxi Lou
mentioned that in Theravada Buddhism, the main building in the temple is made to face the east,
and so does the Statue of Buddha. He mentioned that this eastward orientation of Buddhism
architecture is seen in not only in Burma, but also in Thailand as well as some part of Yunnan
Province of PRC [Qingxi Lou, 78]. This final point would indicate that the eastward orientation
of Buddhism buildings may not be limited to Burma, but may extend to the neighboring countries
where the Theravada Buddhism is practiced.
Tharavada Buddhism, which came to Burma during the Bagan Dynasty, focuses more on the
teachings of Gautama Buddha and meditation for self-awareness while Mahayana has more
mystic and ritualistic aspects to it. [Ma Thanegi, 185]. Than Thun pointed out that a temple with
an eastern gate is taken as the one for the teaching of the Buddha to save people from the miseries
of life, because “Buddha sits facing east and a monk disciple or a lay devotee have to go from
east to west [Than Tun (1989), 106]”. He also mentioned that this comes from the fact that “on
the moment of the Enlightenment the Buddha Gotama sat under the Bodhi tree facing east [Than
Tun (1989), 106].” This would indicate that the eastward orientation is related to Theravada
Buddhism’s teaching.
The applicability of the proposed City Model of Burma thus may not be limited to the boundary
of Burma (Myanmar), as the Theravada Buddhism has been practiced in wider region than Burma.
The proposed Burma Model will have to be tested in wider regional context.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for the opportunity
given to the author in regard to “The Master Plan for Greater Yangon” and follow-up projects.

REFERENCES
1) Aung-Thwin, Michael (1987), "Heaven, earth, and the supernatural world: dimensions of the
exemplary center in Burmese history" in B. L. Smith and H. B. Reynolds (ed.), The city as sacred
centre. Leiden: Brill, 88-102.
2) Aung-Thwin, Michael (2013), et.al. A History of Myanmar since Ancient Times, 2nd Ed.
London, 2013.
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 42

3) Crawfurd, John (1827), Journal of an Embassy from the Governor-General of India to the
Court of Ava, Reprint in SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2005, Pp636-959.
4) Duroiselle, Charles, (1925), Guide to the Mandalay Palace, Rangoon. (Second Edition,
Culcutta, in 1931).
5) Directorate of Archeological Survey (DAS) of Ministry of Union Culture of Burma (1963),
The Mandalay Palace.
6) Foucar E.C.V. (1963), Mandalay the Golden, London.
7) Funo S. (2006), The City as Mandala - Spatial Formation and Transformation of Hindu Cities,
Kyoto Univ. Press. [in Japanese]
8) Fytch, Albert (1878), Burma Past and Present (Vol.1), London.
9) Fitch, Ralph, "The Voyage of Mr. Ralph Fitch", in J. Pinkerton (ed.) A General Collection of the
Best and Most Interesting Voyages and Travels, 17 vols., London, 1811, IX, 416-417.
10) Ge Feng el at. (2015), Traditional Chinese Rites and Rituals, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
11) Heine-Geldern R. (1963), Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia, Dept. of
Asian Studies, Cornell Univ.
12) Ishikawa, K. (2014), The foreign presence in Mandalay during the Konbaung Period: A
review of the urban area. Journal of Sophia Asian Studies, No. 32, pp.113– 128.
13) Kan Hla, (1977), Pagan: Development and Town Planning, Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 15-29, University of California Press
14) Kan Hla, (1978) Traditional Town Planning in Burma, Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 92-104, University of California Press
15) Kirk, W (1979). Town and Country Planning in Ancient India According to Kautilya’s
Arthasastra, Scottish Geographical Magazine, Vol. 94, No. 2, Pp. 67 - 75.
16) Ma Thanegi, et al. (2005), Myanmar Architecture - Cities of Gold, Singapore.
17) Mandalay Palace Museum. Pamphlet entitled “Mya Nan San Kyaw Shwe Nan Daw – The
Royal Palace”, available at the Mandalay Palace Museum.
18) Maung Maung Tin, Wundauk (1967) Vol. 1; Vol.2; (1968) Vol.3, Konbaungzet Maha
Yaqawindawgyi, Vols. 1-3, Rangoon: Ledi Mandain. [Burmese]
19) Maung Maung Tin and Morris, T. O. (1966), Mindon Min’s Development Plan for the
Mandalay Area, Journal of Burm, aa Research Society, XLIX-i, Pp. 29-34.
20) Moilanen, I. & Ozhegov, S. S. (1999), Mirrored in Wood – Burmese Art and Architecture,
White Lotus.
21) Moore, E. (1993), The Reconstruction of Mandalay Palace: An Interim Report on Aspect of
Design, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Univ. of London, Vol. 56, No. 2,
pp.335-350.
22) Moore, E. (2000), The Religious Architecture, in Falconer J., Moore E. et al., Burmese Design
and Architecture, Periplus Editions (HK) Ltd., pp.21-58.
23) Muray, John (1911), A Handbook for Travellers in India, Burma and Ceylon, 4th Edition,
London.
24) Myo Myint (2012), Conflicting Colonialism: King Mindon’s Strategy for Defending
Independence, 1853 - 1878, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Burma.
25) Myo Myint Sein (2015), Preliminary Research on Wooden Architecture in Konbaung
Dynasty (1752-1885) in Myanmar, Proceedings of Seminar on "Traditional Wooden Buildings in
Myanmar" held on 13 Feb. 2015 by National Research Institute of Cultural Properties, Tokyo.
26) O’Connor V. C. S. (1907.), Mandalay and Other Cities of the Past in Burma, London.
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 43

27) Oertel F. O (1893)., None on a Tour in Burma in March and April 1892, Rangoon (Reprint
by White Orchid Press, Bangkok in 1995).
28) Ohno, T. (1983), Mandalay, the Royal City of Burma, Tonan Ajia Kenkyu (Southeast Asian
Studies), Vol. 21 No. 6 (June 1983), Pp.82-96. [Japanese]
29) Oka, C. (1976), Cosmologic Structure of Castle City – Castle Cities in India, Southeast Asia
and China, in Ueda, M. (ed), Castle City, Shakai-shisou sha (publisher) [in Japanese].
30) Ohji, T. (2003), Castle City in Asia and its Cosmology, in Funo, S. (ed), History of Urban
and Architecture [in Japanese].
31) Qingxi Lou (2001), translated to Japanese by Teruo Shou, Chinese Traditional Architecture.
32) Phayre, P. A. (1884), History of Burma, Trubner & Co., London.
33) Prince Damrong Rajanubhab (1991), Journey through Burma in 1936 [translated by Kennon
Breazeale; edited by Narisa Chakrabongse], River Books, Bangkok, 1991
34) Reid, Anthony (1988), Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, Vol.2 Expansion and Crisis,
Yale University Press.
35) Scott G. (1900), Gazetteer of Upper Burma and the Shan States, Govt. Print. Burma (Reprint
by AMS Press New York, 1983)
36) Scott, G. (1916), Note on Town-planning, Appendix; Report of the Suburban Development
Committee, Rangoon.
37) Symes, Michael (1800), An account of an embassy to the Kingdom of Ava, sent by the
Governor-General of India, in the year 1795, London. Reprint by Gregg International 1969.
38) Thant Myint-U (2004), The Making of Modern Burma, Cambridge Univ. Press.
39) Than Tun (1989), The Royal Orders of Burma, A.D. 1853 - 1885, Part Nine A.D 1853 - 1885,
The Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) of Kyoto University.
40) Than Tun (1998), A Bagan Temple’s Main Gate: Is there any significance when it opens in
any other direction except east?, Myanmar Historical Research Journal, No. 2 Pp106-108.
41) Yamada, K. (2013), A Study on the Origins of City Planning of Yangon (Formerly
“Rangoon”), Myanmar, During the British Rule, Proceedings of Historical Studies in Civil
Engineering, JSCE, June 2013. [in Japanese]
42) Yamada, K. (2014), the Development of Planning of Colonial Cities by European Nations,
Proceedings of Historical Studies in Civil Engineering, JSCE, June 2013. [in Japanese]
43) Yamada, K. et al. (2017), Origin of City Planning of Mandalay, Royal City of Burma
(Myanmar) in Mid-19th Century, Proceedings of Historical Studies in Civil Engineering, JSCE,
June 2017.
44) Yamada, K. et al. (2018a), Research on the Eastward Orientation of Historical Capital Cities
of Burma, Proceedings of Historical Studies in Civil Engineering, JSCE, June 2018.
45) Yamada, K. et al.(2018b) Spatial Structure of Historical Capital Cities of Burma (Amarapura
and Mandalay) in Use of Traditional Measurement Units, the 12th International Symposium on
Architectural Interchanges in Asia (ISAIA) 2018.
46) Yamada, K. et al. (2018c), An Empirical Approach to the Determination of Burmese
Traditional Measurement Units used for Burmese Royal Cities, in Proceedings of the 14th
Conference of Asia and African City Planning (AACP2018).
47) Yule, Henry (1858), A Narrative of the Mission to the Court of Ava in 1855, London.
Urban and Regional Planning Review
Vol. 6, 2019 | 44

END NOTES
1
King Mindon Min, 1808 - 1878, Reign 1853 – 1878, was the king of Burma. He was one of the
most popular and revered kings of Burma.
2
King Alaungpaya, 1714 – 1760, Reign 1752 – 1760, was the founder of the Konbaung Dynasty
of Burma. He is considered one of the greatest monarchs of Burma for unifying Burma for the
third time in Burmese history.
3
King Hsinbyushin, 1736 – 1776), Reign 1763 – 1776, was king of the Konbaung dynasty of
Burma.
4
King Bodawpaya, 1745 – 1819, reign 1782 – 1819, was the king of the Konbaung Dynasty of
Burma.
5
King Bagyidaw, 1784 – 1846, was the king of the Konbaung dynasty of Burma from 1819
until 1837.
6
In this chapter, ROB refers to Than Tun (1983-90), The Royal Orders of Burma, AD 1853–
1885, The Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) of Kyoto University. The Roman numbers
after ROB indicates the part (volume) number. For indication of pages, numbers (1, 2, etc) indicate
the page in the main text part, while Roman numerals (i, ii, etc) refer to the page in the summary
part at the front of each volume.
7
A legendary figure who was believed to become Buddha. See Phayre (1884), P.7.
8
A clock tower in this context was also called a drum tower, devised with a drum to announce
time in the capital city.
9
Rajagaha, or Rajagriha, is an ancient capital city of Magadha in northern India until the fifth
century BC. It is known that Gautama Buddha stayed here meditating and preaching, but little is
known about the city, [Funo, 17].
10
For this sub-section, refer to the author’s previous work [Yamada 2017].
11
For this sub-section, refer to the author’s previous work [Yamada 2018a].
12
For the discussion on the conversion of the Burmese measurement units for length, such as ta
and taung, refer to Yamada (2018c). The conversion factor adopted in this paper, 1 ta = 3.38 m
comes from this reference, based on the on-site measurement of the Royal Inscription showing
the actual scale of 1 taung on a stone slab in Mandalay, while 7 taung makes 1 ta.