The Colonial Diasporas and their Displacing Effects on the Traditional Vietnamese Society
What is the essence of the Vietnamese cultural history?
In National Geographic Traveler: Vietnam (2006) by James Sullivan, the motif used for the non-experts to understand Vietnamese history and culture is that of “the smaller dragon.” For more than a thousand years:
China controlled Vietnam as a vassal state, setting the stage for a cultural reorientation that goes right down to the marrow of what it means to be Vietnamese…[to] have absorbed the politics, religion, sociology, and arts of China to refine their own…There are, of course, cultural differences. But after more than 2,000 years of shared history, the similarities, especially to the traveler, remain obvious. 
Such perspective is not indicative of the current scholarship on Vietnamese history and culture. However, Sinologists, Indologists, pre-historians, and geographers writing before the mid-1960s did see Vietnam as “the smaller dragon.” These scholars regarded Vietnamese society, along with other Southeast Asian societies, in prehistoric time as having no roots and stuck fast in the stone-age. Such societies, according to French scholar Georges Coedes, “seem to have been lacking in creative genius and showed little aptitude for making progress without stimulus from outside.” 
Vietnam was fortunate, however, according to this view. Because it was a meeting ground of cultural influences from China, northern Vietnam became a receiver or a loan culture of a unidirectional diffusion and migration from an advanced agricultural economy, technology and mercantile activities of China.  From such contact, Vietnam entered history and established a centralized state which began to flourish in the early Christian era, whereas the “tribes” of Southeast Asian prehistory did not know how to rule. 
From 111 B.C. to 939 Vietnam was annexed to China, but “far from having worn down that invincibility, seems instead to have strengthened it.” It is this spirit of resistance through cohesion and formal structure that has been “the key answer to her historic problems.”
 Yet, these same observers believed that Vietnamese invincibility has been the result of Chinese influence through a spirit that
“combines amazing powers of assimilation.” Illustrative is Henri Maspero’s conclusion on early Vietnamese history:
[If Vietnamese] was able for centuries to resist Chinese aggression…it is indebted to Ma Yuan for this advantage [who defeated the Trung Sisters' Rebellion in 43 A.D.]..for it was the Chinese conquerer who, in destroying the old political institutions of Tonkin [northern Vietnam], cast this country for good into the stream of Chinese civilization, thereby giving it that strong Chinese reinforcement which allowed it to play the primary role in the history of eastern Indochina since the tenth century. 
Thus, areas of northern Vietnam were considered “Sincized” or little China; while areas of southern Vietnam were considered as “Indianized” or little India. At best, historians writing before the mid-1960s like John Cady and Joseph Buttinger held that Southeast Asian civilizations were imported but evolved as individual adaptations. In some cases, the modifications illustrate local genius of the more advanced culture of China and/or India and that is precisely what makes them Indochinese and why the territory may properly be called Indochina. 
On the one hand, migration through colonial diasporas have in many ways transformed Vietnam cultural history both in prehistoric and historic times. (For a theoretical discussion about the two types of diasporas in Vietnamese history — that of colonial diaspora and victim diaspora — see Conceptualizing Displacement). On the other hand, the effects of colonial diasporas — the imposition of foreign culture — will depend on the types of aggrandizement that colonists engaged in expanding their control, and of which will be interrelated with the colonized society’s physical size and the durability of its indigenous institutions prior to the external linkages between the colonizers and the colonized. (For a theoretical discussion of the above, see Types of Colonial Rules).
According to recent works by archaeologists, linguists, and geneticists, the colonial diasporas that had direct transformative effects on the traditional Vietnamese society is that of the Austroasiatic agricultural colonists, starting about 3000 to 1000 B.C. The migration of Austroasiatic “agricultural colonists” transformed the semi-/shifting agricultural societies of Australo-Melanesian, cumulating into two periods of Neolithic/Bronze and Iron Ages in northern Vietnam. The cultural significance of this is the solid evidence of a rich and vibrant Vietnamese civilization before Chinese arrival, as well as a proto-Vietnamese language along with cultural traditions that survived, though later they took on external influences through intimate contact with foreign colonial powers.
By the time “the first major imposition of northern influence” arrived, that of Thuc Phan and his Ou Yueh (Au Viet) military personnel,  the indigenous Lac society was well established whose physical size must have been considerable and whose language, cultural traditions, and class structures were effectively durable and stable. That is, while Thuc Phan’s army had displaced the Lac society, his reign did not mark any large scale movement of people in sufficient magnitude to account for the origin of a people,  or had left any mark on the Vietnamese language. 
In fact, the earliest spirit of an indigenous invincibility to resist foreign rule was the Lac lords. Their ability to ‘localize’ and ‘resist’ the colonial imposition of Thuc Phan in 257 B.C. and until the arrival of Ma Yuan in 43 A.D., illustrates more accurately the essence of Vietnamese culture: “displacement but never replacement.” While the earliest name of the Vietnamese people (that of Lac) had been replaced by Viet, the Vietnamese language and particular cultural traditions (such as the belief that the Vietnamese people originated from Lac Long Quan and Au Co) owe its heritage to the ancient Lac society.
The following is a brief outline of the colonial diasporas in and their displacing effects on Vietnamese history: that of Austroasiatic colonial diasporas and Ou Yueh (Au Viet) colonial diaspora; the next online classroom will discuss the Chinese colonial diaporas, French diaspora, and the Japanese diaspora.
Native speakers of Vietnamese today can claim descent from “the foundation movements of the major agriculturalist language families of Southeast Asia,” specifically that of Austroasiatic.  That is, the Vietnamese language, a Mon-Khmer language of the Austroasiastic family, at least by one reputable opinion, is believed to “derive from the earliest agricultural colonization of mainland Southeast Asia, a process possibly commencing out of southern China about 3000 B.C.”  Another reputable opinion is that “it is also possible that Austroasiatic languages were widely dispersed on the mainland of Southeast Asia before the Neolithic Period (also referred to as ‘the primitive agricultural stage’) and that rice farming was taken up by some of these groups in appropriate habitats from earlier rice cultivators in the north, who may have belonged to the Hmong-Mien language family.” 
Notwithstanding, from 11000 B.C. to 3000 B.C., the area of northern Vietnam was settled by societies of Australo-Melanesian hunters and gatherers (also termed the Hoabinhians) and later, by those who practiced simple plant cultivation (also termed the Basconians). Archaeological evidence from these sites suggests that these societies before 3000 B.C. made pottery, grew crops and kept animals. Bone materials from a wide range of mammal species were found, including pig, deer, dog, elephant, rhinoceros and cattle. Perhaps with the exception of pigs and dogs, none of these species appear to have been domesticated.  When heavy core tools appeared starting around 8000 B.C., it clearly demonstrated the Australo-Melanesian’s innovation rather than inertia, as the transition from hunting to a greater dependence on plant food began in this region. 
There is little doubt, however, that starting about 3000 B.C., the semi-agricultural societies in northern Vietnam were confronted by a major agriculturalist language family of Austroasiatic who were also known for their advancement in rice cultivation,  while Australo-Melanesian societies in central/southern Vietnam were confronted by agriculturalist/seafaring language family of Austronesian. The arrival of this agriculturalist language group “displaced” the Austro-Melanesian societies, as is evident by a complete shift to agriculture at least in northern (lowland) Vietnam.
In regard to the purpose and scope of the Austroasiatic migrants’ aggrandizement, evidence supports the theory that demographic conditions in southern China (possibly due to increasingly large and sedentary populations which arise from advancement in agricultural productivity) facilitated their migration.  Perhaps because the Australo-Melanesian societies lacked hierarchal or centralized social structures due to the ‘slash and burn’ of their shifting agriculture, they were not able to resist the arrival of the Austroasiatic migrants. If we presume that there were earlier waves of Austroasiatic migrants, then these may have served as linkages that facilitated the spread of Austroasiatic “agricultural colonists into a world peopled by fairly sparse groups of hunters and gatherers.” 
This migration process possibly commences out of southern China where, in prehistoric times, the Austroasiatic language family — along with other language groups such the Hmong-Mien, Tai, and Asutonesian — were the early ancestors of this territory before the arrival of Sinitic language family, such as the Sino-Tibetan.  The migration of these agriculturalist language families, especially the Austroasiatic and Austonesian, basically carried the proto-languages that gradually and eventually became the major languages of Southeast Asia through the mainland and the islands.  Thus, archaeologists and linguists have described southern China in prehistory and early history as geographically and culturally Southeast Asian, although eventually these “southern cultures” underwent “Sinicization.” 
From 3000-1000, the area of northern Vietnam experienced the passage of new cultures — that of the more settled agricultural societies with advanced agricultural techniques and of proto-Austroasiatic language. If we presume that the concept of migrations in ancient times “involved a relatively small group of ruling class people, whose mastery of political and military affairs was felt throughout the linguistic and cultural scene,” then we may speculate that there was a longer, slower process of intermarriage and adaptation between Austroasiatic migrants and the Australo-Melanesians (some may have retreated to highlands of northern Vietnam), rather than a total displacement and a wholesale overrunning of the latter. Recent studies support this view in which genetic data in Southeast Asia does not point clearly to the total replacement of the Australo-Melanesians, and that the proto-Austroasiatic and Austronesian languages were doubtlessly localized, by semi-agricultural peoples;  moreover, the region’s shared cultural symbols such as betel chewing has been established well before 3000 B.C. 
Nevertheless, the migration of Austroasiatic â€œagricultural colonists’ cumulated into two periods of Neolithic/Bronze (as late as 1500, known as the Phung Nguyen culture) and Iron Ages (starting as late as 500 B.C., known as the Dong Son culture)  in northern Vietnam. In the former, there is solid evidence for cultivation of rice, along with a broader range of cultural material, such as stone arrowheads and knives, baked clay spindle whorls and bow pellets, and pottery with incised and comb-stamped decoration.  Pottery in this period has been considered to be directly ancestral to the pottery of the archaeological Dong-Son society of the first millennium B.C,  which gives further support of a cultural continuity throughout the prehistoric occupation of the Red River valley. 
The Dong Son culture may have played a large role in the dissemination of bronze-working technology.  While is likely that there was constant interaction between southern China region and northern Vietnam (as well as stimulus from the former to the latter) after about 300 B.C., the classical Dong Son drums (also termed Heger I drums) that exemplified the cultural period were likely to have been manufactured in northern Vietnam.  The “roots” of the Dong Son culture, whose indigenous development of the bronze style is little beyond doubt,  may well extend back to at least 1000 B.C., antedating any significant northern influence. In regard to the social and historical evidence for the Dong-Son period, evidence suggests the existence of a stratified society, perhaps under the rule of a single center, as attested by the textual inference of Van Lang (Kingdom), Hung (field/king/lords), and Lac [field/king/lords] in Chinese historical records,  which may have commenced as early as the seventh century B.C. 
The cultural significance of Neolithic/Bronze and Iron Ages in northern Vietnam is that the solid consensus that there was a rich and vibrant Vietnamese civilization before Chinese arrival, as well as a proto-Vietnamese language along with cultural traditions that survived, though later they took on external influences through intimate contact with foreign colonial powers both in classical and modern times. The migration of the Austroasiatic “agricultural colonists” could be considered a classic case of cultural diffusion of as well as a direct stimulus to the Australo-Melanesian semi-/shifting agricultural societies in which such diffusion gradually developed into indigenous Vietnamese civilization.
From Chinese historical records (existing only in quotations in later Chinese works between the third and fifth centuries A.D.):
In Kau-tsi [Chiao Chih, northern Vietnam]…when there were neither commanderies nor prefectures [that is prior to Chinese rule], the land was in lak [lac] fields. In these fields the [level of the] water used to rise and fall in accordance with the [rise and fall of the] tides. The folk who brought these fields into cultivation were called Lak [Lac]. Subsequently, a Lak [Lac] king was instituted and Lak [Lac] lords appointed to govern commanderies and prefectures, [as well as] prefectural officials entitled to bronze zeals and green ribbons [which were symbols of investiture used by Ch'in and Han dynasties]. 
Another quotation which appeared later in Chinese sources — though somewhat at variance to the above — described northern Vietnam before Chinese rule as:
Its soil is black and rich…so that these fields are called jiung [hung] fields, and the people [who cultivate them] jiung [hung] folk. There is a chief similarly styled the Jiung [Hung] King, whose aides are also called Jiung [Hung] lords. The territory is apportioned among jiung [hung] officials. 
These two different traditions have been conjectured. For example, Henri Maspero has claimed that Hung was an error for Lac and concluded that there never were Hung kings.  Others, however, have found occurrences of Hung as a family name and that it is well attested in southwest China that it derives from a Mon-Khmer title of chieftainship.  If we were to accept the first tradition, then even a conservation conjecture would be that the “lac field were…the creations of an indigenous folk and consequently shared their ethnic attribution” whose chieftains commanded some form of social power. 
Notwithstanding, the word Lac is the earliest recorded name for the Vietnamese people and we can conjecture that Lac existed before 257 B.C. and with the arrival of Thuc Phan (King An Duong), who may have some association with the Ou Yueh/Viet lords, was able to survive by forming the political union of Au Lac (Au is simply the Vietnamese pronunciation of Ou). While the word Lac disappeared when the Trung sisters and more than five thousand of their supporters were beheaded in their revolt against Han rule in 43 A.D., it was the factor that united the legendary Hung kings and the early “northern” influences and domination of Thuc Phan, Chao T’o, and early Han governors.
Meanwhile in central Vietnam, the semi-agricultural peoples and earlier Austroasiatic migrants were confronted by the migration of the Austronesian agricultural/seafaring colonists. Thus, central Vietnam starting by 2000 B.C. was being populated by the Austronesian language family. In particular, the Austronesian Chamic languages probably displaced earlier Austroasiatic languages and have been displaced in turn by Vietnamese expansion down the coast after the release of the latter from Chinese domination in the tenth century A.D. (Bellwood, 1979, 112-113). Though it should not be taken for granted, the amount of connections, contacts, and loosely knit multiethnic confederations among the various cultures located in northern Vietnam, northeastern coastal and central Vietnam. In fact, this would explain why Vietnamese language, a Mon-Khmer language of the Austroasiastic family, has clearly recognizable loans from Austronesian and later developed into a tonal language (likely borrowed from the Tai language group who spread into the region at a later date). Such contact is given visual form in the in the art of the Dong Son bronze drums, where sea birds and amphibians surround boats bearing warriors, revealing a ruling class perspective heavily influenced by Astronesian culture.
According to the traditional Chinese historiography, the “birth” of Vietnam originated from the refugee population of Yueh, was an ethnical branch of the Chinese race, located along the coast where the Yangtze River enters the sea. In 333 B.C., the state of Yueh was conquered by Ch’u, which was founded by a noble house closely linked with the Chou court (1027-256 B.C.) and was supposedly dispatched from central Yangtze to “colonize” the South.  Consequently, the Yueh ruling class migrated southward, to an area which included the lower valley of the Hong River in northern Vietnam, and established small kingdoms and principalities that Chinese historians referred to as the “Hundred Yueh.”
The above Chinese expansion, as noted by John Whitmore, set off disturbances throughout the south in which “one consequence appears to have been the Shu/Thuc [Thuc is Vietnamese for Shu] invasion of the Red River Delta in the third century B.C.”  Thuc Phan is the first figure in Vietnamese history documented by historical sources, although much of what we know about his origin and his reign as King An Duong has survived in legendary forms.  According to Keith Taylor, Thuc Phan and his family were pushed southward by Chinese expansion, which “surely forced upon them some association with the Ou Yueh lords,” who were located on the frontier of northwestern Vietnam.
The linkage between the Ou Yueh and the Lac society in northern Vietnam was one of military invasion. It is thought that the growing number of dispossessed Ou Lords caused by Chinese expansion created a context in which there was a call to recoup their fortunes by invading their southern neighbor.  This call was led by Thuc Phan. According to reliable sources, Thuc Phan invaded northern Vietnam with his army of thirty thousand, where the timing of the military invasion was probably opportunistic; that is, when Lac society was weak.
The arrival of Thuc Phan in the Hong River plain became “the first major imposition of northern influence in historic times”  and was “the opening wedge for ‘Yueh’ influence in Hong River Plain.” 
In regard to the purpose and scope of Ou Yueh’s aggrandizement, we can speculate that it is dynastic in nature — that is, it probably reflected the personality and was conducted in the name of Thuc Phan. Yet, most of what we know about Thuc Phan is mostly from legendary tales. For example, from the legend of the golden turtle, a golden turtle assisted Thuc Phan in subduing the local spirits so that Thuc Phan could finish his citadel at Co Loa. Before departing, the turtle gave Thuc Phan one of his claws to be used as the trigger of the king’s crossbow, assuring that he could destroy any enemy. By some accounts, this turtle claw symbolizes the military nature of Thuc Phan’s conquest and reign, suggesting his rule was based on force or the threat of force. 
However, unlike the Austroasiatic colonial diasporas, the Ou Yueh’s aggrandizement was not a classic case of cultural diffusion and appeared in general not to have direct and stimulus effects on Lac society. That is, the arrival of Ou Yueh lords and military personnel did not mark any large scale of sufficient magnitude to account for the origin of a people.  In addition, there is no evidence the Thuc Phan’s arrival left any mark on the Vietnamese language or caused any demographic change.  However, Thuc Phan did built a great citadel at Co Loa which was his capital and may contributed to the development of the canal-irrigated rice fields that were present in northern Vietnam before 111 B.C.; as well as a centralized state in which, according to a Chinese census of 2 A.D., over a million people populated northern Vietnam. 
Yet, the key reason why Thuc Phan’s arrival did not transform the Lac society was merely the fact that the latter was a well established civilization whose physical size must have been considerable and whose language, cultural traditions, and class structures were effectively durable and stable. This is in the sense that Thuc Phan’s reign was not able to disinherit the Lac society’s language, the Lac lords, or cultural motifs such as tattooing, betel chewing, and oral tradition.
For instance, recent research shows that the initial settlement of Co Loa started about 2000 B.C. Starting about 500 B.C.,  “there was a move in some lowland river locales, from village autonomy towards centralized chiefdoms, occurring approximately at the same time when the knowledge of iron-working was being established in Southeast Asia and slightly earlier than initial direct contact with Chinese and Indian civilization.”  The evidence that more than 200 Dong Son style drums have been found throughout the Southeast Asia region suggests that the Lac society was engaging in sophisticated intraregional trade, prior to the infusion of Chinese modes of authority and trading techniques.
Notwithstanding, Thuc Phan’s ensuing conquest produced a fusion of the invading Ou (Au) Yueh lords and the resident Lac lords, thereby forming the kingdom of Au Lac.  Thuc Phan was apparently absorbed in the legendary traditions as King An Duong who came from the north and built a great capital but eventually fell prey to stronger forces coming from central China. 
But probably the lasting effect of Thuc Phan’s reign is that his arrival, that of the Ou Yueh, in northern Vietnam was utilized by the Chinese traditional historiography to demarcate the origin of the Vietnamese people, and perhaps because of the above simplicity of this, such perspective “still continued to attract attention.” 
Although Vietnamese are believed to have originated from the migration of the Yueh, as caused by the growing Chinese expansion in the third century A.D., it is more or less reflective of the ever present reality that the traditional Vietnamese society was displaced by Chinese colonial diasporas starting after the fall of Thuc Phan in 207 B.C.
For example, the word “Viet” is the Vietnamese pronunciation of the Chinese term Yueh, which is employed by Chinese scholars as synonyms of “barbarian.” When the Ch’in dynasty came to power in 222 B.C., it deployed a general, Chao T’o (Trieu Da in Vietnamese) to invade the southern Yueh lands and to establish a Chinese southern state, including conquering Thuc Phan and his Ou Yueh lords. By 207 B.C., Chao T’o created a capital near modern Canton, commanding the Kwantung and Kwangsi Provinces, and the Red River Delta of northern Vietnam, and proclaiming himself King of Nan Yueh (Nam Viet).
During Chinese direct conquest of northern Vietnam in 43 A.D., the word Yueh/Viet increasingly came to express the conquered people’s place within the “middle kingdom.” For the Chinese rulers, Yueh/Viet was to be temporary since these people would eventually be civilized and become Chinese. For the Vietnamese, after the beheading of more than five thousand Lac lords who were associates of the Trung Sisters’ rebellion against the Han dynasty in 41 A.D., their name Lac was no longer of account, whereas the name Yueh/Viet carried some weight. 
On the one hand, the word Viet connotes displacement and a permanent identity within the Chinese world view, but Viet also is rooted in a conviction not to be Chinese.  This conviction will later indicate that, while Vietnamese were displaced, they were never replaced. However, such displacement does require the reconstruction of cultural identity in order to first survive and later, to put back the “place” into displacement.
Although the original Lac society eventually disappeared, there are still traces of their traditions. According to Gerald Hickey, characteristics of the Lac society can still be found today among Vietnam’s highlanders, particularly those speaking Mon Khmer languages. These include the practice of levirate (that is, a man must marry the widow of his childless brother in order to maintain the brother’s line); having special deities associated with agriculture; and having a “dinh” or communal house temple for the guardian sprite of the village. 
It has been speculated that the Mon Khmer speakers are linguistically related to the Lac people, but the former chose to retreat to the country’s highlands when the northern forces came to the country. So, if we want to examine the degree that “an indigenous core of ‘Vietnameseness’ survived unscathed through the fire of Chinese domination,” as we may look to the Mon Khmer highlanders.
- Is the Vietnamese language genetically related to Chinese?
- What has enabled the Vietnamese language to be “displaced but never replaced”?
- Do you think the Vietnamese language in the Vietnamese diasporic community could be maintained?
2. Nguyen Van Ky, “Rethinking the Status of Women in Folklore and Oral History,” in Gisele Bousquet and Pierre Brocheux, eds., Viet Nam Expose: French Scholarship on Twentieth-Century Vietnamese Society (Ann Harbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2005).
- What do Vietnamese legends and early history say about women status?
- What do Confucian values say about women status?
- What does theÂ oral tradition say about women status?
 John Sullivan, National Geographic Traveler: Vietnam (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2006), p.28.
 Georges Coedes, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Translated by S.B. Cowing, ed. W.F. Vella (Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1968), p.13
 Such a prevailing view appeared to have disregarded postulations that Southeast Asia could have been a “maker” of history rather than a receiver or a victim. For example, in the early 1950s geographer Carl Sauer hypothesizes that the region should have been a center of plant domestication. See his Agricultural Origins and Dispersals (New York: George Grady Press, 1952).
 Georges Coedes, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, p.268, 403.
 John McAlister and Paul Mus, The Vietnamese and Their Revolution (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), p.50.
 Keith Taylor, “An Evaluation of the Chinese Period in Vietnamese History,” The Journal of Asiatic Studies (Korea University), 23 (1980), p.139.
 John Cady, Southeast Asia: Its Historical Development (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), p.4; Joseph Buttinger, The Smaller Dragon: A Political History of Vietnam (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1958), p.19.
 John Whitmore, “Foreign Influences and the Vietnamese Cultural Core,” p.25.
 Ibid., p.17.
 Ibid., p.17.
 Peter Bellwood, “The Origins and Dispersals of Agricultural Communities in Southeast Asia,” in Ian Glover and Peter Bellwood, ed., Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History (London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p.22.
 Ian Glover and Peter Bellwood, Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History (London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p.11.
 Ibid., p.11.
 Peter Bellwood, Man’s Conquest of the Pacific (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p.87.
 Miksic, 1995, p.49.
 Peter Bellwood, “The Origins and Dispersals of Agricultural Communities,” p.22.
 Ibid., p.23.
 Ibid., 24.
 Ibid., p.21-23.
 Ibid., p.22.
 Though some still include south China (but not Burma), as a part of mainland Southeast Asia. See Peter Bellwood’s Man’s Conquest of the Pacific.
 Peter Bellwood, “The Origins and Dispersals of Agricultural Communities,” p.22.
 Peter Bellwood, Man’s Conquest of the Pacific, p.71
 Charles Higham, “Mainland Southeast Asia from the Neolithic to the Iron Age,” in in Ian Glover and Peter Bellwood, ed., Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History,p.41.
 Peter Bellwood, Man’s Conquest of the Pacific, p.96.
 Ibid., p.96
 Charles Higham, The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia: From 10,000 B.C. to the Fall of Angkor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p.193.
 Peter Bellwood, Man’s Conquest of the Pacific, p.129.
 Ibid., p.122.
 Bayard, 1980, 106
 Keith Taylor, The Birth of Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), Appendix B; Paul Wheatley, Nagara and Commandery (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1983), p.67-69.
 Keith Taylor, The Birth of Vietnam, Appendix D.
 Paul Wheatley, Nagara and Commandery, p.67
 Ibid., p.69
 Henri Maspero also concluded that Van Lang was an error for Yeh-Lang, the name of ancient kingdom in Kuei-Chou.Â Thus, there never was a kingdom of Van Lang.
 Keith Taylor, The Birth of Vietnam, Appendix B.
 Paul Wheatley, Nagara and Commandery, p.68.
 Blakeley, Barry “The Geography of Chu” in Defining Chu: Image and Reality in Ancient China, Ed. By constance A. Cook and John S. Major, Honolulu: Hawaii Press, 1999, 10
 John Whitmore, “Foreign Influences and the Vietnamese Cultural Core,” in D.R. SarDesai, Southeast Asian History: Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Westview Press, 2006), p.25.
 Keith Taylor, The Birth of Vietnam, p.21.
 Ibid., p.20.
 John Whitmore, “Foreign Influences and the Vietnamese Cultural Core,” p.25.
 Keith Taylor, The Birth of Vietnam, p.17.
 Ibid., p.21.
 Ibid., p.17.
 Ibid., p.17.
 Peter Bellwood, Man’s Conquest of the Pacific, p.125.
 Charles Higham, “Mainland Southeast Asia,” p.46.
 Charles Higham, The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia, p.30
 Keith Taylor, The Birth of Vietnam, p.20.
 Ibid., p.23.
 Ibid., Appendix E.
 Ibid., p.43.
 Ibid., p. xviii.
 Gerald Hickey, Sons of the Mountains: Ethnohistory of the Vietnamese Central Highlands to 1954 (New Haven: Yale University of Press, 1982), p.62-63.
 Georges Coedes, The Making of South East Asia. Translated by H.M. Wright (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), p.218.