Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:48:14.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a Social History of the Vietnamese Southward Movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Michael G. Cotter
Get access

Extract

The advance to the South, or Nam-tien, is a major theme of Vietnamese history. Other themes, such as the influence of Chinese civilization or the development of an independent Vietnamese state after the tenth century, are in their ways just as important to the study of Vietnamese history as is the Nam-tien. The Nam-tien is unique, however, for it transcends the different periods in Vietnamese history — pre-Chinese, Chinese, independent, colonial, and contemporary — each with its own theme. It is also important because it provides the opportunity to study Vietnamese history on its own themes and not as part of, for example, French colonial history. Despite the importance which this writer believes it to be, though, the advance to the South has not been the subject of extensive investigation and publication. Only a few scholars, such as Pierre Gourou and Le Thanh Khoi, have looked beyond the usual framework of dates, dynasties, and wars to suggest the existence of social changes in Vietnamese history resulting from the expansion of settlements into new areas.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1968 , pp. 12 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. An exhaustive search for Vietnamese-language publications on this subject admittedly has not been made, for only a very few bibliographical and periodical sources were available to this writer. The lack of references in the sources that have been consulted, however, does seem to indicate the scarcity of research on the Nam-tien.

2. Van Dan, Phung, “La formation territoriale du Vietnam,” Revue du Sud-est Asiatique, 1963, 247–294; 1964, 127–177.Google Scholar

3. Nguyen, Tu, “Cuoc Nam-tien cua dan-toc Viet-nam,” [The advance to the South by the Vietnamese people], Van-hoa [Culture] (Saigon), no. 43 (1959), 969–981; no. 44 (1959), 1132–1144.Google Scholar

4. In this article, the use of the terms North, Center, and South is consistent with Vietnamese terminology and should not be confused with the present political boundaries between North and South. It instead corresponds approximately with the French colonial boundaries for Tonkin, Annam, and Cochinchina.

5. Khoi, Le Thanh, Le Viet-nam: histoire et civilisation (Paris, 1955)Google Scholar, chapter II, discusses the Chinese occupation and its effects upon Vietnamese society.

6. Gourou, Pierre, Les paysans du delta tonkinois (reprint, Paris, 1965), pp. 111–114, 172–174.Google Scholar

7. Gourou, , Delta tonhinois, pp. 37–46Google Scholar; Maspéro, Henri, “Le protectorat général d'Annam sous les T'ang,” Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient, X (1910), 682–684.Google Scholar

8. Maspéro, Georges, Le royaume de Champa (Paris, 1928), pp. 189–200.Google Scholar

9. Cadiere, L. M., “Le mur de Dong-hoi,” BEFEO, VI (1906), 93–103.Google Scholar

10. The reasons for the separation do not seem to be clear: Khoi, , Viet-nam, p. 245Google Scholar, suggests the separation was the result of disputes between the Trinh and the Nguyen over which family should be the advisor to the Le court; Tran Kim, Trong, Viet-nam su-luoc [History of Vietnam] 4th ed. (Saigon, 1951). pp. 286–295Google Scholar, says that the Nguyen wanted independence from Trinh despotism (chuyên-quyên). The question is important for the study of the Nam-tien, particularly as an example of the frontier-metropolis conflict.

11. Cadiere, , “Mur,” 103–104, 135Google Scholar; Khoi, , Viet-nam, pp. 263–264.Google Scholar

12. Cadiére, , “Mur,” 127Google Scholar, states that during the wars with the Trinh, the Nguyen army numbered 200,000: this figure may be larger than the actual figure, for Vachet, B., in La geste française en Indochina, ed. Taboulet, Georges (Paris, 1955), I, 66Google Scholar, who was in the Nguyen lands in the 1680's, estimated perhaps more correctly that the Nguyen had 40,000 troops. Kim, , Su-Iuoc, p. 326Google Scholar gives the size of the Nguyen army as 30.000.

13. Maybon, Charles B., Histoire moderne du pays d'Annam, 1592–1820 (Paris, 1919), pp. 110–111.Google Scholar

14. Moréchand, Guy, “Caractéres économiques et sociaux d'une région de pêche maritime du Centre-Vietnam,” Bulletin de la Société des Etudes Indochinoises, XLVII (1955), 304.Google Scholar

15. Coedes, Georges, Les peuples de la peninsule indochinoise (Paris, 1962), p. 26Google Scholar; Moréchand, , “Caracteres économiques,” 313.Google Scholar

16. Gourou, , Esquisse d'une étude de l'habitation annamite (Paris, 1936), pp. 12–61passim.Google Scholar

17. Maspéro, G., Champa, p. 26Google Scholar, gives the eleventh-century figure; the “Bieu nhat-lam ve viec phan chia dia-hat trong nen hanh-chanh Viet-nam” [Appendix on district divisions in the administration of Vietnam] in Hong-duc ban-do [Atlas of Hong-duc] (Saigon, 1962), p. 237Google Scholar, quotes the 1960 South Vietnamese census figure of 27,918 Chams. The Annuaire statistique du Vietnam currently does not include separate census figures for Chams.

18. Aymonier, Etienne, Les Tchames et leurs religions (Paris, 1891), pp. 27–31.Google Scholar

19. Malleret, Lous, “La minorité cambodgienne de Cochinchine,” BSEI, XXI (1946), 26–33.Google Scholar

20. Hoai Due, Trinh, Gia-dinh thong-chi; Histoire et description de la Basse Cochinchine, trans. Aubaret, G. (Paris, 1862), pp. 2, 9–10.Google Scholar

21. Leclère, Adhémard, Histoire, du Cambodge (Paris, 1914), pp. 375, 382–384Google Scholar; Due, , Gia-dinh, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

22. Leclère, , Cambodge, pp. 382–384Google Scholar; Khoi, , Viet-nam, pp. 269–270.Google Scholar

23. Leclère, , Cambodge, p. 434.Google Scholar

24. Aubaret, , in Due, , Gia-dinh, p. 58, note 1.Google Scholar

25. Khoi, , Viet-nam, p. 359.Google Scholar

26. Dürrwell, Georges, Ma chère Cochinchine (Paris, 1910), pp. 44–46.Google Scholar

27. Ching-ho, Chen, “May dieu nhan xet ve Minh-huong-xa va cac co-tich tai Hoi-an” [Some observations about the village of Minh-huong and historical remains at Hoi-an], Vietnam Khao-co tap- san [Transactions of the Historical Research Institute] (Saigon), I (1960), 5–6.Google Scholar

28. Malleret, , “Minorité cambodgienne,” 24.Google Scholar

29. Maybon, , Histoire moderne, pp. 183–347Google Scholar, describes the military events of the era from a Europe-centric viewpoint, typical of the large body of literature produced by the French about this era.

30. Hickey, Gerald C., Village in Vietnam (New Haven, 1964), pp. 19–21Google Scholar, and Gourou, , “La population rurale en Cochinchine,” Annales de Géographie, LI (1942), 20–23Google Scholar, discuss different types of settlement patterns in the South.

31. Hickey, , “Problems of Social Change in Vietnam,” BSEI, XXXIII (1958), 414–415.Google Scholar

32. Hickey, , Village, pp. 88–91Google Scholar; Luro, E., Le pays d'Annam (Paris, 1878), pp. 204–205.Google Scholar

33. Teulieres, Roger, “La maison rurale vietnamienne et les circonstances de son évolution dans le région sud-orientale du Viet-nam, BSEI, XXXVI, iv (1961), 674–677.Google ScholarGourou, ,. Habitation annamite, pp. 43–44Google Scholar, discusses and illustrates the nha roi.

34. Malleret, , “Minorité cambodgienne,” 25.Google Scholar

35. Malleret, , “Minorité cambodgienne,” 24.Google Scholar

36. Leclere, , Cambodge, pp. 435–436.Google Scholar

37. Hickey, , Village, pp. 134, 136.Google Scholar

38. Hickey, , Village, p. 119.Google Scholar

39. Duc, , Gia-dinh, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

40. Gourou, , L'utilisation du sol en Indochine française (Paris, 1940), pp. 272–273.Google Scholar

41. Hendry, Jamés B., The Small World of Khanh Hau (Chicago, 1964), pp. 33–34Google Scholar, gives the figures as of 1958, before the land reform program of the Republic of Vietnam government began.

42. Many of Cadière's studies are reprinted or published for the first time in “Croyances et pratiques religieuses des Vietnamiens,” BSEI, XXXIII (1958). 1–245Google Scholar, and, under the same title, Saigon: Ecole françhise d'Extrême-Orient, 1955–57.