The identity of this polity has been the subject of much debate. Gurdon (1913) and Cochrane (1914) suggested, on the basis of the verification tally illustrated in 3.2.1 above, that Timasa was Chiangmai. Gerini (1913) associated "Timasa" with the Hill Kachari who were known by the Ahom as Timasa. Gong Yin (1988; 208) suggested that this was a Mon polity, but provided no textual reference. Fang Guo-yu (1987; 1012), presumably on phonetic grounds and the (erroneous) identification of Da Gu-la with Pegu, felt that it represented "Tenaseri" (= Tenasserim). Chen, Xie and Lu (1986; 537-38) agreed with Fang Guo-yu. There appears little doubt that Gerini's proposition was correct. Wichasin (1987) notes that "Mung Timisa" lay in a "minority region" to the south of the Ahoms, with whom they shared a long border. "Mung Tumisa" is indicated on the map in Baruah (1985; facing p. 171), located between the Brahmaputra River and Manipur. For other literature, see Baruah (1985), Bhuyan (1951) and Chen Ru-xing (1992). For information on further Chinese sources relating to this polity, see Chen, Xie and Lu (1986; 537-38) and Gong Yin (1985; 208 and 1992; 627).
Dimasa, Hill Kachari