It recently came to my attention that archaeologist Nam Kim from the University of Wisconsin has just published a book entitled The Origins of Ancient Vietnam. This is great news for anyone interested in the early history of the Red River Delta region as Nam Kim is a very capable scholar who has been working on this topic for years, including engaging in important archaeological work with colleagues in Vietnam.

That archaeological work resulted in the most precise dating for the construction of an ancient citadel that is now referred to as “Cổ Loa,” and even more importantly, it was determined that there were multiple stages of construction of that citadel over a period of a few hundred years starting roughly around the fifth century BC.

Cổ Loa is very important for the early history of the Red River Delta region because as Nam Kim explains in his book “the society responsible for founding the Co Loa settlement, the Co Loa Polity [his term], was a centralized, state-level society with enduring political institutions, one of the earliest not only for Bac Bo [i.e., the greater Red River Delta region] but for Southeast Asia.”

Indeed, Cổ Loa is the best evidence that we have of “a centralized, state-level society with enduring political institutions” in the Red River Delta in the BC period. That, one would think, should make Cổ Loa take a very important place in the history of that region, but it doesn’t, and it never has.

Instead, in both the earliest sources that record information about Cổ Loa, as well as in contemporary writings, Cổ Loa is of secondary importance. Let us see why this is the case.

origins

In early historical sources, what was recorded was information about Cổ Loa’s conquest by someone known as King An Dương. In these accounts, we don’t really learn anything about Cổ Loa itself. The earliest mention of King An Dương’s conquest of areas of the Red River Delta were first recorded in a text called the Record of the Outer Territory of Jiao Region (Jiaozhou waiyu ji 交州外域記) which is cited in Li Daoyuan’s sixth-century Annotated Classic of Waterways (Shuijing zhu 水經注):

交州外域記曰:交趾昔未有郡縣之時,土地有雒田,其田從潮水上下,民墾食其田,因名爲雒民,設雒王、雒侯,主諸郡縣。縣多爲雒將,雒將銅印青綬。

“The Record of the Outer Territory of Jiao Region states that ‘In the past, before Jiaozhi had commanderies and districts, the land had lạc fields. These fields followed the rising and falling of the floodwaters. The people who opened these fields for cultivation were called lạc people. Lạc princes [or a lạc king] and lạc marquises were appointed to control the various commanderies and districts. Many of the districts had lạc generals. The lạc generals had bronze seals on green ribbons.’”

後蜀王子將兵三萬來討雒王、雒侯,服諸雒將,蜀王子因稱爲安陽王。後南越王尉佗舉衆攻安陽王。

“Later, a Shu prince led 30,000 troops to punish the lạc princes [or the lạc king] and lạc marquises and to subdue the lạc generals. The Shu prince thereupon came to be called King An Dương. Later, the King of Nanyue, Commissioner Tuo, recruited people to attack King An Dương.”

This text then goes on to talk about a now-famous story about a magic crossbow, and then concludes with the following comment:

今平道縣後王宮城見有故處。

“In present-day Bình Đạo District’s Sovereign Palace Citadel can be found the old area.”

I do not know what the “Sovereign Palace Citadel” (Hậu Vương Cung Thành 後王宮城) was, but it would appear that this is referring to a place which existed where King An Dương had previously established his capital (i.e., the old area).

In any case, this information is extremely vague, but the information from this passage became the main source for later explanations of what Cổ Loa once was.

An Nam Chí Lược

The above account was written by a “Chinese” writer. The first “Vietnamese” account of Cổ Loa was probably in Lê Tắc’s 1335 Brief Account of An Nam (An Nam chí lược 安南志略) where it is referred to as “The Việt/Yue King’s Citadel” (Việt Vương Thành 越王城). This is what it says:

越王城:俗名可縷城,有古池,國王每歲採珠,用此水洗珠,色鮮麗。在交址外城記,昔未有郡縣時,雒田隨潮水上下,墾其田者為雒民,統其民者為雒王,副者為雒將,皆銅印青綬。蜀王嘗遣子將兵三萬降諸雒,因據其地而王,自稱安陽王。

“The Việt/Yue King’s Citadel, colloquially called Khả Lâu Citadel, has an old pond. The king takes a pearl every year and uses the water there to wash it, making its color fresh and beautiful.”

The text then contains the passage from the Record of the Outer Territory of Jiao Region about lạc people and how King An Dương conquered the area. It then mentions that,

今平地縣有安陽王宮城跡猶存。

“In present-day Bình Địa Disctrict there still exists the remains of King An Dương’s palace.”

The text then goes on to talk about other historical issues, such as Ma Yuan’s conquest of the region in the first century AD, etc.

pool

Somewhere around 1377, a text known as the Outline of Việt History (Việt sử lược 越史略) was compiled that placed Cổ Loa in the context of a more detailed account of the early history of the Red River Delta region. This text did this largely by bringing together extant information from Chinese texts, but it added one piece of information that did not exist in Chinese texts – the idea that prior to the arrival of King An Dương there had existed 18 generations of “Đối kings” (Đối vương 碓王). Today these mythical figures are known as “Hùng kings,” and this was perhaps just a typo.

In any case, this is what the Outline of Việt History records:

“During the time of King Cheng of the Zhou [r., 1042–1021 B.C.E.] the Việt Thường clan first presented a white pheasant [at the Zhou court]. The Spring and Autumn [Annals] called them “empty lands” (khuyết địa 闕地). Dai’s Record called them “tattooed foreheads”(điêu đề 雕題).

“During the time of King Zhuang of the Zhou [r., 696-682 B.C.E.] there was an extraordinary person in Gia Ninh region who was able to use magical arts to subjugate the various tribes, and called himself the Đối King (Đối vương 碓王). He established a capital at Văn Lang and [his kingdom] was called the Kingdom of Văn Lang. The customs were pure and unadorned, and administration was by means of tying knots. Rule was passed on for 18 generations and all were called the Đối King.

“Goujian [of the Kingdom of] Yue [r., 496–465 B.C.E.] once sent an emissary with a decree, but the Đối King resisted this.

“At the end of the Zhou Dynasty period, [the Đối King] was driven away and replaced by a Shu prince, Phán/Pan. Phán/Pan constructed a citadel at Việt Thường and called himself the An Dương/Anyang King, and no longer had communications with the Zhou.”

vsl

Whereas the Brief Account of An Nam indicated that the name of King An Dương’s citadel was called “The Việt/Yue King’s Citadel” and “Khả Lâu Citadel,” the Outline of Việt History doesn’t indicate what this citadel was called. We just learn that it was constructed at a place called “Việt Thường,” the same name as a clan that is recorded in Chinese sources to have presented tribute, in the form of a white pheasant, to King Cheng of the Zhou.

Finally, there is no mention of the passage from the Record of the Outer Territory of Jiao Region about lạc people. Instead, we are introduced to a line of kings called the “Đối kings.”

anzy1

Not much later, in the early fifteenth century, Ming dynasty officials then recorded the following information in a text known as the Annan zhiyuan:

“The Việt/Yue King’s Citadel is in Đông Ngàn District. It is also called La [i.e., snail/spiral] Citadel, as it winds around like the shape of a snail/spiral. Its construction began at the time of King An Dương. It winds around nine times. It is also called Khả Lâu Citadel, and was constructed in the past by King An Dương. The place where An Dương had his capital was in Việt/Yue territory, therefore later people called it the Việt/Yue King’s Citadel. Inside the citadel was King An Dương’s palace. Its remains still exist. Liu Zhao [in his annotation to the History of the Later Han] stated that Giao Chỉ/Jiaozhi was the kingdom of King An Dương.”

anzy2

Here again we do not find the passage from the Record of the Outer Territory of Jiao Region about lạc people, but that passage does appear in an entry about a place called Lạc King Palace (Lạc Vương Cung 雒王宮) in an area referred to as Tam Đái Subprefecture (Tam Đái châu 三帶州).

This passage also says that there were eighteen generations of Lạc kings, the last of which was defeated by King An Dương.

What all of this shows us is that in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there were two sets of information that were cited in different ways. There was information from extant Chinese texts, dating back to the passage from the Record of the Outer Territory of Jiao Region about lạc people and King An Dương that can be found in the sixth-century Annotated Classic of Waterways, and there was some new information about eighteen generations of Lạc or Đối kings.

With the compilation of the Complete Book of the Historical Records of Đại Việt (Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư 大越史記全書) in the late fifteenth century, even more new information emerged. In that text we learn that King An Dương’s “capital was at Phong Khê” (都封溪) which is followed by an annotation that was made later that says “This is present-day Cổ Loa” (今古螺城是也). This may be the first time that the name Cổ Loa appears in a text.

We are also told that King An Dương’s kingdom was called Âu Lạc (甌貉), a term which was likewise new (probably appearing for the first time in the fifteenth-century collection of tales, the Lĩnh Nam chích quái).

And as was the case with other texts from this time period, the Complete Book of the Historical Records of Đại Việt indicated that King An Dương had constructed a citadel:

王於是築城于越裳,廣千丈,盤旋如螺形,故號螺城。又名思龍城。(唐人呼曰崑崙城,謂其城最高也。)

“The king then built a citadel in Việt Thường. It was 1,000 trượng wide and wound around in the shape of a snail/spiral. It was thus called Loa Citadel. It was also called Tư Long Citadel (People of the Tang [Dynasty] called it Côn Lôn/Kunlun Citadel, which referred to the citadel’s great height.)”

co loa

What the work of archaeologists like Nam Kim demonstrates is that there was a citadel at the place which much, much later came to be referred to as “Cổ Loa” that long predated the arrival of King An Dương. What is more, that citadel was constructed by “a centralized, state-level society with enduring political institutions.”

It is therefore extremely important for the history of the Red River Delta region.

However, specific information about it did not appear in texts until the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Where did that information come from? The information about King An Dương conquering the region came from older Chinese texts, but the idea that he had built Cổ Loa was clearly something that later people guessed, rather than knew for sure.

And as for the ideas that there had been eighteen generations of kings that had existed prior to the arrival of King An Dương and that his kingdom had been called Âu Lạc, I would agree with points that John Whitmore made in an article that I wrote about in a recent post, that these were part of an effort of people in the Sinicized world of the Trần with their Fujianese connections to create an imagined sense of place for themselves in what was to them actually a new land.

Their source of information was what they found in older Chinese texts, and in the stories they could create within the Sinitic textual tradition. So for them, Cổ Loa could only be understood from what could be surmised from texts and from what they saw around them. King An Dương had conquered the region and there were remains of a citadel at Cổ Loa, so he must have built Cổ Loa.

vl

As such, we could say that medieval historians diminished the importance of Cổ Loa, but they did not do that on purpose. It was simply the result of how they constructed their knowledge of the world, namely, largely through a reliance on texts.

One of the great promises of archaeology is that it is potentially superior to texts, as it can show us things that texts either do not record or which they distort.

Nam Kim’s work on Cổ Loa is a great example of this, as it demonstrates that the information that medieval historians compiled was incomplete.

Unfortunately, however, more recently historians have done the reverse. Instead of using archaeology to correct inadequacies in the historical record, they have used archaeology to “prove” what textual analysis demonstrates is clearly problematic information in the historical record, and this has again diminished the importance of Cổ Loa.

In particular, the efforts of scholars in North Vietnam in the 1960s to “prove” through archaeology that eighteen generations of rulers had existed before King An Dương arrived has created a sense that this earlier period was more important.

However, archaeologists have never found a “capital” of that supposed kingdom, or anything that comes remotely close to resembling the power and social sophistication that Cổ Loa does.

Therefore, I would argue that today Cổ Loa is as unimportant to the history of the early Red River Delta as it was in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries when medieval historians first wrote about it. That, however, is terribly unfortunate, because as Nam Kim’s work shows, it was incredibly important.

As such, hopefully work like Nam Kim’s will lead people to realize this point, and we can then all move beyond talking about imagined places like Văn Lang and can try to learn more about actual places like “the Cổ Loa Polity,” whatever that was.