Funan
Funan was a loose network of ancient Indianized states located in Mainland Southeast Asia, covering parts of present-day Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, that existed from the 1st to 7th century AD. The name is found in Chinese historical texts describing the kingdom which indicate it to be an endonym the people of Funan gave to their polity, and it is perhaps a Chinese transcription of pnom, “mountain”. Funan is generally considered as the first known kingdom in Southeast Asia. It was located to the southwest of Linyi.
Like the name of the kingdom, the ethno-linguistic nature of the people is the subject of much discussion among specialists. The leading hypotheses are that the Funanese were mostly Mon–Khmer, or that they were mostly Austronesian, or that they constituted a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic society. The available evidence is inconclusive on this issue. Michael Vickery has said that, even though identification of the language of Funan is not possible, the evidence suggests that the population was Khmer. However, several studies demonstrates that inhabitants of Funan probably spoke Malayo-Polynesian languages, as in neighboring Champa. The results of archaeology at Óc Eo have demonstrated "no true discontinuity between Óc Eo and pre-Angkorian levels", indicating ancient Mon-khmer region may have gone as far back as the 4th century BCE. Though regarded by Chinese authors as a single unified polity, some modern scholars suspect that Funan may have been a collection of city-states that sometimes were at war with one another and at other times constituted a political unity. From archaeological evidence, which includes Roman, Chinese, and Indian goods excavated at the ancient mercantile centre of Óc Eo in southern Vietnam, it is known that Funan must have been a powerful trading state. Excavations at Angkor Borei in southern Cambodia have likewise delivered evidence of an important settlement. Since Óc Eo was linked to a port on the coast and to Angkor Borei by a system of canals, it is possible that all of these locations together constituted the heartland of Funan.
Etymology
Some scholars have advanced speculative proposal regarding the origin and meaning of the word Funan. It is often said that the name Funan represents a transcription from some local language into Chinese. For example, French scholar Georges Coedès advanced the theory that in using the word Funan, ancient Chinese scholars were transcribing a word related to the Khmer word bnaṃ or vnaṃ.However, the epigraphist Claude Jacques pointed out that this explanation was based on a mistranslation of the Sanskrit word parvatabùpála in the ancient inscriptions as equivalent to the Khmer word bnaṃ and a mis-identification of the King Bhavavarman I mentioned in them as the conqueror of Funan. It has also been observed that in Chinese the character 南 is frequently used in geographical terms to mean "South"; Chinese scholars used it in this sense in naming other locations or regions of Southeast Asia, such as Annam.
Thus, Funan may be an originally Chinese word, and may not be a transcription at all. Jacques proposed that use of the name Funan should be abandoned in favour of the names, such as Bhavapura, Aninditapura, Shresthapura and Vyadhapura, which are known from inscriptions to have been used at the time for cities in the region, as opposed to Funan or Zhenla which are unknown in the Old Khmer language.
History
Origins of Funan
Chinese sources relate a local legend to document Funan's origin, that a foreigner named "Huntian " established the Kingdom of Funan around the 1st century CE in the Mekong Delta of southern Vietnam. Archeological evidence shows that extensive human settlement in the region may go as far back as the 4th century BCE. Though treated by Chinese historians as a single unified empire, according to some modern scholars Funan may have been a collection of city-states that sometimes warred with one another and at other times constituted a political unity.The ethnic and linguistic origins of the Funanese people have consequently been subject to scholarly debate, and no firm conclusions can be drawn based on the evidence available. The Funanese may have been Cham or from another Austronesian group, or they may have been Khmer or from another Austroasiatic group. It is possible that they are the ancestors of those indigenous people dwelling in the southern part of Vietnam today who refer themselves as "Khmer" or "Khmer Krom." The Khmer term "krom" means "below" or "lower part of" and is used to refer to territory that was later colonized by Vietnamese immigrants and taken up into the modern state of Vietnam. While no conclusive study to determine whether Funan's ethnolinguistic components were Austronesian or Austroasiatic, there is dispute among scholars. According to the majority of Vietnamese academics, for example, Mac Duong, stipulates that "Funan's core population certainly were the Austronesians, not Khmer;" the fall of Funan and the rise of Zhenla from the north in the 6th century indicate "the arrival of the Khmer to the Mekong Delta." That thesis received support from D. G. E. Hall. Recent archaeological research lends weight to the conclusion that Funan was a Mon-Khmer polity. In his Funan review, Michael Vickery expresses himself a strong supporter of Funan's Khmer predominance theory.
It is also possible that Funan was a multicultural society, including various ethnic and linguistic groups. In the late 4th and 5th centuries, Indianization advanced more rapidly, in part through renewed impulses from the south Indian Pallava dynasty and the north Indian Gupta Empire. The only extant local writings from the period of Funan are paleographic Pallava Grantha inscriptions in Sanskrit of the Pallava dynasty, a scholarly language used by learned and ruling elites throughout South and Southeast Asia. These inscriptions give no information about the ethnicity or vernacular tongue of the Funanese.
Funan may have been the Suvarnabhumi referred to in ancient Indian texts. Among the Khmer Krom of the lower Mekong region the belief is held that they are the descendants of ancient Funan, the core of Suvarnabhumi/Suvarnadvipa, which covered a vast extent of Southeast Asia including present day Cambodia, southern Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Burma, Malaya, Sumatra and other parts of Indonesia. In December 2017, Dr Vong Sotheara, of the Royal University of Phnom Penh, discovered a Pre-Angkorian stone inscription in the Province of Kampong Speu Baset District, which he tentatively dated to 633 CE. According to him, the inscription would “prove that Suvarnabhumi was the Khmer Empire.” The inscription, translated, read: “The great King Isanavarman is full of glory and bravery. He is the King of Kings, who rules over Suvarnabhumi until the sea, which is the border, while the kings in the neighbouring states honour his order to their heads”.
Theories of origin and Indianisation
Invented theories of origin
HuntianThe Book of Liang records a local legend to document Funan's origin, that of the foundation of Funan by the foreigner Hùntián : "He came from the southern country Jiào after dreaming that his personal genie had delivered a divine bow to him and had directed him to embark on a large merchant junk. In the morning, he proceeded to the temple, where he found a bow at the foot of the genie's tree. He then boarded a ship, which the genie caused to land in Fúnán. The queen of the country, Liǔyè wanted to pillage the ship and seize it, so Hùntián shot an arrow from his divine bow which pierced through Liǔyè's ship. Frightened, she gave herself up, and Hùntián took her for his wife. But unhappy to see her naked, he folded a piece of material to make a garment through which he made her pass her head. Then he governed the country and passed power on to his son, who was the founder of seven cities." Nearly the same story appeared in the Jìn shū 晉書, compiled by Fáng Xuánlíng in 648 CE; however, in the Book of Jin the names given to the foreign conqueror and his native wife are "Hùnhuì" 混湏 and "Yèliǔ" 葉柳.
Some scholars have identified the conqueror Hùntián of the Book of Liang with the Brahmin Kauṇḍinya who married a nāga princess named Somā, as set forth in a Sanskrit inscription found at Mỹ Sơn and dated 658 CE. Other scholars have rejected this identification, pointing out that the word "Hùntián" has only two syllables, while the word "Kauṇḍinya" has three, and arguing that Chinese scholars would not have used a two-syllable Chinese word to transcribe a three-syllable word from another language. Historian O.W. Wolters states that it was rather the Indianized local Southeast Asian traders, not Indian Brahmins, who provided the initial contact with Indian cultural traditions and the local rulers followed up.
File:Funan stele.JPG|thumb|This stele found at Tháp Mười in Đồng Tháp Province, Vietnam and now located in the Museum of History in Ho Chi Minh City is one of the few extant writings that can be attributed confidently to the kingdom of Funan. The text is in Sanskrit, written in Grantha script of the Pallava dynasty, dated to the mid-5th century CE, and tells of a donation in honour of Vishnu by a Prince Gunavarman of the Kaundinya lineage. The Sanskrit inscription of Tháp Mười, which is now on display in the Museum of Vietnamese History in Ho Chi Minh City, refers to a Prince Guṇavarman, younger son of a king Ja who was "the moon of the Kauṇḍinya line and chief "of a realm wrested from the mud".
The legend of Kaundinya is paralleled in modern Khmer folklore, where the foreign prince is known as "Preah Thaong" and the queen as "Neang Neak". In this version of the story, Preah Thaong arrives by sea to an island marked by a giant thlok tree, native to Cambodia. On the island, he finds the home of the nāgas and meets Neang Neak, daughter of the nāga king. He marries her with blessings from her father and returns to the human world. The nāga king drinks the sea around the island and confers the name "Kampuchea Thipdei", which is derived from the Sanskrit and may be translated into English as "the lord of Cambodia". In another version, it is stated that Preah Thaong fights Neang Neak.
Kaundinya II
Even if the Chinese "Hùntián" is not the proper transcription of the Sanskrit "Kaundinya", the name "Kaundinya" is nevertheless an important one in the history of Funan. Chinese sources mention another person of the name "Qiáochénrú". A person of that name is mentioned in the Book of Liang in a story that appears somewhat after the story of Hùntián.
According to this source, Qiáochénrú was one of the successors of the king Tiānzhú Zhāntán, a ruler of Funan who in the year 357 CE sent tamed elephants as tribute to Emperor Mu of Jin ; personal name: Sīmǎ Dān : "He was originally a Brahmin from India. There a voice told him: 'you must go reign over Fúnán,' and he rejoiced in his heart. In the south, he arrived at Pánpán. The people of Fúnán appeared to him; the whole kingdom rose up with joy, went before him, and chose him king. He changed all the laws to conform to the system of India."