Nam tiến
The Viet domain was gradually expanded from its original heartland in the
History
11th to 14th centuries (Lý and Trần dynasties)
Records suggest that there was an attack on the
In 1377, the Cham capital was unsuccessfully besieged by a Vietnamese army during the Battle of Vijaya.[13]
15th to 19th centuries (Later Lê dynasty to the Nguyễn lords)
The native inhabitants of the Central Highlands are the Degar (
Major Champa–Vietnam Wars were fought again in the 15th century during the Lê dynasty, which eventually led to the defeat of Vijaya and to the demise of Champa in 1471.[14] The citadel of Vijaya was besieged for one month in 1403 until the Vietnamese troops had to withdraw because of a shortage of food.[14] The final attack came in early 1471, after almost 70 years without a major military confrontation between Champa and Vietnam. It is interpreted to have been a reaction to Champa asking Chinese Ming dynasty for reinforcements to attack Vietnam.[15]
Cham provinces were seized by the Vietnamese Nguyễn lords.[16] Provinces and districts that had been originally controlled by Cambodia were taken by Vo Vuong.[17][18]
Cambodia was constantly invaded by the Nguyễn lords. Around a thousand Vietnamese settlers were slaughtered in 1667 in Cambodia by a combined Chinese-Cambodian force. Vietnamese settlers started to inhabit the Mekong Delta, which was previously inhabited by the Khmer. That caused the Vietnamese to be subjected to Cambodian retaliation.[19] The Cambodians told Catholic European envoys that the Vietnamese persecution of Catholics justified retaliatory attacks to be launched against the Vietnamese colonists.[20]
19th century (Nguyễn dynasty)
Vietnamese Emperor
Minh Mang sinicized ethnic minorities such as Cambodians, claimed the legacy of
Historicity
Analysis and periodization
Scholarly consensus does agree that Vietnamese southward expansions that have been conceptualized into the modern-day Nam Tiến did not start until at least the early 15th century AD. Numerous wars were fought between Champa and Đại Việt before the 1400s, but they happened indecisively, and there were territorial exchanges on both sides. Some scholars put the starting date of Nam Tiến to 1471, precisely when the word Nam tiến itself began to be used. Therefore, the starting date of the 11th century should be rejected.[35]
Nam Tiến in South Vietnam/Republic of Vietnam (RVN)
At the onset of the 20th century,
Early French scholarships in the late 19th century shaped Indianized kingdoms like Angkor and Champa, which had been declined mainly from Vietnamese expansionism, and mimicked them as the main villains who emerged at the end of the tale. Thereby, the French hypedly acted as "rescuers" of "lost civilizations" and prevent their heritage from being completely "swallowed up" by the Vietnamese by colonization and assimilation. After 1954, scholars in North and South Vietnam held varying reactions to French Cham studies. One side from Hanoi promoted the "multi-ethnic history" and "solidarity between peoples against invaders and feudal rulers" to fit its Marxist historiography and so little attention was paid to Champa itself. The other side celebrated the ethnohistory, virtually at odds with the Hanoi historiography. Frankly, Vietnamese nationalist writers in post-colonial Vietnam who were mesmerized by the French hyped interpretation of the Vietnamese conquest of Champa, began using it as evidence for "ancient Vietnamese greatness."[36]
The most famous apostle of the Nam tiến in RVN in Saigon, Việt sử: Xứ Đàng Trong 1558–1777: Cuộc Nam tiến của dân tộc Việt Nam, an essay of Vietnamese Nam Tiến ‘Southward March’, by the historian Phan Khoang (1906–1971), synthesizing a 'very real' concept of Nam tiến at its title, also the most detailed book about the Nam Tiến.[37] In the book, the author offers a quite strong Vietnamese-centric biased view and stereotyping negative sentiments toward the "conquered people." The book's main discourse is about the presumed "march" (piecing unrelated and distant events together) of the Vietnamese along the coast from the Red River Delta, traditionally said to be begun in the 11th century, until they reached the end tail of the Mekong Delta in 18th century.[1] The essay concerning Champa begins by treating it as a single unified kingdom, like framework of early French scholars, and tracing the kingdom's genesis to the Indianized Linyi (Lâm Ấp). Little attention was paid to the civilizational aspects of the Cham, Khmer, and indigenous groups. They were considered by earlier colonial-era works indiscriminately as the same "Indianized origins."[1] Those colonial scholars had introduced blatant Eurocentric-framed concepts like 'Sinic or Indic civilization spheres,' denying and downplaying the achievements of indigenous non-nation peoples of Southeast Asia. Ironically, they are still widely in practice today.[38]
During early colonial Indochina, French ethnographers used the Vietnamese collective pejorative for indigenous peoples of the Central Highlands, Mois,[36] a word carrying extremely negative connotations, imposed it on the peoples, and embraced both European and Viet colonialism in the Highlands.
Phan Khoang discusses in his essay wars between Champa and Đại Việt caused by assured "Cham aggression" by claiming that "the inferiority and aggressiveness of the Cham were the ultimate reasons leading to their fall." He convinces that the Cham were "a weaker nation" had to give ground for "the stronger nation" of the Vietnamese.
One popular author of Nam Tiến exponent in the RVN was Phạm Văn Sơn (1915–1978). In the Nam tiến section of the 1959 edition of his national history Việt sử tân biên, Phạm Văn Sơn pushed triumphalist Darwinist nuances for Nam Tiến.[40] Arguing that the Cham had mounted numerous border incursions against the "homogeneousic Vietnamese Jiaozhi and Annan" ruled by Chinese dynasties before the 10th century, he attempted to justify Vietnamese invasions of Champa in that century as retribution. As 'Vietnam' "gained independence from China," it began to move southward constantly and unstoppable because the Cham, Khmer, and indigenous peoples, according to him, were "lacking capacity and advancement to develop, and remained primitive."[40]
Another popular book on Nam Tien in the RVN was Dohamide and Dorohime's Dân tộc Chàm lược sử (1965), the first modern history of the Cham people.[41] The brother-historians of Cham Sunni background constructed the Nam tiến as a "process of invasion and occupation on the part of the Vietnamese." They postulated that from the 11th century onward, "Cham history was henceforth merely the retreat of 'Indian' civilization in the face of 'Chinese' civilization." They consider the conflict between Champa and Dai Viet to be due to Champa's "need to expand to the North, which was much more fertile."[42]
The core idea of Nam tiến is the superiority of the Vietnamese (Kinh) people, culturally and racially, over the "conquered people" (Khmer, Cham, and other
Nam Tiến in North Vietnam/Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and Post-1975 Vietnam/Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV)
In the
After the fall of Saigon, most Nam Tiến writers went overseas. Within the new
Studying or remembering Viet colonialism and nationalism against marginalized and indigenous peoples eventually damaged the Vietnamese Revolution and the party's reputation with leftist thinkers outside Vietnam. Furthermore, it provoked indigenous nationalism against the party and Vietnam. Building the impression of ethnic and religious harmony under socialism was also important.
The Nam tiến theory and the former South Vietnamese intellectual works were targets of Vietnamese Marxist critique and suppression for the sake of peace and the protection of good reputations. Criticism against the predominant Kinh also mitigated. Unlike the 1959 LSCĐPK, the Vietnamese and the assumed homogenous Vietnam were gradually recast and corrected as the ultimate victims, not the victimizers. Therefore, post-1960 Hanoi authors' writings saw significant shifts. Especially the 1971 DRV official history Lịch Sử Việt Nam, the Viet conquest of the South was misinterpreted into just simply groundless semi-pseudohistory 'migration of Viet people,' exclusively claimed that the migrants peacefully coexisted with the original inhabitants or settled on wildlands that had long been magically abandoned or uninhabited,[53][54][55] without even an indistinct mention about the reality of wars and the resistance of the Cham and the indigenous peoples.[45][52] Ethnic tensions between the Vietnamese with the Cham and the Khmer peoples and the suffering of conquered people become mere disputes between "feudal" rulers.[56] For a while, it has been the mainstream thesis of Vietnam's "territorial evolution." After that 1971 publication, Champa and non-Kinh cultures were disenfranchised by being pulled out of the historiography and barely mentioned very briefly as merely insignificant outsiders.[45]
In recent works in the context of Đổi Mới, SRV authors have reinserted several ideas of the Nam tiến to depict Champa, such as "aggressiveness" and "Cham provocations" while tending to portray Vietnamese southern advance as progressive.[57][58] The Nguyễn, the last Vietnamese dynasty, which had long been slammed by Marxist scholars, are seemingly rehabilitated in the Vietnamese historiography.[59] The recent reappearance of the Nam tiến in Vietnamese academic works is considered highly significant.[59] It suggests that state historians are no longer sensitively dictating RVN intellectual writings and those from international scholarship, or it may be from SRV historians' reaction to geopolitical change, particularly by growing irredentist sentiments in neighboring Cambodia.[60]
Reception
Vietcentric Nam tiến thinking has had a great impact on Vietnam. Although SRV scholars have done a great amount of research on non-Viet cultures, they are not willing to analogize those cultures with the formation of Vietnam or to recognize the multicultural origins of the country.
Historian C. Goscha argues that the north-south Nam tiến narrative is very ethnocentric. It downplays the importance of non-Kinh peoples, who constituted the majority of Vietnam's population until the late 20th century. Indigenous peoples had inhabited large areas of Vietnam independently for thousands of years before the Vietnamese government described them as ethnic minorities in the 20th century.[67] They have their own history and stories, interactions with the Vietnamese, and perspectives, which should not be neglected. Both contributed to each other a lot in making up Vietnam as well as part of the global culture. Indeed, "until recently there was no single S-like Vietnam running from north to south."[46] Goscha argues that balancing between Vietnamese centrality and non-Vietnamese centrality is important, and something-centrism[clarification needed] should be avoided.[68]
Legacy
French colonial rule to late 20th century
During the French colonial era, ethnic strife between Cambodia and Vietnam was somewhat pacified as both were parts of French Indochina. However, intergroup relations deteriorated even further, as the Cambodians viewed the Vietnamese as being a privileged group, who were allowed to migrate into Cambodia. All postcolonial Cambodian regimes, including the governments of Lon Nol and of the Khmer Rouge, relied on anti-Vietnamese rhetoric to win popular support.[69]
In South Vietnam, intellectuals treated and consolidated the Nam tiến as an established factual history, obviously with approaches for nationalistic purposes. They saw the Nam tiến and its consequences as matters of national pride and explained a Vietnamese-dominated Vietnam with racial and cultural nationalistic viewpoints.[37] After 1975, Hanoi scholars, on the other hand, emphasized the multiethnic solidarity and peaceful interrelating coexistence of Viet-Cham, Viet-Khmer, and non-Viet and so favored a reconstruction of a multi-ethnic history but tended to skip the discourse on Vietnamization of Champa and other indigenous peoples otherwise. They also limited the use of Nam tiến.[70]
After 1975, some French academics sought to revive the importance of Champa itself as a historical independent polity and non-Vietnamese indigenous history that deserves to have its own rights and tractions in the history of Vietnam, rather than being scraped aside, becoming peripherical in the Vietnamese version of history, and therefore clashing with Viet-centric historiography. After the
Nowadays
Nowadays it is widely acknowledged that the Vietnamese were originally natives of north Vietnam and south China, who then expanded southwards, and that lands to the south are native lands of Chams and Khmers.[citation needed] Many Cambodians, including politician Sam Rainsy, hold the irredentist belief that the Cambodian lands currently belonging to Vietnam should be returned to Cambodia.[71]
Whilst relations between Chams, Khmers and Vietnamese are cordial and respectful, with a long and complicated history with each other,[
Genetic analysis
Nam Tiến is considered by some as the definitive event in which Vietnam became a firmly Southeast Asian nation upon annexing territories formerly belonging to the Champa and part of Cambodia. All Vietnamese carry Southeast Asian haplotypes. The dramatic population decrease experienced by the Cham 700 years ago fits well with the southwards expansion from the Vietnamese original heartland in the Red River Delta. Autosomal SNPs consistently point to important historical gene flow within mainland Southeast Asia, and add support to a major admixture event occurring between "Chinese" and a southern Asian ancestral composite (mainly represented by the Malay). This admixture event occurred approximately eight centuries ago, again coinciding with the Nam tiến.[74]
See also
- History of the Cham–Vietnamese wars
- Champa
- Chey Chettha II
- Khmer Empire
- Tonkin and Cochinchina
- Cambodian–Vietnamese War of the 1970s and 1980s
- Ostsiedlung
- Chuang Guandong
Notes
- Republic of Vietnam).[1]
- Dai VietKingdom during the Le dynasty (1428–1788) and the succeeding Nguyen kingdom (1558–1945)
- ^ Scholar Anne-Valérie Schweyer doubts that Nam tiến constitutes a historical process. She describes the term as "an ideological creation of the end of the 20th century", which therefore makes no sense in the polyethnic spaces of ancient and modern times.
- ^ The Reinventions of China and Vietnam by 20th century nationalism traditionally assume the myth that there are unbreakable continuities of "nation-states" of China and Vietnam that have been lasting for "thousands of years" and they are "long-time enemies," "country version of David and Goliath."[47][48] However, this concept is complicated by early 21st century economic history where China remains the biggest trader of Vietnam and the largest trading nation in 2013. Nevertheless, a David and Goliath perception between Vietnam and China remains.[49]
References
- ^ a b c Lockhart 2011, p. 11.
- ISBN 978-1-11851-300-2.
- ISBN 978-1-52614-398-3.
- ^ Anne-Valérie Schweyer (2019). "The Chams in Vietnam: a great unknown civilization". French Academic Network of Asian Studies. Archived from the original on July 2, 2022. Retrieved July 2, 2022.
- ISBN 9781000788884.
- ^ Nguyen The Anh, "Le Nam tien dans les textes Vietnamiens", in P. B. Lafont, Les frontieres du Vietnam, Harmattan edition, Paris 1989
- ISBN 978-1-316-44504-4.
- ISSN 2691-0403.
- ISBN 978-1476643199.
- ISBN 978-0-822-32966-4.
- ISBN 9747534991
- ^ Nguyen 2009, p. 65.
- ISBN 9781851096725. Retrieved October 28, 2019.
- ^ a b Nguyen 2009, p. 68.
- ^ Nguyen 2009, p. 69.
- ^ Elijah Coleman Bridgman; Samuel Wells Willaims (1847). The Chinese Repository. proprietors. pp. 584–.
- ISBN 978-1-317-45094-8.
- ISBN 978-0-520-05061-7.
- ISBN 978-0-522-85477-0.
- ISBN 978-0-522-85477-0.
- ISBN 978-0-87727-138-3.
- ISBN 978-1-78042-964-9.
- ^ "The Raja Praong Ritual: A Memory of the Sea in Cham- Malay Relations". Cham Unesco. Archived from the original on February 6, 2015. Retrieved June 25, 2015.
- ^ (Extracted from Truong Van Mon, “The Raja Praong Ritual: a Memory of the sea in Cham- Malay Relations”, in Memory And Knowledge Of The Sea In South Asia, Institute of Ocean and Earth Sciences, University of Malaya, Monograph Series 3, pp, 97-111. International Seminar on Maritime Culture and Geopolitics & Workshop on Bajau Laut Music and Dance”, Institute of Ocean and Earth Sciences and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Malaya, 23-24/2008)
- ^ Dharma, Po. "The Uprisings of Katip Sumat and Ja Thak Wa (1833-1835)". Cham Today. Archived from the original on June 26, 2015. Retrieved June 25, 2015.
- ISBN 978-0-8248-2890-5.
- ISBN 978-1-84545-452-4. Archived from the original on September 27, 2023. Retrieved November 18, 2020.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link - ISBN 978-1-134-23881-1.
- ^ "Vietnam-Champa Relations and the Malay-Islam Regional Network in the 17th–19th Centuries". kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp. Archived from the original on June 17, 2004. Retrieved January 12, 2022.
- ISBN 978-0-87727-138-3.
- ISBN 978-0-87727-138-3.
- ISBN 978-0-87727-138-3.
- S2CID 162579849 – via Cambridge University Press.
- ^ a b Goscha 2016, p. 512.
- ^ Notes:
- Momorki, Shiro (2011), ""Mandala Campa" Seen from Chinese Sources", in Lockhart, Bruce; Trần, Kỳ Phương (eds.), The Cham of Vietnam: History, Society and Art, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 120–137, ISBN 978-9-971-69459-3,'s steady and irreversible southward expansion (Nam tiến), this process was only realized after the fifteenth century...
Despite the popular view of Đại Việt
- Whitmore, John K. (2011), "The Last Great King of Classical Southeast Asia: Che Bong Nga and Fourteenth Century Champa", in Lockhart, Bruce; Trần, Kỳ Phương (eds.), The Cham of Vietnam: History, Society and Art, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 168–203,
The myth of a thousand-year Vietnamese Nam Tiến (Southern Push) assumes a constant and continuous movement from the North into Nagara Champa. Instead, we need to see the outer zones of each mandala being contested by both Champa and Đại Việt, at least until the Vietnamese were able to crush Vijaya in 1471..
- Vickery, Michael (2011), "Champa Revised", in Lockhart, Bruce; Trần, Kỳ Phương (eds.), The Cham of Vietnam: History, Society and Art, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 363–420,
Thereafter the conflicts between the two parties were mostly between equals, and in the last quarter of the fourteenth century (1360–90) the Cham very nearly conquered all of Vietnam. Only after the failure of that adventure was Đại Việt clearly dominant; thus the term Nam tiến, if accurate at all, may only be applied from the beginning of the fifteenth century. Indeed, a new generation of scholars of Vietnam rejects entirely the concept of Nam tiến as a linear process." – p. 407: "...Only from the beginning of the fifteenth century is the traditional conception of a continuous push southward (Nam tiến) by the Vietnamese at all accurate.
- ISBN 978-1-13681-964-3
- Momorki, Shiro (2011), ""Mandala Campa" Seen from Chinese Sources", in Lockhart, Bruce; Trần, Kỳ Phương (eds.), The Cham of Vietnam: History, Society and Art, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 120–137,
- ^ a b Lockhart 2011, p. 33.
- ^ a b Lockhart 2011, p. 36.
- ^ Lockhart 2011, p. 32.
- ^ Lockhart 2011, p. 12.
- ^ a b c Lockhart 2011, p. 13.
- ^ Lockhart 2011, p. 14.
- ^ Lockhart 2011, p. 15.
- ^ Lockhart 2011, pp. 36–37.
- ^ a b Lockhart 2011, p. 16.
- ^ a b c Lockhart 2011, p. 17.
- ^ a b c Goscha 2016, p. 405.
- ISBN 978-0-30023-482-4.
- ISBN 978-1-442-25861-7.
- ^ "David and Goliath: Vietnam confronts China over South China Sea energy riches - on Line Opinion - 16/6/2011".
- ^ Sutherland 2018, p. 11.
- ^ Lockhart 2011, p. 21.
- ^ a b Sutherland 2018, p. 149.
- ^ Lockhart 2011, pp. 20–21.
- ^ Nakamura & Sutherland 2019, p. 57.
- ^ Sutherland 2018, p. 167.
- ^ Lockhart 2011, pp. 37–38.
- ^ Lockhart 2011, p. 18.
- ^ Nakamura & Sutherland 2019, p. 52.
- ^ a b c Lockhart 2011, p. 39.
- ^ Lockhart 2011, p. 40.
- ^ Nakamura & Sutherland 2019, p. 55.
- ^ a b c Sutherland 2018, p. 126.
- ^ Sutherland 2018, p. 125.
- ^ Nakamura & Sutherland 2019, p. 53.
- ^ Nakamura & Sutherland 2019, p. 54.
- ^ Sutherland 2018, p. 47.
- ^ Goscha 2016, p. xxiv.
- ^ Goscha 2016, p. 406.
- ^ Greer, Tanner (January 5, 2017). "Cambodia Wants China as Its Neighborhood Bully". Foreign Policy.
- ^ Lockhart 2011, p. 37.
- ^ Hutt, David. "The Truth About Anti-Vietnam Sentiment in Cambodia". thediplomat.com. Retrieved July 1, 2022.
- ^ "The Cham: Descendants of Ancient Rulers of South China Sea Watch Maritime Dispute From Sidelines". Science. June 18, 2014. Archived from the original on February 25, 2021. Retrieved July 1, 2022.
- ^ "On the Margins: Rights Abuses of Ethnic Khmer in Vietnam's Mekong Delta". Human Rights Watch. January 21, 2009. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
- PMID 28974757. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Bibliography
- ISBN 978-0-14194-665-8.
- Lockhart, Bruce (2011), "Colonial and Post-Colonial Constructions of "Champa"", in Lockhart, Bruce; Trần, Kỳ Phương (eds.), The Cham of Vietnam: History, Society and Art, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 1–54, ISBN 978-9-971-69459-3
- Nakamura, Rie; Sutherland, Claire (2019). "Shifting the Nationalist Narrative? Representing Cham and Champa in Vietnam's Museums and Heritage Sites". Museum & Society. 17 (1): 52–65. S2CID 126594205 – via Northumbria University.
- Nguyen, Dinh Dau (2009), "The Vietnamese Southward Expansion, as Viewed Through the Histories", in Hardy, Andrew David; Cucarzi, Mauro; Zolese, Patrizia (eds.), Champa and the Archaeology of Mỹ Sơn (Vietnam), Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-9-9716-9451-7
- Sutherland, Claire (2018). Soldered States: Nation-building in Germany and Vietnam. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-52613-527-8.
- Vickery, Michael (2009), "A short history of Champa", in Hardy, Andrew David; Cucarzi, Mauro; Zolese, Patrizia (eds.), Champa and the Archaeology of Mỹ Sơn (Vietnam), Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 45–61, ISBN 978-9-9716-9451-7