Talk:Funan

message: The cited source is from 1960 and is generally not a widely held view.  Also, its contents about Dong Son contradicts the Dog Son article.  There is very little evidence of an Austronesian culture in southern Cambodia, please take the time to read all the publications about neolithic Cambodia. Joshotoken (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Remove the Austronesian Hypothesis

message: A map of the areal extent of Funan and its major sites, in relation to Mainland South East Asia is urgently needed. John D. Croft 03:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: this aricle needs a map

message: Funan (Southern China) is absolutely not Khmer-Cambodia (Jampa)BECAUSE until 550 A.D.,.  Jampa (Khmer-Cambodia) was still under Funan.  Funan is the pre-Vietnamese (probably) or the Mongoloid-southern Chinese, which became (part of)Thai-Lao-(part of)Cambodia and Vietnam nowadays.
:Sorry, I have no real idea what your comment means. Champa, my best guess at what you mean by Jampa, formed after Funan by a process of colonisation from northern Borneo. Funan was an Indianised kingdom culturally, ethnically and linguistically distinct the Vietnamese and southern Chinese. Indeed at the time of its foundation the Han Chinese themselves were still consolidating their position south of the Huang He. The Lao are a subset of the Tai peoples and the Tai migration into Southeast Asia was in its infancy. Please discuss with citations before further major changes. Alan 16:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Funan and Cambodia

message: anyone still work on this?--Dangerous-Boy 19:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. But someone should. PiCo 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anyone out there? 

message: I deleted a reference to Funan as an empire with control over much of Southeast Asia. The concensual view today is that Funan wasn't even a unified state, let alone an empier; and the map was based on pure fantasy. PiCo 04:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats o.k as long as you have evidence.  Do you have any?  You're  likely thinking about chenla because Funan was unified until its fall. Chenla split into two diffrent states. CanCanDuo 03:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material in the article was/is based in part on a website dating from 1987 - a bit old. The concept of Funan as a unitary empire was based on supposition - the actual evidence about Funan is very thin, just some archaeological material from Oc Eo and nearby sites plus the Chinese records. Mpre recent books  -those from the last five years or so - tend to be moer cautious in their interpretatoins, and less inclined to take the Chinese at face value. Unfortunately I'm based in Phnom Penh, and the books are in Bangkok. You can revert if you like, and I'll get my references on my next trip over. PiCo 04:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I did some research.  It agrees with you that Funan was not a unified empire but it does have vast territories.  I've found a map that somewhat agrees with this.  http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/seasia/cambodia3rdc.GIF  The best way to document Funan is from later periods, it being mentioned in Chenlaen text. CanCanDuo 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know where that map comes from - who produced it, and when? Since I don't have my references at the moment, I'll hold off for a bit. PiCo 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/seasia/haxcambodia.html  This is a website mainly concentrated on maps of countries and continents of the world.  It doesn't seem to be bias toward anyone and every map there are based on actual evidence. 
CanCanDuo 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it has no bias, I just wonder how up to date and well-based it is, especially for historical maps on a ergion about which there's so little information in the historical record. But let's wait till I get to the books. PiCo 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some book reading, and it seems that Funan may have been a collection of states similar to ancient Greece.  However, archaeological digs at Angkor Borey have revealed collasped brick structures dating way before the 4th century.  At another site, glass pigments import from India, and Candi pottery from Sri Lanka have been found dating back to the first century.  Funan may have been older than previously thought because a man made canal system dating to the first century showed extensive human settlement around the area dating back to the 4th century B.C.  It may be that Funan existed before Indianization, but gained importance from the silk road trade via the ocean between China and India. CanCanDuo 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funan as State and empire 

message: That part of Funan rulers fleeing to Java and related to the Sailendras is deleted. There is no evidence for it. It was a hypothesis of George Coedes  (1934,  following a speculation of Louis Finot ). Because  some works of Coedes' are more easy to get in libraries, this theory is  sometimes published on certain sites. One argument of Coedes was that the  Sailendra title could have been related to the 'lord of mountain 'title in Cambodia. Several Cambodia scholars , for example  C. Jacques, L. P.  Briggs  and Michael Vickery,have already pointed out the mistakes.  For example : Michael Vickery ;
"Louis Finot speculated that the Funan kings were entitled Kurung Bnam, 'king of the mountain' but as Claude Jacques has shown , there is no basis for it. In fact we have no idea of the titles of funan rulers besides 'Hun' , 'Fan' and -varman." (2003:103 )
 
" As noted above, there is no evidence of the title 'mountain king 'for the Funan rulers", nor were the last ones more Buddhist than Hindu".  ( 2003 :132-133 )
references :
CoEdes, G., "On the origins of the Sailendras of Indonesia ", Journal of the Greater India society , I (1934), pp 61-70
Vickery, M. "Funan reviewed: Deconstructing the Ancients ", Bulletin de l' Ecole Francaise d' Extreme Orient, 90-91 (2003-2004 ), pp. 101-143
A. Post-Muller 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you make a references to this old hypothesis in the article? Enlil Ninlil 23:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old  hypothesis 

message: :Even though its cited, no modern scholars can infer any relation between the two people due to lack of genetic data and lack of actual textual inscriptions that link the Indianised Khmer and the Kambuja.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.149.91 (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kambuja

message: This article takes the position that the people of Funan were Khmer.  This position is contested and is no more plausible than the competing views: that they were Mon or some other Austro-Asiatic group, or that they were Cham or some other Austronesian group.  I think the article should be changed so as not to suggest that Funan was a Khmer polity.  Also, the second infobox is problematic.  For example, where does the date of 68 A.D. come from that is given as the earliest date for Funan?  Where does the information come from about the first "capital" of Funan?  Finally, the article asserts that the name "Funan" is related to the khmer "phnom" meaning "mountain;" this too is a speculative hypothesis that should not be presented as fact. DoktorMax (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm a Malaysian and while we learn about Funan in our history text books, we have never associated them as part of our history. Unlike the Thai, we're not too keen on claiming things that are not ours without well-grounded proofs. So please, keep us Malaysians out of this dispute.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.92.107 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funan and the Khmers 

message: ...mysterious because of two reasons - it is probably impossible to add anything else of concern to the article - and - the text is rather well supported with internal and (good quality) external sources...so why START CLASS
...because of the style? the whole article is a bit drawn out, though i have the feeling...BUT!!! - honestly - this can't be the reason for such a low rating.
If there is anyone out there, who has anything to say about this - please talk to me.
ATBWikirictor (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - why not talking to myself. The content is from this benevolent person at the Indology faculty in Bonn university. needs some sorting, though.Wikirictor (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mysterious article

message: This info box for Funan is completely unsourced. Which is not surprising, as hardly anything in it is correct. WHich again is not surprising, as Funan wasn't a country, it was a region and a period. If sources can't be provided within the next seven days I'll delete it. PiCo (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funan country info box 

message: In etymology, it would be helpful to include the English pronunciation of "Funan" since it is translated in Middle Chinese.
The History section is very detailed and provides a lot of information to readers.
More information in the "Legacy" section would be interesting- explain "king of the mountain"
Overall, the page is very, very informative.
The sources part of the page is less weighted than the rest of the page, but I do not see this as an issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagropp (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagropp's Peer Review 

message: I feel like the lead of the article is focused more on what is not known than what is known. Other sites talk about how it was the 'first Southeast Asian civilization', 'first important Hinduized state in Southeast Asia', or 'the precursor of all later Southeast Asian cultures', or something that explains why scholars are interested in it. The lead gives off the feeling that it is notable solely because we know nothing about it. It gets to the point where it disrupts comprehension of the subject. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing is known 

message: Why are the years 68 and 627 listed in the infobox, then mentioned nowhere in the text of the article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 68 and 627

message: The lead contains a good summary on the historiography of Funan but a lead should be a summary of the entire article, not just one section. Should change this Danial Bass (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead should be re-written