Talk:Funan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Please Remove the Austronesian Hypothesis
The cited source is from 1960 and is generally not a widely held view. Also, its contents about Dong Son contradicts the Dog Son article. There is very little evidence of an Austronesian culture in southern Cambodia, please take the time to read all the publications about neolithic Cambodia. Joshotoken (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] this aricle needs a map
A map of the areal extent of Funan and its major sites, in relation to Mainland South East Asia is urgently needed. John D. Croft 03:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Funan and Cambodia
Funan (Southern China) is absolutely not Khmer-Cambodia (Jampa)BECAUSE until 550 A.D.,. Jampa (Khmer-Cambodia) was still under Funan. Funan is the pre-Vietnamese (probably) or the Mongoloid-southern Chinese, which became (part of)Thai-Lao-(part of)Cambodia and Vietnam nowadays.
- Sorry, I have no real idea what your comment means. Champa, my best guess at what you mean by Jampa, formed after Funan by a process of colonisation from northern Borneo. Funan was an Indianised kingdom culturally, ethnically and linguistically distinct the Vietnamese and southern Chinese. Indeed at the time of its foundation the Han Chinese themselves were still consolidating their position south of the Huang He. The Lao are a subset of the Tai peoples and the Tai migration into Southeast Asia was in its infancy. Please discuss with citations before further major changes. Alan 16:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] anyone out there?
anyone still work on this?--Dangerous-Boy 19:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nope. But someone should. PiCo 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Funan as State and empire
I deleted a reference to Funan as an empire with control over much of Southeast Asia. The concensual view today is that Funan wasn't even a unified state, let alone an empier; and the map was based on pure fantasy. PiCo 04:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thats o.k as long as you have evidence. Do you have any? You're likely thinking about chenla because Funan was unified until its fall. Chenla split into two diffrent states. CanCanDuo 03:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The material in the article was/is based in part on a website dating from 1987 - a bit old. The concept of Funan as a unitary empire was based on supposition - the actual evidence about Funan is very thin, just some archaeological material from Oc Eo and nearby sites plus the Chinese records. Mpre recent books -those from the last five years or so - tend to be moer cautious in their interpretatoins, and less inclined to take the Chinese at face value. Unfortunately I'm based in Phnom Penh, and the books are in Bangkok. You can revert if you like, and I'll get my references on my next trip over. PiCo 04:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I did some research. It agrees with you that Funan was not a unified empire but it does have vast territories. I've found a map that somewhat agrees with this. http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/seasia/cambodia3rdc.GIF The best way to document Funan is from later periods, it being mentioned in Chenlaen text. CanCanDuo 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Do you know where that map comes from - who produced it, and when? Since I don't have my references at the moment, I'll hold off for a bit. PiCo 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/seasia/haxcambodia.html This is a website mainly concentrated on maps of countries and continents of the world. It doesn't seem to be bias toward anyone and every map there are based on actual evidence.
-
-
-
CanCanDuo 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm sure it has no bias, I just wonder how up to date and well-based it is, especially for historical maps on a ergion about which there's so little information in the historical record. But let's wait till I get to the books. PiCo 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did some book reading, and it seems that Funan may have been a collection of states similar to ancient Greece. However, archaeological digs at Angkor Borey have revealed collasped brick structures dating way before the 4th century. At another site, glass pigments import from India, and Candi pottery from Sri Lanka have been found dating back to the first century. Funan may have been older than previously thought because a man made canal system dating to the first century showed extensive human settlement around the area dating back to the 4th century B.C. It may be that Funan existed before Indianization, but gained importance from the silk road trade via the ocean between China and India. CanCanDuo 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure it has no bias, I just wonder how up to date and well-based it is, especially for historical maps on a ergion about which there's so little information in the historical record. But let's wait till I get to the books. PiCo 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
(Reducing indent) hat's pretty much how I also understand contemporary archaeologists underestand Funan - not an empire but a collection of small polities sharing a common culture. I believe the idea of an empire comes from the fact that the early Chinese visitors seemed to describe it as such - but they came from a country which really was a vast empire, and may have imposed their preconceptions (quite unconsciously) on what actually existed. As for the map showing Funan extanding across lower Thailand to the Kra isthmus, that seems to have its origins ni the Chinese description of Funan as extending x li - I don't have the books in front of me and so can't give details, but I believe that the Chinese measurement would indeed stretch from Vietnam to modern Malaysia...an empire indeed... but how accurate? PiCo 08:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Old hypothesis
That part of Funan rulers fleeing to Java and related to the Sailendras is deleted. There is no evidence for it. It was a hypothesis of George Coedes (1934, following a speculation of Louis Finot ). Because some works of Coedes' are more easy to get in libraries, this theory is sometimes published on certain sites. One argument of Coedes was that the Sailendra title could have been related to the 'lord of mountain 'title in Cambodia. Several Cambodia scholars , for example C. Jacques, L. P. Briggs and Michael Vickery,have already pointed out the mistakes. For example : Michael Vickery ;
"Louis Finot speculated that the Funan kings were entitled Kurung Bnam, 'king of the mountain' but as Claude Jacques has shown , there is no basis for it. In fact we have no idea of the titles of funan rulers besides 'Hun' , 'Fan' and -varman." (2003:103 )
" As noted above, there is no evidence of the title 'mountain king 'for the Funan rulers", nor were the last ones more Buddhist than Hindu". ( 2003 :132-133 )
references :
CoEdes, G., "On the origins of the Sailendras of Indonesia ", Journal of the Greater India society , I (1934), pp 61-70
Vickery, M. "Funan reviewed: Deconstructing the Ancients ", Bulletin de l' Ecole Francaise d' Extreme Orient, 90-91 (2003-2004 ), pp. 101-143
A. Post-Muller 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did you make a references to this old hypothesis in the article? Enlil Ninlil 23:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)