Talk:Funan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Categories: Start-Class Southeast Asia articles | Unknown-importance Southeast Asia articles | Start-Class India articles | Start-Class India articles of unknown-importance | Unknown-importance India articles | Start-Class Hinduism articles | Top-importance Hinduism articles | WikiProject Hinduism articles | Unassessed former country articles