<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>Dear all,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The "Pyu controversy" can hardly be considered as concluded without the relevant evidence. Now</div>
<div>that we know which source David Bradley referred to (i.e. to my presentation on Myazedi Pyu</div>
<div>given at La Trobe University on 01 May 2008) we can examine this evidence. For those interested</div>
<div>I have attached the handout of that presentation as a PDF copy. Except for highlighting three relevant</div>
<div>passages in yellow I made no changes later than May 2008. (Please note that the copy attached</div>
<div>is drawn from a file that was changed somehow on 07 May 2008, why it might or differ minimally from</div>
<div>the actual original handout, or not. - By comparison with an original paper copy of the handout</div>
<div>I have found no differences at all; this relates especially to the three highlighted passages.) You will</div>
<div>see that the evidence is unambiguous - why I wonder how David Bradley could be so misled.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You will see, too, that, following the tradition, in this handout/presentation I still assumed a diachronic connection between the earlier "Pyu" inscriptions and the "Pyu" faces of the Myazedi inscriptions as given.</div>
<div>There is a possibility that that was the case indeed but the evidence put forward so far is too scanty to</div>
<div>confirm or reject this possibility with certainty.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the course of my investigation, a scenario of direct contact between *Myazedi Pyu (recorded during</div>
<div>the early 12 c CE or, perhaps, during late 11th c CE) and some Dayish language, which I had assumed</div>
<div>in my presentation/handout, became less and less likely. (Yet in an empirical study as the one concerned</div>
<div>it would have been inappropriate to preclude this contact relationship a priori, given that the early history</div>
<div>of (western) Mainland Southeast Asia is still insufficiently known).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Last but not least, I think I do not have to emphasise that the handout is outdated now concerning many aspects and details, why it should not be cited. Thanks.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yours, and "Sorry!" to those not interested in the "Pyu controversy"</div>
<div>Uwe</div>
<div> </div></div></body></html>