The Cham-Việt Frontier as a “Middle Ground”


One of the most important books written about the history of North America in recent decades is Richard White’s The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815. What this book did that was so important is that it examined the contact between Native Americans (or “Indians”) and white settlers (French, British, etc.) in one area of North America over a period of a couple of centuries, and explained that interaction in much more complex and sophisticated terms than anyone had before.

mid ground

To quote from the back cover, the book “seeks to step outside the simple stories of Indian/white relations – stories of conquest and assimilation and stories of cultural persistence. It is, instead, about a search for accommodation and common meaning.”

“It tells how Europeans and Indians met, regarding each other as alien, as virtually nonhuman, and how between 1650 and 1815 they constructed a common, mutually comprehensible world in the region around the Great Lakes. . . Here the older worlds of the Algonquins and various Europeans overlapped, and their mixture created new systems of meaning and of exchange.”

“Finally, the book tells of the breakdown of accommodation and common meanings and the re-creation of the Indians as alien and exotic.”

In other words, White depicts a time when Native Americans and white settlers didn’t really understand or like each other, but nonetheless found ways to live with each other (although plenty of problems and violence persisted), and created a shared world.


I’ve been reminded of White’s book recently as I have been reading a work by Hồ Trung Tú called Có 500 năm như thế: hình dung sự hình thành bản sắc Quảng Nam [There Were 500 Years Like That: Picturing the Formation of the Characteristics of Quảng Nam].

This book covers a lot of ground. It looks in detail, for instance, at the “Southern Advance” (Nam tiến), or southward migration of Việt-speaking peoples over the centuries, and points out that it was really much more complex than a smooth southward movement like that term implies.

This critique of the Nam tiến is one that many people are familiar with. What people will find that is refreshing in this book is its effort to keep the Cham in the picture of the Nam tiến.

There are some scholars outside of Vietnam who have written about the southward movement of Việt peoples and have talked about how the Việt changed as they adopted cultural practices from people like the Cham and the Khmer. In making this argument, however, these writers have focused on the Việt. We never really see the Cham very clearly. They are simply there somewhere for the Việt to assimilate things from.

On the other extreme, Hồ Trung Tú criticizes scholars in Vietnam who make the same argument about Việt adoption of the cultural practices of others, but who describe a process where Việt migrate into areas that people like the Cham have abandoned (after a war, for instance). Here again, the Cham are acknowledged, but they are still not really there in the story.

cham ruins

Hồ Trung Tú, by contrast, tries to keep the Cham in the picture, and tries to document their continued presence in areas that Việt migrated into/occupied. He also points out, for instance, that there were periods of time when in Quảng Nam the Việt were a minority living amidst a Cham majority, and that we therefore have to think about what kind of interactions took place in such locations at such times.

In a long section on language, one intriguing argument that Hồ Trung Tú makes is that the reason why the version of Vietnamese spoken in the Quảng Nam region is so different from the Vietnamese just on the other side of the Hải Vân Pass might be because the Vietnamese in Quảng Nam is “Chamicized” (I’m inventing this term here), namely, that it resembles the Vietnamese that was spoken by people whose native language was Cham.

I’m not a linguist and have no way of verifying this view (for a positive review [in Vietnamese] of this work by a linguist, however, click here), but what I do like about this point is that it makes us think about Cham-Việt relations in complex ways. In what context would such a new version of a language appear? The explanations about the Nam tiến to date (where the Việt adopt Cham practices) cannot explain why the Việt would end up speaking Vietnamese the way that some Cham did.

To explain that we need a more complex understanding of the history of Cham-Việt relations than one that sees a uni-directional process of Việt moving southward and assimilating cultural elements from other peoples.


Hồ Trung Tú’s Có 500 năm như thế thus does a good job of pointing out the need to think about the Nam tiến and Cham-Việt relations in more complex ways, and the ideas it offers get the reader thinking about these issues.

And as I reflect upon these issues while reading this book, I keep thinking of White’s Middle Ground. If you changed a few words on the back cover of that book, it could probably describe the history of Cham-Việt contact quite well:

“It tells how Việt and Cham met, regarding each other as alien, as virtually nonhuman, and how between 1306 and 1471 they constructed a common, mutually comprehensible world in the region around Quảng Nam.”

“Finally, the book tells of the breakdown of accommodation and common meanings and the re-creation of the Cham as alien and exotic.”

This is not exactly what Hồ Trung Tú does in his book, but he takes the discussion a long way in this direction. And it’s an enlightening direction to go.

6 Responses to “The Cham-Việt Frontier as a “Middle Ground””

  1. Trade being significant to livelihood at the time, i’m going to give the default answer/assumption and say that (expansion) economics was responsible for the change in language. Then again the nexus may have begun with a group of Việt hippies that really got into Vedic culture, hitting the road to find out what it was all about.

  2. This guy’s argument is that it came from Viet men marrying Cham women, and everyone ending up speaking like the moms (that would make sense as the kids would grow up talking like their moms – the people they were around the most).

    So I think I like your second suggestion better – “Việt hippies that really got into Vedic culture, hitting the road to find out what it was all about” – “Get on the bus everybody, we gotta go to My Son to experience the cosmic convergence!” Yup, that works for me.

  3. 3 SK

    In most works on Vietnamese history, later period of Cham-Viet relation is barely mentioned. Maspero assumed Champa ended with the collapse of Vijaya, and Trần Trọng Kim considered Nguyễn Phúc Chu’s victory against the Cham ruler Bà Tranh and the annexation of Cham territories in 1693 as the end of Champa. More recently Po Dharma’s research shows that a semi-autonomous Champa known in Cham as Pradara (Sanskrit: panduranga) still existed until 1832.

    There are in fact quite a number of Cham manuscripts from Bình Thuận, and these include not only Cham chronicles,religious hymns and literary works but also legal contracts and trade agreements. I think there are research projects currently being conducted outside Vietnam on some of these manuscripts, and hopefully the results would shed some light on Cham-Viet relationship during the time of the Nguyễn lords to the Tây Sơn era, and during the Nguyễn dynasty to the French colonial time.

    P.S.: I think the last picture of people worshiping the statue that resembles Di Lặc/Maitreya as a fat bald man comes from John Barow’s Voyage to Cochinchina.

    • Yes, I know of at least one person who is hard at work on such manuscripts and is scheduled to defend a phd dissertation based on them soon. There are apparently many Cham manuscripts out there – many are hard to date, and they are undoubtedly difficult to read, but they exist. And like you I am curious to see what people discover in them.

      And yes you are correct about that picture. I copied it from the book I talked about, but you are right that it originally comes from Barrow’s travel account.

  4. Whenever I hear my friends from Hue speak with that lovely melismatic accent, I think of people speaking Vietnamese in an Indian accent. I.e., the same transformation that makes the stereotypical Indian accent (Apu from the Simpsons, say) from standard American media English makes Vietnamese into Central-accent Vietnamese.

    • I agree, and I wish that instead of learning “standard” English (be it “standard” British, Australian or American), people would study “lovely melismatic” versions, like Indian or Jamaican. The world would have to end up being a better place, wouldn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Fifty Viss

a collection of thoughts and writings on Burma

Colonizing Animals

A blog about beasts, Burma and British imperialism

mini myna

on knowing the past in Singapore


Albert Einstein — 'What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.'


About Vietnamese Cultural History and Scholarship

Digital Southeast Asia

Ideas for employing digital humanities approaches to the study of Southeast Asian history


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 794 other followers

%d bloggers like this: