Funan was a loose network of ancient Indianized states (mandalas) located in Mainland Southeast Asia, covering parts of present-day Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, that existed from the 1st to the 7th century CE. It was located southwest of Linyi, the Chinese designation for the historical region of Champa in present-day central and southern Vietnam. Funan is generally considered the first known kingdom in Southeast Asia.
Funan is known in the ancient languages of the region as Suvarnabhumi, from Sanskrit, meaning "land of gold", and in Chinese as 扶南 (pinyin: Fúnán). However, the name Funan does not appear in any locally produced texts from the period, and it remains unknown what name the people of Funan used for their polity. It appears in Chinese historical texts describing the kingdom, and the most extensive accounts are largely based on reports by two Chinese diplomats, Kang Tai and Zhu Ying, who represented the Eastern Wu dynasty and sojourned in Funan during the mid-3rd century CE.
Based on Chinese historical accounts, Funan is believed to have been established in the 1st century CE in the Mekong Delta. According to the epigraphic and Chinese texts, it was founded by legendary monarchs Soma and Kaundinya who are held to be the first kings of Cambodia. However, archaeological research indicates that extensive human settlement in the region may date back as far as the 4th century BCE. Although Chinese authors described Funan as a single unified polity, some modern scholars argue that it may instead have been a collection of city-states that were at times in conflict and at other times politically united.
Like the kingdom's name, the ethno-linguistic identity of its people remains a subject of considerable scholarly debate. The leading hypotheses suggest that the Funanese were primarily Mon–Khmer, primarily Austronesian, or part of a multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic society. The available evidence remains inconclusive.
Archaeological evidence, including Roman, Chinese, and Indian goods excavated at the ancient mercantile center of Óc Eo in southern Vietnam, indicates that Funan was a powerful trading state. Excavations at Angkor Borei in southern Cambodia have likewise revealed evidence of an important settlement. Because Óc Eo was connected both to a coastal port and to Angkor Borei through a system of canals, it is possible that these locations together formed the heartland of Funan.
Etymology
The origin and meaning of the word Funan is disputed. It has been suggested that the name Funan (Middle Chinese pronunciation of 扶南: /bju nậm/, Later Han pronunciation: /buɑ nəm/) represents a transcription from a local language into Chinese. George Cœdès specifically suggested that ancient Chinese scholars were transcribing a term related to the Khmer word bnaṃ or vnaṃ (modern: phnoṃ), meaning "mountain".
It has also been noted that, in Chinese, the character 南 (pinyin: nán; Vietnamese: nam) is frequently used in geographical terms to mean "South". Chinese scholars used it in this sense when naming other locations and regions in Southeast Asia, such as Annam. Some scholars argue that ancient Chinese scholars derived their understanding from records in the Yuán Shǐ, the historical records of the Yuan dynasty: "Siem Kok and Lo Hu Kok, formerly the Kingdom of Funan, were located to the west of Linyi Kok (the Champa Kingdom in central Vietnam). The maritime distance from the capital of Linyi Kok to the capital of Funan Kok was about 3,000 li."
Some scholars propose that Funan may itself have been an endonym used by its inhabitants and perhaps a Chinese rendering of the Proto-Khmeric term bnaṃ ("mountain"). However, the epigraphist Claude Jacques argued that this explanation was based on a mistranslation of the Sanskrit word parvatabùpála in ancient inscriptions as equivalent to the Khmer word bnaṃ, as well as a misidentification of King Bhavavarman I as the conqueror of Funan.
As a result, Funan may have been an originally Chinese term rather than a transcription of a local name. Jacques therefore proposed abandoning the use of the name Funan in favor of names such as Bhavapura, Aninditapura, Shresthapura, and Vyadhapura, which are attested in inscriptions as contemporary names for cities in the region. By contrast, the names Funan and Chenla are not known from Old Khmer sources.
History
Origins of Funan
Chinese sources relate a local legend to document Funan's origin, that a foreigner named "Huntian" (混填, pinyin: Hùntián) 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. Michael Vickery argued that, although identifying the language of Funan with certainty is impossible, the evidence strongly suggests that the population was Khmer. However, several studies indicate that the inhabitants of Funan may have spoken Austroasiatic languages, while Malayo-Polynesian languages were spoken in neighboring Champa. The Funanese may have been either Cham, Khmer or from another Austronesian or 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. Archaeological findings at Óc Eo have demonstrated "no true discontinuity between Óc Eo and pre-Angkorian levels", suggesting Khmer linguistic dominance in areas under Funan's control. 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.
Whether Funan's ethnolinguistic components were Austronesian or Austroasiatic remains inconclusive. The majority of Vietnamese academics believes them to be Austronesians. 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.
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”.
Foundation and Indianisation
Epigraphic sources
Some scholars have identified the conqueror Hùntián of the Book of Liang with the Brahmin Kauṇḍinya who married a nāga (snake) princess named Somā, as set forth in a Sanskrit inscription found at Mỹ Sơn and dated 658 CE. The Sanskrit inscription (K.5) of Tháp Mười (known as "Prasat Pram Loven" in Khmer), which is now on display in the Museum of Vietnamese History in Ho Chi Minh City, refers to a Prince Guṇavarman, younger son (nṛpasunu—bālo pi) of a king Ja[yavarman] who was "the moon of the Kauṇḍinya line (... kauṇḍi[n]ya[vaṅ]śaśaśinā ...) and chief "of a realm wrested from the mud".
Chinese accounts
The Book of Liang records a local legend to document Funan's origin, that of the foundation of Funan by the foreigner Hùntián (混塡, Middle Chinese pronunciation /ɦwənx tɦian/): "He came from the southern country Jiào (徼, an unidentified location, perhaps on the Malaysian Peninsula or in the Indonesian archipelago) 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 (柳葉, "Willow Leaf"; Queen Soma, Middle Chinese: Iiu-iap) 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 Book of Jin, 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 rejected identification of Hùntián with Kaundinya, 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. However, even if the Chinese "Hùntián" is not the proper transcription of the Sanskrit "Kaundinya", the name "Kaundinya" [Kauṇḍinya, Koṇḍañña, Koṇḍinya, etc.] is nevertheless an important one in the history of Funan. Chinese sources mention another person of the name "Qiáochénrú" (僑陳如). 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 (天竺旃檀, "Candana from India"), a ruler of Funan who in the year 357 CE sent tamed elephants as tribute to Emperor Mu of Jin (r. 344–361): "He [Qiáochénrú] 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 (盤盤). 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."
Cambodian foundation legend
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". According to the legend of Preah Thong and Neang Neak, 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 (Kambujādhipati) and may be translated into English as "the lord of Cambodia". In another version, it is stated that Preah Thaong fights Neang Neak.
Kenneth Hall remarks that the basic details of the Chinese legend are reiterated elsewhere in Indian and Southeast Asian folklore.
The historian Gabriel Ferrand believed that some Indian merchants might have immigrated to the region and established relations with the natives and that's how the myth emerged. Some Indian historians have exaggerated the accounts and speculate that a large population of South Asians colonized Funan. Dutch historian J.C. van Leur stressed that it was the local rulers who recognized the benefits of associating with their relatively advanced social technologies and drew from the Indian traditions by encouraging migration of Brahmin clerks to help with the administration.
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. As per O.W. Wolters, there was a mutual sharing process in the evolution of Indianized statecraft and no mass influx of Brahmans. He said that it was rather the Indianized local Southeast Asian traders who provided the initial contact with Indian cultural traditions and the local rulers followed up. He also stated that Hindu traditions was selectively mobilized by the local rulers to strengthen the political alliances among fragile polity of the states in that period.
Apex and decline of Funan
Successive rulers following Hun-t'ien included Hun-p'an-huang, P'an-p'an, and then Fan Shih-man, "Great King of Funan", who "had large ships built, and sailing all over the immense sea he attacked more than ten kingdoms ... he extended his territory five or six thousand li." Fan Shih-man died on a military expedition to Chin-lin, "Frontier of Gold". He was followed by Chin-cheng, Fan Chan, Ch'ang and then Fan Hsun, in successive assassinations. Before his death, Fan Chan sent embassies to India and China in 243.