![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 (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.
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 still work on this?-- Dangerous-Boy 19:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
CanCanDuo 04:19, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
...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.
ATB Wikirictor ( talk) 12:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 |
| ||||||||
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 | ||||||||
| |||||||||
Today part of | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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)
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)
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)
The lead contains a good summary on the historiography of Funan but a lead should be a summary of the entire article, not just one section. Should change this Danial Bass ( talk) 01:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 (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.
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 still work on this?-- Dangerous-Boy 19:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
CanCanDuo 04:19, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
...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.
ATB Wikirictor ( talk) 12:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 |
| ||||||||
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 | ||||||||
| |||||||||
Today part of | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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)
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)
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)
The lead contains a good summary on the historiography of Funan but a lead should be a summary of the entire article, not just one section. Should change this Danial Bass ( talk) 01:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)