Talk:Funan

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pghod, Rhsong012, Owenmolly, Rachellefb. Peer reviewers: Tagropp, Loeraas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There is no evidence to suggest that the Funanese were anything but Khmer, at least that's the general consensus among archaeologists. That's not to say that they were definitely Khmer, but it's assumed they were, culturally there's continuity between Funan and Chenla which was certainly Khmer.. the suggestion that they were Vietnamese or Han Chinese is unrealistic, its an attempt to distort history. If you're talking about Champa (I don't know what 'Jampa' is) they're a different cultural, ethnic and linguistic group completely from the Khmer. DMPineau

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Kambuja

Even though its cited, no modern scholars can infer any relation between the two people due to lack of genetic data and lack of actual textual inscriptions that link the Indianised Khmer and the Kambuja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.149.91 (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree and think that the section on the Kambujas should be deleted. This article is about the polity of Funan. The section does not draw a plausible connection between the Kambujas of India and Funan. Any attempt to claim such a connection would be on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. DoktorMax (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Funan and the Khmers

This article takes the position that the people of Funan were Khmer. This position is contested and is no more plausible than the competing views: that they were Mon or some other Austro-Asiatic group, or that they were Cham or some other Austronesian group. I think the article should be changed so as not to suggest that Funan was a Khmer polity. Also, the second infobox is problematic. For example, where does the date of 68 A.D. come from that is given as the earliest date for Funan? Where does the information come from about the first "capital" of Funan? Finally, the article asserts that the name "Funan" is related to the khmer "phnom" meaning "mountain;" this too is a speculative hypothesis that should not be presented as fact. DoktorMax (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Dokter Max : I agree it should be changed. Wether the early Funanese were mostly Mon-Khmer or Austronesian is the subject of much discussion among specialists. This dispute should be mentioned in a neutral way, without favouring any one at the moment.

A. Post-Muller (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What proof do you have to claim Funan as Austronesian! Do you have any proof instead all talk! At least there was clear evidence that the Funanese spoke khmer! The oldest khmer inscriptions not in sanskrit dates to 611 and that time Funan didn't completely disappear yet! King Isanvarman completely absorbed it during his reign in the 7th century! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.190.245 (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the Austronesian claim! It has nothing to do with Austronesian! REMOVE IT NOWWWWW!!! TELL THE FREAKING MAYALSIAN PEOPLE TO STOP CLAIMING OUR HISTORY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.144.74 (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a Malaysian and while we learn about Funan in our history text books, we have never associated them as part of our history. Unlike the Thai, we're not too keen on claiming things that are not ours without well-grounded proofs. So please, keep us Malaysians out of this dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.92.107 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that at present the topic may be presented better, without focusing too much on the ethnical pov. The article lacks much more in some other points, e.g. no mention of LOMAP and vietnamese archeological research, the 1st note is poor, datings are poor, presenting some Coedès' hyphotesys that have been discarded by French scholars decades ago is poor (Vyadhapura, Funan<-phnom, why don't we cite Coedès' indianization or Boisselier's speculative hyphotesys at this point?). Funan at present is poorly understood and we have still scarce archeological evidence, that is a fact. We don't know even if it was a state, so why the main dispute or point has to be if it was a Nation state? And what we are talking about? The share of Mon-Khmer between inhabitants, really? If you want these kind of answers, you need genetic analisys and similar (I don't think LOMAP have similar goals, see http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/People/Faculty/Pietrusewsky/angkorborei/index.html). Vickery's quotation, without the previous phrase, seems too much a placebo for nationalistic questions (as mentioning the matter almost compulsively). BTW Vickery says there is no evident discontinuity between Funan and pre-Angkor, but he's not an art historian (quick references: Lương Ninh, From Funan statue, Khảo cổ học, 2005; Kwa Chong Guan's chapter in "Art & Archaeology of Fu Nan"; some articles on glass industry). If Funan was based on maritime trade and spreaded from Chao Praya basin to Central Vietnam, it is obvious that Austronesians had played some role in it (I don't mean numerically, it should not be a count by heads), and this doesn't put in danger in any way the "khmericity" of Cambodia and its history (which I fond of, BTW). --Riccardo.fabris (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

naming "Funan" and "Oc Eo"

Someone has gone through the article and replaced "Funan" with "Fúnán," using diacritics. I think this is incorrect. This article is in English. In English, diacritics are not used. The letters "ú" and "á" do not exist in English. Hence, in English the correct spelling is "Funan." Moreover, someone is claiming that "Oc Eo" is not the "correct" spelling of the place in southern Vietnam where excavations have resulted in the discovery of a substantial commercial settlement. Someone is proposing "O'ceo" or something like that as the "correct" spelling. I think this is wrong. In Vietnamese, the place is called "Óc Eo." In English, which does not use diacritics, the best spelling might be "Oc Eo." The spelling "O'ceo" is completely unprecedented. It cannot be an ancient spelling, because the ancient people of Funan certainly did not use the Latin alphabet. All the writings we have from Funan are in Sanskrit. None of those writings include any place-names that can confidently be identified with the archeological ruins at Oc Eo.

According to current Wikipedia standards for Chinese, this is not incorrect. Funan is a Chinese word and not an English word, and diacritics in Pinyin are meant for accuracy in the same way that umlauts are preserved for German, or an accent would be used in French. Chinese is a highly toned language, and the word "Funan" without the proper Pinyin tone marks gives little indication of how to actually say the word. Tengu800 23:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This is an entry in an English-language encyclopedia, not in an encyclopedia of pinyin. All of the entries should be English words. That means, all of the entries should be words consisting of characters that are used in the English language. "Funan" is the English word used to designate the polity that flourished in the Mekong Delta and southern Cambodia in the early centuries of the Common Era. "Fúnán" is not an English word, and ordinary English speakers would have no idea as to how to pronounce it, since it includes diacritics that do not belong to English. The analogy to German is a good one. The umlaut is not used in English and is not a part of any English word. Thus, the city that is called "München" is German is called "Munich" in English. References in English writing to this city ought to use the English word "Munich." The analogy to French is also good. The accent aigu is not used in English and is not part of any English word. Thus, the conquering hero of Austerlitz who is called "Napoléon" in French is called "Napoleon" (no accent aigu) in English. References to this conquering hero in English writing ought to use the English word "Napoleon" and not the French "Napoléon."

Perhaps you do not realize that Funan is not an English word in any way, nor was it ever. It was always Chinese. It is a Chinese word being used in an English context. English standards or conventions are unrelated to Chinese transliteration, and there is no real interaction between these two. Use of a foreign word in some context does not change the correctness of the transliteration of that word. For example, "Napoleon" is not an English word or an English name. It is a French name used in English, but the common convention has been to omit the diacritic. There is no rule about this, though, and especially not for Chinese names and terms used in English Wikipedia. Tengu800 12:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Funan" is an English word derived from a word in a foreign language (Chinese), which may in turn be a word derived from another foreign language (perhaps Khmer or Austronesian). But "Funan" is an English word, not a "Chinese word" or a "Khmer word" or an "Austronesian word." The English word "Funan" is derived from two Chinese characters that appear in historical sources, and represents an English approximation of what scholars take to be the historical pronunciation of these two characters. Since the English word "Funan" exists, it should be used in an English-language article about Funan.

Many English words are derived from words in foreign languages. "Graph" is an English word that is derived from a Greek word; but it is not a "Greek word." It is an English word. When one writes English, one should use English words, including words derived from Greek and other languages. One should use the English alphabet and associated symbols. One should not, in general, use foreign words or foreign symbols. (How bizarre would it be if people used Greek letters and symbols instead of the English word "graph" in an English text talking about the graph of a parabola, for example?) When one has to use a foreign word that has no equivalent in English, one should put it in italics.

Pinyin is a modern invention. Funan is much older than Pinyin. Nobody associated with Funan ever used Pinyin to talk or write about the country. No Chinese scholar of the first millenium ever used Pinyin to talk or write about Funan, or to talk or write about anything else for that matter. There is absolutely nothing that specially connects the country of Funan with Pinyin. There is nothing especially privileged about Pinyin that would require a person, in an English article, to substitute the Pinyin word for the English word "Funan."

The reality is that this article, which is supposed to be in the English language, has a particularly bizarre appearance to English-speakers. (O'ceo? Fúnán?) The key words in this article are written using symbols that are not part of English. Ordinary English speakers have no way of figuring out even an approximate pronunciation. However, the point of this article is to communicate in English. It is not to create an impression of bizarreness or unintelligibility. Hence, the article should be rewritten with the objective of communicating in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.210.15 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is actually wrong. Pinyin is not an approximation of Chinese in English, and there is nothing English about Pinyin transliteration. In fact, Pinyin uses many diacritics not contained in English, and its letters often have completely different pronunciations than their equivalents in English. For example, "Q" makes a "ch" sound. Pinyin was developed as a romanization system for Chinese, not specific to any foreign language such as English. Tengu800 11:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that Pinyin is an approximation of English. It seems that we've left the original topic. But your point is a good one: Pinyin is not a good starting point for transcribing Chinese into English. To the naive reader of an English-language encyclopedia, Pinyin can be positively misleading on questions of pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.206.75 (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious article

...mysterious because of two reasons - it is probably impossible to add anything else of concern to the article - and - the text is rather well supported with internal and (good quality) external sources...so why START CLASS

...because of the style? the whole article is a bit drawn out, though i have the feeling...BUT!!! - honestly - this can't be the reason for such a low rating.

If there is anyone out there, who has anything to say about this - please talk to me.

ATBWikirictor (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

OK - why not talking to myself. The content is from this benevolent person at the Indology faculty in Bonn university. needs some sorting, though.Wikirictor (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Dab page moved to Funan (disambiguation). Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Funan (Southeast Asia) → Funan – per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As a major former country in Southeast Asia, the Funan Kingdom has far more long-term significance than Funan County or Funan Mall. Google books results for Funan are mostly about the country. Zanhe (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Note that Funan was the title of the article from its creation till this move in 2009. —  AjaxSmack  19:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Seems to be most certainly the primary topic AusLondonder (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Funan country info box

This info box for Funan is completely unsourced. Which is not surprising, as hardly anything in it is correct. WHich again is not surprising, as Funan wasn't a country, it was a region and a period. If sources can't be provided within the next seven days I'll delete it. PiCo (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Funan Phù Nam Nokor Phnom
68–550
Capital	Vyadhapura (early period) Kottinagar (later period)
Common languages	Old Khmer (spoken language), Sanskrit (literary language)
Religion	Hinduism, Buddhism
Government	Monarchy
King
History
• Established in the Mekong Delta of southern Vietnam	68
• Conquered by Chenla	550
• End of the Southern Funan	628
Population
•	100,000
Currency	Gold, silver, pearls
Succeeded by Chenla Dvaravati
Today part of	Cambodia Myanmar Thailand Vietnam

Tagropp's Peer Review

In etymology, it would be helpful to include the English pronunciation of "Funan" since it is translated in Middle Chinese.

The History section is very detailed and provides a lot of information to readers.

More information in the "Legacy" section would be interesting- explain "king of the mountain"

Overall, the page is very, very informative.

The sources part of the page is less weighted than the rest of the page, but I do not see this as an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagropp (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is known

I feel like the lead of the article is focused more on what is not known than what is known. Other sites talk about how it was the 'first Southeast Asian civilization', 'first important Hinduized state in Southeast Asia', or 'the precursor of all later Southeast Asian cultures', or something that explains why scholars are interested in it. The lead gives off the feeling that it is notable solely because we know nothing about it. It gets to the point where it disrupts comprehension of the subject. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

68 and 627

Why are the years 68 and 627 listed in the infobox, then mentioned nowhere in the text of the article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)