VietnamJournal Login |
If you do not have an account yet Create
One. | |
VietNam Journal |

VietNam Journal is an online
quarterly magazine. The magazine is created to serve as
a forum for students and scholars to present
disciplinary and interdisciplinary research findings on
a broad range of issues relating to Vietnam and
Vietnamese overseas. VietNam Journal embraces the
diversity of both academic interests and scholastic
expertise. It is hoped that this forum will introduce
scholars to the work of their colleagues, encourage
discussion both within and across disciplines, and
foster a sense of community among those interested in
Vietnam. VietNam Journal welcomes you to its issues.
Crucial to the success of this publication is your
involvement. VietNam Journal wishes to receive your
input, your criticisms, and your contributions. Please
help us in this challenging
endeavor! | |
Copyright & Disclaimer Notice |
Copyright: All electronic
documents available on VietNam Journal are, unless
otherwise noted, the copyright of the authors and/or the
organization sponsoring the documents. Permission to
reproduce or publish copyrighted text or images must be
obtained from Vietnam Journal and the copyright holder.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in
VietNamJournal are solely those of the authors and do
not represent the views of VietNamJournal or its
editors. Questions, comments, and original contributions
should be addressed to the Board of
Editors.
| |
|
The Present
Echoes of the Ancient Bronze Drum: Nationalism and
Archeology in Modern Vietnam and China by:
Xiaorong Han on: Tuesday 21 August @ 23:53:48 |

by Xiaorong
Han |
Introduction |
?
Bronze drums are one of the most important archaeological
artifacts to be found in southern China and Southeast Asia.
Their use by many ethnic groups in that area has lasted from
pre-historical times to the present. Northern Vietnam and
southwestern China (especially Yunnan Province and the Guangxi
Zhuang Autonomous Region) are the two areas where the majority
of bronze drums have been discovered. According to a 1980
report, China has stored about 1460 bronze drums.[1] The
Provincial Museum of the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region
actually boasts the largest collection of Bronze drums in the
world. The total number of bronze drums discovered in Vietnam
reached about 360 in the 1980s, among which about 140 were
Dong Son drums.[2]
The earliest historical records about bronze drums appeared
in the Shi Ben, a Chinese book written in the 3rd century BC
or earlier. The book is no longer extant, however a small
portion of it appears in another classic, theTongdian by Du
You.[3] The Hou Han Shu, a Chinese chronicle of the late Han
period compiled in the 5th century AD, describes how the Han
dynasty general Ma Yuan collected bronze drums from Jiaozhi
(northern Vietnam) to melt down and then recast into bronze
horses. From that point on, many official and unofficial
Chinese historical records contain references to bronze drums.
In Vietnam, two 14th century literary works written in Chinese
by Vietnamese scholars, the Viet Dien U Linh and the Ling Nam
Chich Quai, record many legends about bronze drums. Later
works such as the Dai Viet Su Ky Toan Thu, a historical work
written in the 15th century, and the Dai Nam Nhat Thong Chi, a
book about the historical geography of Vietnam compiled in the
late 19th century, also have records about bronze drums.[4]
Further, there is also a wooden tablet from the early 19th
century found in Vietnam which describes the discovery of some
bronze drums.[5]
Modern archaeological research on the bronze drum did not
begin until the late 19th century, after the arrival of
Westerners in the region. Before the 1950s, almost all of the
important works on the bronze drum were written by western
scholars. Notable works from this period are F. Heger's Alte
metalltrommeln aus Sudost Asien (Leipzig, 1902), F. Hirth's
Alte bronze Pauken aus Ostasien (Vienna, 1891), A.B. Meyer and
W. Foy's Bronze-Pauken aus Sudost-asien (Dresden, 1897), and
B. Karlgren's The Date of the Early Dong-son Culture (Bulletin
of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1942).[6] Due to the
social-political circumstances, few Vietnamese scholars were
able to engage in research on the bronze drum during those
years. In China, a monograph entitled Tonggu kaolue (A Brief
Introduction to the Bronze Drum), written by Zheng Shixu, was
published in Shanghai in 1936. Although some famous Chinese
scholars, such as the historians Xu Songshi and Luo Xianglin,
also showed interest in the bronze drum, no other significant
Chinese works on bronze drums were produced during that
period. ?
After the establishment of the PRC in 1949 and the division
of Vietnam in 1954, Vietnamese and Chinese scholars began to
dominate research on the bronze drum. In the 1950s and 1960s,
many excavation reports and some general studies on the bronze
drum were published. However, on the whole, the bronze drum
did not attract serious attention in either country. Moreover,
although China and Vietnam maintained good bilateral relations
during that period, very little academic exchange took place
between the bronze drum experts from the two countries. It was
not until the mid-1970s, shortly before the break-up of the
Sino-Vietnamese alliance, that several important articles
began to be published in both countries. The late 1970s and
early 1980s then saw the publication of many more books and
articles on the topic in both China and Vietnam, and heated
debates between Vietnamese and Chinese scholars ensued. In
March 1980, the first Chinese symposium on the ancient bronze
drum was held in Nanning, the capital city of the Guangxi
Zhuang Autonomous Region in southern China. The Chinese
Association for Ancient Bronze Drum Studies was formed
immediately following the conference. Another symposium was
held in Kunming, the provincial capital of Yunnan Province, in
late 1984.[7] In 1987, Vietnamese scholars summed up their
views in a book called Trong Dong Son (The Dong Son Drum).[8]
The following year, the Chinese Association for Ancient Bronze
Drum Studies (ZGTY) also completed a conclusive monograph
entitled Zhongguo Gudai Tonggu (The Ancient Bronze Drums of
China). In October 1988, Vietnamese and Chinese archaeologists
finally met at the International Symposium on The Bronze Drum
and Bronze Culture of South China and Southeast Asia to
discuss their differences. The publication of the
above-mentioned two books and this symposium actually put an
end to the protracted controversy. Since then, no important
works on the bronze drum have been published in either Vietnam
or China.
The timing of this Vietnamese and Chinese research on the
bronze drum indicates much about its political implications.
The recent boom in bronze drum research started when
Sino-Vietnamese friendship was about to turn sour, and it
ended when the two countries were ready to seek a solution for
their problematic relations. The political influence on
research is also reflected in the issues that the Vietnamese
and Chinese archaeologists chose to address in the 1970s and
1980s. While in the previous period, scholars had tended to
give more or less equal attention to the classification,
dating, origin, functions, and other issues relating to the
bronze drum, in the 1970s and 1980s, scholars paid much more
attention to the geographic and ethnic origins of the bronze
drum than to other issues. Where the first bronze drum was
made and who made it were the core issues in the controversy
between Chinese and Vietnamese scholars during that period.
The answers to these questions seem to have been largely
determined by the nationality of the schola?s concerned. Hence
the Vietnamese scholars unanimously claimed that the bronze
drum was invented in the Red and Black River valleys in
northern Vietnam by the Lac Viet, the remote ancestors of the
Vietnamese people, and then spread to other parts of Southeast
Asia and southern China. Meanwhile, Chinese archaeologists
declared that the real inventor of the bronze drum was the Pu,
an ancient ethnic group who inhabited southern China. Chinese
scholars argued that the Pu first made the bronze drum in
central Yunnan in southwestern China, and that the technique
was then adopted by other ethnic groups living in the
surrounding areas, including the Lac Viet in the Red River
delta.
In this article, I intend to make a brief review of the
major works on the bronze drum published in Vietnam and China
in the 1970s and 1980s, and will demonstrate how nationalism
predetermined the positions of the scholars researching the
issue of the origin of the bronze drum. I will also discuss
how their theories about the origin of the bronze drum in turn
influenced their understanding of other aspects of the bronze
drum, such as its typology, dating and decoration. My chief
concern here is not to prove which side is right or wrong, but
to try to explain why the issue of the origins of the bronze
drum became so important to the Vietnamese and Chinese
scholars during this period, and why no scholars expressed
different views from those of their compatriots. |
Classification and Dating |
The most well-known classification of the bronze drum was
made by the Austrian archaeologist F. Heger in 1902 in his
Alte metalltrommeln aus S?Asien. He collected 22 bronze drums
and the records or photographs of another 143, which he
divided into four types (I, II, III, IV) and three transitory
types (I-II, II-IV, I-IV) based on their form, distribution,
decoration and chemical composition. He believed that Type I,
or the Dong Son drum, as the Vietnamese scholars prefer to
call it, which had mostly been found in northern Vietnam by
that time, was the earliest.[9] Before the 1950s, some other
classifications were proposed, but none of them were as widely
adopted as Heger's.
Did Heger's classification stand the test of time and the
excavation of many more bronze drums? Vietnamese scholars
thought that the general framework of Heger's classification
was still valid, that it could be modified or expanded, but
should not be replaced. Since they continued to use Heger's
general framework, Vietnamese scholars did not expend any time
on working out new schemes. Instead, they chose to concentrate
on the details, with the aim of further proving Heger's
classification with new evidence discovered after 1902, and
defending him from Chinese attacks. With many more bronze
drums in hand, they began to divide each of Heger's types into
several sub-types. They focused their efforts on Heger's type
I, namely, the Dong Son drum, believed to be t?e earliest of
the various types of bronze drums and which had been mainly
found in northern Vietnam. For example, In 1963, Le Van Lan,
Pham Van Kinh and Nguyen Linh proposed to subdivide Heger's
type I according to the proportion between the diameter of the
face and the height of the drum. In 1975, Nguyen Van Huyen and
Hoang Vinh subdivided Heger's Type I into three subtypes. In
the same year, in an article published in Nhung Phat Hien Moi
Ve Kao Co Hoc (the New Archaeological Discoveries), Pham Van
Kinh and Quang Van Cay suggested that Heger's type I be
subdivided into seven subtypes belonging to four consecutive
stages.[10] Tran Manh Phu[11] and Luu Tran Tieu and Nguyen
Minh Chuong[12] subdivided it into four subtypes. Chu Van
Tan[13] proposed two subtypes with five transitory types. Di
ep Dinh Hoa and Pham Minh Huyen[14] suggested seven subtypes.
However, the most complicated scheme was proposed by Pham Minh
Huyen, Nhuyen Van Huyen and Trinh Sinh, who divided Heger's
Type I into six subtypes with 24 styles.[15]
Vietnamese scholars paid much more attention to the Dong
Son drum than to the other types of bronze drum that Heger had
identified. They saw these other types as later in date and
thus less related to the Vietnamese people.[16] Therefore,
they were much less important than the Type I drums for
proving the Vietnamese origin of the bronze drum.
The attitude of Chinese archaeologists toward Heger's
classification is sharply contrasted with that of Vietnamese
scholars. They believed that Heger's classification was so
outdated that it necessitate a complete overhaul. After the
break-up of bilateral relations, Chinese scholars began to
openly criticize Vietnamese scholars for what they saw as
blind adherence to Heger's classification for unacademic
reasons. As one Chinese book put it, Heger could be forgiven
for asserting that the Dong Son drum was the earliest because
he did not have enough evidence at that time, but Vietnamese
scholars could not be forgiven because they had so much more
information than Heger, but still refused to pay due attention
to this new evidence.[17]
From the 1950s to the 1980s, Chinese scholars strove
continuously to make new schemes of classification. In total
they made at least seven schemes during those four decades.
From the 1950s to the mid 1970s, the Chinese scholars
endeavored to reverse the order of Heger's first three types
by categorizing the type II as the earliest, and arguing that
Heger's type I developed from the type II. Three out of four
classifications made by Chinese scholars during that period
did precisely that.[18] Only the Yunnan Provincial Museum[19]
continued to support Heger's order. The above modifications of
Heger's classification naturally led to much suspicion from
the Vietnamese side. Vietnamese scholars were aware that China
had very few of Heger's type I bronze drums at that time, and
that the great majority of Heger's type II drums had been
discovered in Guangxi in southern China.
By the mid to late 1970s, Ch?na had discovered many bronze
drums believed to belong to Heger's Type I. Moreover, after
the excavation of Wanjiaba in Yunnan Province in 1975-1976,
Chinese archaeologists believed that they had found the most
archaic form of Heger's type I bronze drum. As a result, they
began to discard the schemes made by Chinese archaeologists in
the previous period and to go back to Heger's classification.
Here, however, they made one important modification: they
added the newly-found Wanjiaba drums to Heger's plan as the
earliest type. Wang Ningsheng,[20] Li Weiqing[21] and Shi
Zhongjian[22] represented this new revisionist school. This
revisionist school maintained the earlier Chinese view that
southern China was the place of origin of the bronze drum, yet
in their works they differed greatly from the previous
classifications in that they took Yunnan, instead of Guangxi,
as the specific place of origin of the bronze drum within
southern China. This indicated some differences between the
Chinese scholars in Guangxi and their colleagues in Yunnan.
These differences were not new, considering that among the
four classifications made by Chinese scholars between the
early 1950s and the mid-1970s, only the one made by the Yunnan
Provincial Museum refused to recongnize Heger's type II, which
was found mostly in Guangxi, as the earliest bronze drum. It
was probably not a coincidence that two of the three scholars,
Huang Zengqing and Hong Sheng, who claimed the Guangxi origin
of the bronze drum were from Guangxi, the other, Wen You,[2 3]
hailing from the neutral ground of Sichuan. Incidentally, two
of the scholars who claimed the Yunnan origin of the bronze
drum, Wang Ningsheng and Li Weiqing, were from Yunnan, the
other, Shi Zhongjian, coming from the neutral ground of
Beijing. It was reported in 1982, however, that a majority of
Chinese archaeologists had agreed that the bronze drum
originated in Yunnan (Shi Zhongjian 1982:203).[24] This
implied that there was still a minority that did not agree.
The debate with Vietnamese scholars had probably prevented
this minority from expressing their views. By 1995, it was
finally announced that Chinese archaeologists had all agreed
that the Wanjiaba type bronze drum was the earliest in the
world and that Chuxiong prefecture in Yunnan, where Wanjiaba
is located, is thus the birth place of the bronze drum.[25]
|
|
The Chinese modifications on Heger's classification:
|
Author |
Classification |
Year |
Heger |
|
I |
II |
III |
IV |
1902 |
Wen You |
|
II (western) |
I (eastern) |
|
III |
1957 |
Yunnan Museum |
|
I |
II |
|
III |
IV |
1959 |
Huang Zengqing |
|
II |
III |
I |
IV |
1964 |
Hong Sheng |
|
III |
II |
I |
IV |
1974 |
Wang Ningsheng |
A |
B |
C |
D |
F |
E |
1978 |
? Li Weiqing |
I:a |
I:b |
I:c |
II:a |
II:b |
III:a |
III:b |
1979 |
Shi Zhongjian* |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
5 |
1983 |
ZGTY |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
5 |
1988 | |
*One way to bolster
their claims about the origins of the bronze drum was to name
each type of bronze drum after the name of the place where it
was found. Just as Vietnamese scholars preferred to use
Vietnamese place names to name the bronze drum (for example,
the Dong Son drum), Chinese scholars also liked to use Chinese
place names in their classifications. For example, Shi
Zhongjian and the Chinese Association for Ancient Bronze Drum
Studies chose the following Chinese place names to designate
their eight types of bronze drum: 1. Wanjiaba (Yunnan); 2.
Shizhaishan (Yunnan); 3. Lengshuichong (Guangxi); 4. Zunyi
(Guizhou); 5. Majiang (Guizhou); 6. Beiliu (Guangxi); 7.
Lingshan (Guangxi); 8. Ximeng (Yunnan). The conclusive volume
edited by the Chinese Association for Ancient Bronze Drum
Studies (ZGTY) followed Shi Zhongjian's classification. Shi
was the director of the Board of Directors of the Association
at the time of writing and he also wrote the preface to the
volume.
Vietnamese scholars claimed that the attempts by Chinese
archaeologists to reclassify the bronze drums were all
groundless. They argued that besides the fact that China had
very few of Heger's type I drums, the Chinese had reversed the
order of Heger's first three types before the mid-1970s
because they believed that the bronze culture in the south
could not have developed without the influence of Chinese
culture from the north. Heger's type II, the Vietnamese noted,
had something which the Chinese were looking for: decorations
similar to those found in the Central Plain area of China.
These classifications, just like the widespread belief in
premodern China that the bronze drum had been invented by Ma
Yuan, the Han general who crushed the Trung sisters' rebellion
in Vietn?m in 40 AD, and Zhuge Liang, the famous prime
minister of the state of Shu during the Three Kingdoms period
(220-265 AD),[29] reflected the mentality of Han chauvinism.
To Vietnamese scholars, Chinese influences were not
indications of an earlier date, but precisely the
opposite.[30]
The more recent Chinese classifications, which returned to
Heger's plan but added the Wanjiaba drums as the earliest
type, were based in part on the idea that the form and
decoration of the Wanjiaba drums were very simple, and the
premise that the simpler the form and decoration, the more
archaic the drum would be. Vietnamese scholars believed that
this was another misinterpretation. The three principles used
by Chinese scholars in their classification, namely, that "the
face of the drum grew bigger and bigger, the body of the drum
decreased from three to two parts, and the decorations became
more and more complex," were considered to be
oversimplifications by Vietnamese scholars. They argued that
the simple form and decorations could also be indications of
decline, thereby implying that the Wanjiaba drum was not the
earliest of the various types of bronze drum, but the
latest.[31] Phan Huy Thong was another Vietnamese scholar who
argued this point. According to him, drums of the same type
were found in Vietnam during the 1930s and had long since been
judged to be coarse but late.[32] Thus, in the most
complicated Vietnamese classification proposed in Pham Minh
Huyen et al. 1987, the Wanjiaba Drum was listed as the fourth
subtype of the Dong Son Drum (Heger's type I). The Thuong Nong
drum, a Wanjiaba style bronze drum found in Vietnam in the
1980s, was put in the same subtype (see figure I).
The aim of all of these classifications was to determine
the relative dating of the bronze drums. To date, scholars in
the two countries have not found common ground on this issue.
The biggest problem concerns the first two types of Heger's
classification, which are directly linked to the issue of the
origins of the bronze drum. Since relative dating proved
unconvincing to both sides, Chinese and Vietnamese scholars
then made attempts at absolute dating. However, this proved to
be as controversial as relative dating.
The Vietnamese scholar Vu Tang proclaimed in 1974 that he
dated one bronze drum to the 13th-10th centuries BCE and
another one to the beginning of the late second millenium BCE.
This is the earliest absolute dating so far proclaimed for any
bronze drum by any scholar. However, this dating later led to
much criticism from Chinese scholars, according to whom the
method used to date those two drums had been unscientific.[33]
The dating of the first drum was based on the motifs of rings
and parallel lines, which are believed to be similar to those
found on ceramics of that period of time. Apparently,
Vietnamese scholars later discarded this dating scheme, as it
was not included in Trong Dong Son (The Dong Son Drums), the
conclusive volume edited by Pham Minh Huyen et al., and
published in 1987.
? Other Vietnamese scholars believed that the earliest Dong
Son drum can be dated alternately to the 7th century BCE;[34]
or the 8th century BCE;[35] or sometime before the 7th century
BCE.[36] Vietnamese scholars later admitted that it was
difficult to reach an exact date for the Dong Son drum because
many drums were discovered accidentally, and thus, the sites
were not well protected. Further, it is very difficult to find
any biological materials that are directly related to the drum
to get an absolute date.[37]
The earliest C14 date established for a bronze drum
excavated in China by Chinese scholars is 2640+- 90 before
1950, or 690 +- 90 BCE.[38] The dating was based on the
materials that coexisted with the drum in the tombs. Chinese
scholars claimed that this is the earliest credible C14 dating
for any bronze drum. They argued that the Wanjiaba type bronze
drums were mostly made between the 7th and 5th centuries BCE,
and that the Shizhaishan (or Dong Son) type was popular
between the 6th century BCE and the 1st century AD, and that
the latter was a more developed form of the former (Wang Dadao
1990:536;540).[39] However, according to Vietnamese scholars,
this dating is erroneous. Vietnamese archaeologists conducted
an experiment on a piece of wood obtained from an excavated
coffin and found that the margin of error for such dating
could be as much as 235 years. They believed that the Chinese
archaeologists deliberately chose that date in order to
support their claim about the southern China origin of the
bronze drum. According to Vietnamese scholars, the dating of
bronze drums should not be based solely on C14 statistics, but
instead, that other factors should also be taken into
consideration. They even went so far as to set an example for
the Chinese. A bronze drum was found in an ancient tomb at
Viet Khe. C14 dating indicated that the tomb was from
2480+-100 years before 1950AD, or around 530 BCE. However,
based on its style, it was decided that the drum could only be
dated to the 3rd or 4th centuries BCE.[40] To date, scholars
from the two count ries have failed to reach common ground
regarding absolute dating, just as they have not achieved a
consensus on relative dating. |
Interpretation of the
Decoration |
The decoration of the bronze drum is another major field of
controversy between Vietnamese and Chinese scholars.
Decoration is important because it is believed to reflect the
social and spiritual life of the people who invented and used
the drum, and thus, can help determine its ethnic and
geographical affiliations. The most popular motifs on the
early drums (Heger's first two types plus the Wanjiaba)
include various species of birds and other animals, as well as
boats, shining entities, and geometrical lines.
A flying bird with a long beak and long feet appeared very
frequently on the early drums, and a good deal of scholarly
attention was devoted toward ?rying to determine what kind of
bird it was. Dao Duy Anh, the Vietnamese historian, believed
that it was the legendary "lac bird," the symbol of the
ancient Viet people.[41] Dao Tu Khai, however, argued that the
bird was not a lac bird because the lac bird was a magpie or
some other species whose appearance was rather different from
that of the bird on the bronze drum . According to Dao Thu
Khai, the bird was instead a heron.[42] Still other scholars
argued that the lac bird and the heron were the same.[43] What
is more, it was argued that herons lived in every part of
Vietnam, and the ancient Viet people regarded it as the symbol
of the laborious peasants because it was believed to be
diligent. As one Vietnamese scholar put it, " We believe that
since the bronze drum is a product of Vietnam made by the Viet
people, it should reflect something real in the Vietnamese
landscape. The flying bird on bronze drums should be something
that the Viet people were very familiar with, and it should
have a Vietnamese name. We believe that our interpretation of
the bird with its long beak and long feet on bronze drums as a
heron is in conformity with the reality of Vietnamese history
and culture.[44]"
Some western scholars have also suggested a connection
between this and other birds on the bronze drum and the
Vietnamese identity, however they base their argument on a
different logic. For example, according to Taylor (1983:7;
313), the motifs of sea birds and amphibians surrounding boats
bearing warriors gave visual form to the idea of an aquatic
spirit as the source of political power and legitimacy, which
is the earliest hint of the concept of the Vietnamese as a
seaborne, distinct, and self-conscious people.[45]
 Figure III: Flying Birds on Bronze Drums[46]
Most Chinese scholars also believe that the bird is a
heron. However, they do not agree that the heron is a symbol
of the ancient Vietnamese peasants. Instead, they interpret it
more as a result of Chinese influence. They argued that the
heron is considered to be the spirit of the drum in the
Central Plain of China. This belief first spread to the Chu
area in southern China and then reached other ethnic groups
living to the south of Chu. According to the Chinese
Association of Bronze Drum Studies, "The flying heron is the
major motif onShizhaishan drums (Dong Son drums). There is a
long tradition of decorating drums with the motif of herons in
the Central Plain. The feather drums excavated from the Chu
tombs in Xinyang, Henan and Jiangling, Hubei and the Zenghouyi
tomb in Suixian, Hubei are all decorated with the motif of the
heron...there is clear evidence to support the idea that the
motif of the flying heron on the Shizhaishan drums originated
in the Chu area."[47]
 Figure IV: Frogs or toads on a Dong Son drum[48]
?
In addition to the bird motifs, there are also small
three-dimentioned animals on the face of some Dong Son
(Shizhaishan) drums and other types of drums which
archaeologists had argued are either frogs or toads. Chinese
scholars argued that they were frogs and explained them as
decorations without special meaning,[49] or something related
to the ceremony of rain-seeking, or the frog-worshipping
custom, of the ancient Yue people of southern China, a group
believed to be related to the ancient Viet people.[50] Edward
Schafer (1967:254) agreed that the animals were frogs, "for
the drum embodied a frog spirit--that is a spirit of water and
rain--and its voice was the booming rumble of the bullfrog."
He retold a story of the Tang period recorded in a Chinese
source to show that the drum could even take the form of a
living frog. According to the story, a frog pursued by a
person leaped into a hole, which turned out to be the grave of
a Man (barbarian) chieftain containing a bronze drum with a
rich green patina, covered with batrachian figures. The bronze
drum was believed to be the reincarnation of the frog.[51]
Vietnamese scholars initially agreed that the animals were
frogs in the 1970's,[52] but later interpreted them as toads
because "a widely known popular saying in Vietnam calls the
toad 'the uncle of the heavenly god' and maintains that rain
will inevitably fall when the toad raises his head and
croaks." [53]
  Figure V: Boats on bronze drums[54]
The motif of a long boat is another very popular decoration
on the surface of the Dong Son (or Shizhaishan) drums. Usually
the two ends of the boat are decorated with the head and tail
of a bird. In the boat are numerous ornamented human figures.
There are fish under the boat and birds around the boat.
Following Goloubew, Dao Duy Anh believed this was the "golden
boat" described in the belief system of the Dayak people of
Kalimantan in Indonesia that carries the spirits of dead
people to heaven, which is in turn symbolized by the birds. He
further concluded that there was a possible blood relationship
between the Dayaks and the Lac Viet, and that the ancient Lac
Viet could be the ancestors of the Dayaks.[55]
Feng Hanji, a Chinese archaeologist, did not agree. He
believed the motif of the long boat was a reflection of the
popular custom of boat racing in southern China. According to
Feng, the boat does not have an outrigger, thus, it could only
have been used in rivers or small inner waters like the Dian
Lake. Further, to decorate boats with birds was also an old
tradition in China. He also believed that the motif might
indicate some connections with the Chu. Ling Shunsheng, a
Chinese ethnologist, wrote in 1950 that the motif of the long
boat was a direct reflection of the custom of boat racing in
ancient Chu.[5?] Although legend has it that the custom was to
pay tribute to the memory of Qu Yuan, a Chu poet from the 3rd
century BC, Ling argued that the custom had an even earlier
origin.[57] Chinese scholars later pointed out that the boats
on bronze drums were involved in four different kinds of
activities which were all popular in ancient southern China,
namely, fishing, navigating, boat racing and offering
sacrifices to the spirits of the river.[58]
Vietnamese scholars later accepted the idea that the motif
was about boat racing. However, they interpreted it as a part
of the ancient Viet ceremony for seeking rain and water.[59]
 Figure VI: Shining entities on bronze drums[60]
As for the shining entity located in the center of the
surface of the bronze drum, some scholars have interpreted
this as a star, while others have viewed it as the sun.
Vietnamese scholars have taken the position that this reflects
the ancient Viet custom of worshipping the sun.[61] Meanwhile,
Chinese scholars have argued that many ancient ethnic groups
in China, such as the Shang (or Yin), the Chu, and other
southern peoples, all worshipped the sun. Moreover, rulers
tended to use the sun as a symbol of themselves.[62]
The two most common geometric motiffs on bronze drums are
believed to represent clouds and thunder, respectively.
According to Chinese scholars, the same motifs can be found on
the ancient carved-motif pottery of southern China, as well as
the bronze wares of the Central Plain. "They [the motifs]
prove the uniformity and continuity of the cultural
development of ancient southern China and the frequent
cultural exchange between southern China and the Central
Plain."[63] They also reflect the custom of worshipping clouds
and thunder in ancient China. These motifs appear only
occasionally on Dong Son drums, but can be frequently seen on
Heger's type II drums, most of which have been found in
southern China, especially the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous
Region. Vietnamese scholars did not openly object to the
Chinese claim that such motifs reflect Chinese influence,
however, they strongly rejected the idea that such an
influence proves that the bronze culture of the south
developed under Chinese influence, and that drums bearing such
motifs are the most ancient.[64]
In sum, Vietnamese scholars tend to view the decorations of
early bronze drums, especially the Dong Son drums, as a
reflection of the special cultural characteristics of the
ancient Viet people. They believe that the various motifs on
the bronze drum describe the various aspects of the life of
the ancient agrarian Viet culture of the Dong Son age.[65]
They therfore argue that the decorations prove that the Dong
Son drum belonged to the ancient Viet people. However, Chinese
scholars interpret the decorations as a reflection of the
cultural exchange between interior C?ina and China's frontier,
arguing that they represent the cultural features of the
various peoples living in that area, and not just the Lac
Viet. They do not deny the affiliation between the Dong Son
drum and the Lac Viet, but they believe the same type of drum
was also used by other ancient ethnic groups such as the Dian,
the Laojin, the Mimo, the Yelang and the Juding, who are
believed to be the relatives of the Lac Viet. They thus
contend that the earliest type drum was invented in a region
belonging to modern China. According to them, "the Dong Son
drum is a developed form of the imported Chinese Shizhaishan
drum, which spread from Yunnan to Vietnam along the Red
River."[66] Citing both historical records and archaeological
findings, Chinese scholars have tried to prove that the
earliest drum was invented by the Pu-Liao groups, which
included the Dian from the Dian Lake area of Yunnan, the Yeyu
and Mifei of the Chuxiong and Erhai areas of Yunnan, the
Yelang and Juding of western Guizhou, and the Qiongdu of
southwestern Sichuan. According to Chinese scholars, the
bronze drum was first invented by the Pu-Liao people on the
eastern Yunnan plateau, and then spread to the surrounding
areas.[67] Chinese scholars have proposed that the Lac Viet
also belonged to this Pu-Liao group, and have cited the
similarities between the Dian culture in Yunnan and the Dong
Son culture of Vietnam as evidence.[68] |
Nationalism and the Bronze
Drum |
The functions and the molding methods of the bronze drum
also caused much controversy. However, these issues are less
related to the origins of the bronze drum, and hence,
differences on such issues have been more individual than
national. Only in regards to issues that are more relevant to
the ethnic and geographical origins of the bronze drum, such
as its classification, dating and the interpretation of the
decorations, can a clear national difference be discerned. In
fact, the issue of the origin of the bronze drum came to
resemble a sacred topic in both countries. The scholars in
each country debated freely among themselves about many
details. For example, there are Vietnamese scholars who
support the Chinese claim that the flying bird is a heron, and
Chinese scholars who believe that the bird is the totem of the
Lac people.[69] However, once the debate touched on the key
issue of origin, all scholars took a national stand.
Therefore, the Vietnamese scholars who support the heron
interpretation do not believe that there is a connection
between the heron and the Chinese spirit of the drum, while
the Chinese scholars following the Lac bird explanation do not
think it has anything to do with the Vietnamese origin of the
bronze drum. Hence, they have quarreled freely about the
smaller details, but no one has dared to challenge the larger
conclusions.
The origin of the bronze drum was deemed important by
scholars in China and Vietnam during this period of tim? not
only because of its academic significance, but also because of
its political value, with the latter probably outweighing the
former. To the Chinese and Vietnamese scholars, the bronze
drum was not just an archaeological artifact, but more
importantly, a crucial part of their national culture and
national identity. The sound of the ancient bronze drum
stimulated the modern nationalistic nerves of the
archaeologists.
Communist victory in China and Vietnam brought about a
process of reconstructing history in both countries, which was
guided by two important principles, Marxism and nationalism.
The research of sensitive topics concerning the past
relationship between the two countries, such as the issue of
the bronze drum, was always permeated by a strong
nationalistic spirit. When the two countries enjoyed
"comradeship plus brotherhood" (in Chinese, "Tongzhi jia
xiongdi") from the 1950s to the mid 1970s, that spirit was
covered with a Marxist internationalist coating. Hence, the
Vietnamese and Chinese scholars made their own nationalistic
claims but never openly accused each other. For example, both
Wen You and Dao Duy Anh published their works in the 1950s,
Wen was the first Chinese scholar to attempt to modify Heger's
classification to propose a China origin of the bronze drum,
while Dao made the claim that the bronze drum was invented by
the Lac Viet and then spread to some minority areas of
Vietnam, southern China and insular Southeast Asia. Their
works went unnoticed for about two decades. It was not until
the late 1970s that they were accused of mixing academic work
with chauvinist or nationalistic agendas. The break-down of
Sino-Vietnamese bilateral relations in the late 1970s brought
nationalism to the fore in both countries, thereby overriding
the internationalism of the previous years.
For Vietnamese scholars, an essential part of
reconstructing Vietnamese history was to prove the existence
of the legendary Van Lang state established by the Hung Kings,
which was in turn part of a larger program to prove that the
Red River delta was an early center of civilization
independent of the north. Their starting point was to
establish a direct relationship between the Hung Kings and
Dong Son culture, and then to prove that the Dong Son culture
was native to northern Vietnam. To do so, they had to prove
the native origin of the bronze drum because it is one of the
most important artifacts of the Dong Son culture. According to
Pham Huy Thong, who wrote the prefaces to the two special
issues on bronze drums in the journal Khao Co Hoc (Archaeology
) , "In our process of studying the dawn of human history,
namely, the age of the Hung Kings, the artifact that has
gradually emerged as the most deserving symbol of the Hung
Kings civilization is the bronze drum. More accurately
speaking, it is the type I drum among the four types
classified by Heger in the beginning of this century".[70] In
his work on the bronze drum published posthumously in 1990, he
declared that "the ?ong son drums were cast on Vietnamese soil
by the bearers of the Dong Son culture at the time of state
formation. They were the handiwork of the forebears of the
present-day Vietnamese, the ancient Viet state builders who
were conscious of their ethnic and cultural identity."[71]
According to Pham, the idea that the bronze drum was an
original and typical artifact of the Dong Son culture was
first brought up by the four-volume collective historical work
Hung Vuong Duong Nuoc (The Founding of the State by the Hung
Kings), published between 1969 and 1971, and that it had then
become the foundation on which all further studies of the Dong
Son culture were based.[72] A later book about how the Hung
Kings built the Vietnamese nation has a picture of a bronze
drum on its cover, and lists the bronze drum as the most
typical artifact of the Dong Son culture.[73]
For Chinese archaeologists, bronze drums served different
purposes at different times. For the older generation of
Chinese scholars like Luo Xianglin and Xu Songshi, not only
the Han Chinese, but also the various ethnic groups in
southern China, were all considered to be branches of the
larger Han Chinese race. They supported Sun Yat-sen's claim
that China had only five ethnic groups, namely, Han, Hui
(Muslims), Manchus, Mongols, and Tibetans. That classification
included most ethnic minorities in southern China in the Han
group.[74] Both Luo and Xu were southerners themselves. To
them, the bronze drum served as an indicator of the cultural
achievement of the southern Chinese as well as a symbol of
southern identity. After 1949, the Chinese government
officially identified many southern groups as ethnic
minorities independent of the Han, and it encouraged scholars
to prove that the minority peoples had their own cultural
achievements, and that historically there had been much mutual
influence between the Han Chinese and the Southern minorities.
As a result, the bronze drum, which was scorned by earlier
Chinese scholars because of its "barbarian" origins,[75] was
now regarded as one of the most magnificent material relics of
the southern minority peoples and the symbol of
interior-frontier cultural exchange. The Chinese archaeologist
Wen You wrote, "If somebody asks, what is the most important
ancient cultural relic of our minority siblings in southern
China, we can answer him unhesitatingly that it is the bronze
drum." The bronze drum, he further claimed, was the "common
treasure of all the people of China".[76] The two authors of
an article about the ethnic affiliations of the various types
of bronze drum concluded that their study "reflects in a
specific aspect the process of ethnic mixture and cultural
exchange among the brotherly ethnic groups of China," and
"sufficiently proves that the various ethnic groups in
southern China, together with other ethnic groups of China,
created the great, brillant ancient culture of the Chinese
nation."[77] Such expressions are very common among Chinese
archaeologists. Moreover, such research might also be related
? to the construction of local identities, and the expressions
of local pride, as evidenced by the subtle differences between
the Guangxi and Yunnan scholars on the issue of the origins of
the bronze drum.
The core issue is that both Vietnamese and Chinese scholars
try to make exclusive claims on a tradition that was possibly
shared by the ancestors of both the Vietnamese and the
minority peoples of southern China. There was no boundary
between southern China and northern Vietnam at the time the
bronze drum was invented. Many of the groups living in that
vast area were interrelated either biologically, culturally,
or both. The people who invented the bronze drum would have
had no consciousness of polities such as "Vietnam" or "China,"
as we do today. It is unfair to impose such modern concepts on
ancient peoples and to determine exactly when, where and who
invented the bronze drum. Charles Higham, an outsider to these
disputes, commented that the nationalistic bias of the
Vietnamese and Chinese archaeologists had obscured the
situation revealed by archaeology. He hypothesized that the
bronze drum was created by the specialized artisans of a
cluster of increasingly complex polities that spread across
the present day Sino-Vietnamese border to arm the warriors of
their polities and signal the high status of their leaders. He
concluds: "Seeking the origins of this trend and the
associated changes in material culture in one or other
particular region misses the point. Changes were taking place
across much of what is now southern China and the lower Red
River Valley by groups which were exchanging goods and ideas,
and responding to the expansion from the north of an
aggressive, powerful state."[78] Hence, the theme of the
bronze drum could equally make for an excellent story about
the cultural coprosperity and unity of the various peoples
living in that area.
It is interesting to note that in order to prove the
indigenous origins of the bronze drum (in either southern
China or northern Vietnam), both Vietnamese and Chinese
scholars have vehemently denied any possibility of a place of
origin outside of the present-day southern China and northern
Vietnam landmass. J.D.E. Schmeltz's (1896) theory about the
Indian origin of the bronze drum, A.B. Meyer and W. Foy's
(1897) theory about the Cambodian origin and R.Heine-Geldern's
(1937) theory about the European origins of the Dong Son
culture have all been criticised by both Vietnamese and
Chinese scholars.[79] In fact, this is probably the only
significant common ground for scholars from the two countries
about the origin of the bronze drum.
The obscurity of the information about the bronze drum is
an important element in the whole debate. There are no
inscriptions on the bronze drums. The records in Chinese
classics about the origins of the bronze drum are not
supported by solid evidence and are often contradictory.
Modern techniques have also failed to provide hard evidence
about its origin. As a result, neither side has been able?to
persuade the other. All conclusions made about the origin of
the bronze drum are more or less speculations, which are the
result of limited archaeological information and nationalistic
sentiment. In other words, the bronze drum is an artifact
ambiguous enough for both sides to render some meaningful
interpretation for themselves. The same ambiguity makes it
difficult for an outsider to determine who is right and who is
wrong.
Largely as a result of improved Sino-Vietnamese bilateral
relations, the crossfire between Chinese and Vietnamese
scholars over issues surrounding bronze drums has come to an
end. However, neither side has changed its stand. They have
just set the topic aside, or have made their own claims from
time to time without openly accusing the opposite side, a
situation similar to that which prevailed in the 1950s and
1960s. Hence, the issue has been suppressed but not solved,
and it will probably reemerge under new circumstances. There
may be more academic exchanges between Chinese and Vietnamese
scholars in the future, and more research on other aspects of
the bronze drum may take place as well. However, the views on
the origins of the bronze drum held by each respective side
are not likely to change in the near future, as it is the
result of a tradition that has existed in the two countries
for a long time-a tradition of making official history and of
using the past to serve the present. |
References:
[1]Zhongguo Gudai Tonggu Yanjiuhui, Zhongguo gudai tonggu
(The Ancient Bronze Drums of China), Beijing: Wenwu Press,
1988, 8. Hereafter, ZGTY. According to the book, the numbers
of bronze drums stored in various provinces and cities are as
follows: Guangxi: 560; Guangdong: 230; Shanghai: 230; Yunnan:
160; Guizhou: 88; Beijing: 84; Sichuan:51; Hunan: 27;
Shandong: 8; Hubei: 6; Zhejiang: 6; Liaoning: 4. The total
number of bronze drums stored in China remained unchanged in
1995. See Xin Hua News Agency, "Nanfang tonggu wenhua yanjiu
you chengguo" (Results have been achieved in the Study of the
bronze drums of southern China), January 12, 1995.
[2]Nguyen Duy Hinh, "Bronze Drums in Vietnam," The Vietnam
Forum, No. 9 (1987) : 4-5; Pham Huy Thong, Dong Son Drums in
Vietnam, Hanoi: The Vietnam Social Science Publishing House,
1990, 265. Some more Dong Son drums have been found in Vietnam
since then. For example, in 1994, a Dong Son drum later named
a Ban Khooc drum was found in Son La Province in northwestern
Vietnam. Pham Quoc Quan and Nguyen Van Doan, "Trong Dong Son
La" (The Son La Bronze Drum), Khao Co Hoc, No.1 (1996):10.
[3]Xu Songshi, Baiyue xiongfeng lingnan tonggu (The
Masculine Spirit of the Hundred-Yue and the Bronze Drums of
Southern China), Asian Folklore & Social Life Monographs
95, Taibei: The Orient Cultural Service, 1977, 7-8)
[4]Nguyen Duy Hinh, "Trong dong trong su sach" (The Bronze
Drums in Historical Records), Khao Co Hoc, No. 13
? (1974):18-20.
[5]Jiang Tingyu, Tonggu shihua (History of the Bronze
Drum), Beijing, Wen Wu Press, 1982, 18.
[6]For a comprehensive introduction to and list of Western
archaeological works on the bronze drum, see, Pham Minh Huyen,
Nguyen Van Huyen & Trinh Sinh,Trong Dong Son (The Dong Son
Drums), Hanoi: Nha Xuat Ban Khoa Hoc Xa Hoi, 1987, 12-14;
306-309; ZGTY, 10-12.
[7]Wenwu Bianji Weiyuanhui (Editorial Board of Cultural
Relics), Wenwu kaogu gongzuo shinian: 1979-1989 (A Decade of
Work in the Field of Cultural Relics and Archaeology:
1979-1989), Beijing, Wenwu Press, 1990, 376;380. [8]Pham
Minh Huyen et al..
[9]Pham Minh Huyen et al., 19-21; ZGTY, 10-11.
[10]Pham Minh Huyen et al., 21-22.
[11]Tran Manh Phu, "Thu chia nhom nhung trong dong loai I
Hego phat hien o Viet Nam" (The Classification of Heger's Type
I Bronze Drums Discovered in Vietnam), Khao Co Hoc, No. 13
(1974): 83-94.
[12]Luu Tran Tieu & Nguyen Minh Chuong, "Nien dai trong
Dong Son" (The Dating of the Dong Son Drums), Khao Co Hoc, No.
13 (1974): 117-121.
[13]Chu Van Tan, "Nien dai trong Dong Son" (The Dating of
the Dong Son Drum),Khao Co Hoc, No. 13 (1974): 106-116.
[14]Diep Dinh Hoa & Pham Minh Huyen, "Ve viec chia loai
trong loai I Hego va moi quan he giua loai trong nay voi cac
loai trong khac" (The Classification of Heger's Type I Bronze
Drums and Its Relationship with Other Types of Bronze Drum),
Khao Co Hoc, No. 13 (1974) :126-134.
[15]Pham Minh Huyen et al., 23-34; 120-123.
[16]For example, Heger's type II were mostly found in
southern China and among the Muong minority of Vietnam; type
III existed in Burma and southern China but not in Vietnam;
type IV were believed to exist in southern China only.Pham Huy
Thong, "Trong Dong" (The Bronze Drum), Khao Co Hoc, No.
13(1974): 9-11. It was reported in the 1980s that 14 type III
drums and 6 type IV drums had been found in Vietnam. Nguyen
Duy Hinh, 4.
[17]ZGTY, 12.
[18]Wen You,Gu tonggu tulu (Collected Pictures of the
Ancient Bronze Drums), Beijing: Zhongguo gudian yishu Press,
1957; Huang Zengqing, "Guangxi tonggu chutan" (The Bronze
Drums of Guangxi), Kaogu, No. 11 (1964); Hong Sheng, "Guangxi
gudai tonggu yanjiu" (The Ancient Bronze Drums in Guangxi),
Kaogu Xuebao, No. 1 ( 1974 ): 45-90.
[19]Quoted from Li Weiqing, "Zhongguo nanfang tonggu de
fenlei he duandai" (The Classification and Dating of the
Bronze Drums of Southern China),Kaogu, No. 1 (1979): 66-78.
[20]Wang Ningsheng, "Shilun zhongguo gudai tonggu" (On the
Ancient Bronze Drums of China),Kaogu Xuebao, No.2 (1978). In
Wang Ningsheng, Minzu kaoguxue lunji (Collected Eaasys on
Ethnoarchaeology), Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1989, 277-306.
[21]Li Weiqing, 66-78.
[22]Shi Zhongjian, "Ancient Bronze Drums," China Pictorial,
No.10 (1983):24-25.
[23]Wen You worked in Sichuan as a University professor for
? more than ten years before he moved to Beijing in the
mid-1950s. He wrote in 1956 that he first became interested in
the bronze drum when he saw a beautiful bronze drum in Hanoi
more than a decade earlier. Wen You, preface.
[24]Shi Zhongjian, "Shizheng Yue yu Luoyue chuzi tongyuan"
(On the Common Origin of the Yue [Viet] and Luoyue [Lac
Viet)], in Baiyue minzushi yanjiuhui, ed., Baiyue minzushi
lunji, Beijing: China Social Science Press, 1982, 203.
[25]Xin Hua News Agency, 1995, 1,12.
[26]ZGTY.
[27]Pham Huy Thong (1990).
[28]ZGTY; Pham Huy Thong (1990).
[29]Fan Chengda, a scholar-official of the Song Dynasty
(960-1279 AD) first suggested that the bronze drum was
invented by Ma Yuan. A scholar in the Ming dynasty (1368-1644)
first recorded that the big bronze drum was invented by Ma
Yuan, and the small one by Zhuge Liang. F. Hirth tried to
prove these stories in two articles published in 1898 and
1904. Zheng Shixu (Cheng Shih-hsu),Tonggu kaolue (A Study of
the Bronze Drum), Shanghai: Shanghai Museum, 1936, 3-5; 14;
33-37. Today, however, nobody follows these ideas anymore.
[30]Nguyen Duy Hinh, "Ve guan diem cua mot so hoc gia Trung
Quoc nghien cuu trong dong nguoi Viet" (A Review of the Views
of Some Chinese Scholars on the Bronze Drums of the Vietnamese
People), Khao Co Hoc, No. 4 (1979): 17-19.
[31]Nguyen Duy Hinh (1979), 21; Chu Van Tan, "Phai chang ho
da tim thay trong X?"(Have They Discovered Drum X?), Khao Co
Hoc, No. 9 (1982): 33.
[32]Pham Huy Thong (1990), 269.
[33]Tong Enzheng, "Shilun zaoqi tonggu" (On the Early
Bronze Drums), Kaogu Xuebao, No. 3 (1983). In Tong Enzheng,
Zhongguo xinan minzu kaogu lunwenji (Collected Essays on the
Ethnoarchaeology of Southwestern China), Beijing: Wenwu Press,
1990, 163-185.
[34]Nguyen Van Huyen, "Tu chia loai nhom den tim hieu nien
dai va que huong cua trong dong co" (From the Classification
and Sub-classification of the Ancient Bronze Drums to the
Understanding of their Dating and Origins), Khao Co Hoc, No.
13 (1974); Chu Van Tan 91974).
[35]Diep Dinh Hoa & Pham Minh Huyen.
[36]Luu Tran Tieu & Nguyen Minh Chuong.
[37]Pham Minh Huyen et al., 1987:216-217.
[38]ZGTY, 110.
[39]Wang Dadao, "Yunnan qingtong wenhua jichi yu Yuenan
Dongshan wenhua, Taiguo Banching wenhua de guanxi" (The Bronze
Culture of Yunnan and its relations with the Dong Son Culture
of Vietnam and the Ban Chiang Culture of Thailand), Kaogu ,
No. 6 (1990), 536;540.
[40]Chu Van Tan (1982), 30;32.
[41]Quoted from Dao Tu Khai, "Chim Lac hay con co? Ngoi sao
hay mat troi?"(Lac Bird or Heron? Star or Sun?), Khao Co Hoc,
No.14 (1974 ): 27.
[42]Dao Tu Khai, 27.
[43]Vu The Long, "Hinh va tuong dong vat tren trong va cac
do dong Dong Son" (The Motifs and Figurines of Animals on
Drums and Other Dongsonian Bronze Artifacts), Khao Co Hoc, No.
14 (1974): 9.
[4?]Dao Tu Khai, 28-29.
[45]Taylor Keith Weller,The Birth of Vietnam, Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1983, 7;313.
[46]ZGTY, 157.
[47]ZGTY 1988:233.
[48]Pham Huy Thong (1990).
[49]Wen You.
[50]ZGTY, 160-161.
[51]Schafer Edward,The Vermilion Bird, Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1967, 254.
[52]Vu The Long, 17.
[53]Pham Huy Thong, (1990), 268.
[54]Tong Enzheng, 178.
[55]Quoted from Chen Guoqiang, Jiang Binzhao, Wu Mianqi
& Xing Tucheng, eds., Baiyue minzu shi (A History of the
Hundred-Yue), Beijing: China Social Science Press, 1988, 335.
[56]Feng Hanji, "Yunnan jinning chutu tonggu yanjiu" (A
Study of the Bronze Drums of Jinning, Yunnan),Wen Wu, No.
1(1974): 56-58.
[57]Ling Chunsheng, "Ji benxiao er tonggu jianluan tonggu
de qiyuan he fenbu" (On the Two Bronze Drums Stored at
National Taiwan University and the Origin and Distribution of
the Bronze Drums),Guoli Taiwan daxue xuebao, No. 1 (1950).
[58]ZGTY, 175-181.
[59]Pham Minh Huyen et al, 239.
[60]ZGTY, 152.
[61]Dao Tu Khai, 30.
[62]ZGTY, 151.
[63]ZGTY, 154.
[64]Nguyen Duy Hinh (1979), 23.
[65]Tran Quoc Vuong, "Trong dong va tam thuc Viet co" (The
Bronze Drum and the Mentality of the Ancient Viet People),
Khao Co Hoc, No. 3 (1982): 25; Dao Tui Khai, 28-29.
[66]ZGTY, 127-129.
[67]Wang Ningsheng, 305; Tong Enzheng, 181.
[68]Tong Enzheng, 173-174.
[69]Shi Zhongjian (1982), 194.
[70]Pham Huy Thong, "Trong Dong" (The Bronze Drum), Khao Co
Hoc, No.13 (1974), 9.
[71]Phan Huy Thong (1990), 262.
[72]Phan Huy Thong (1990), 264.
[73]So Van Hoa-Thong Tin Vinh Phu, Cac Vua Hung da co cong
dung nuoc..., Tap luan van ky niem 30 nam nhay Bac Ho den tham
Den Hung: 19-9-1954--19-9--1984. (The Hung Kings have
contributed to building our nation), Vinh Phu, 1985.
[74]Luo Xianglin, Zhongxia xitong zhi Baiyue (The
Hundred-Yue as a Branch of the Chinese Race), Chongqing: Duli
Press, 1943, 1-2; Xu Songshi, 96-97.
[75]For example, Wen You lamented that traditional Chinese
scholars before the Qing dynasty seldom paid serious attention
to the bronze drum because it did not have inscriptions and
that it was made by the "barbarians." During the Qing dynasty,
However, more attention was paid to the bronze drum and
several books were produced. Wen attributed this to the myth
about Ma Yuan and Zhuge Liang creating the bronze drum that
gradually became popular in China after the Song dynasty. Wen
You, preface.
[76]Wen You, preface.
[77]Li Weiqing & Xi Keding, "Shi tan zhong guo nan fang
tong gu de zu shu" (An Inquiry into the Ethnic Affiliations of
the Bronze Drums of Southern China) in Xi nan min zu yan jiu
(Studies on the Ethnic Gr?ups of Southwestern China), Chengdu:
Sichuan Minzu Press, 1983, 427.
[78]Higham Charles,The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 134.
[79]ZGTY, 10-11; Pham Huy Thong (1990), 263-264. |
Dr. Xiaorong Han teaches at the University of Hawaii-West
Oahu. His research interests include: Peasants and Ethnic
Minorities, Modern China and Southeast Asia; Nationalist and
Communist Movements, Modern East and Southeast Asia;
Sino-Vietnamese Relations: Past and Present; General and
Comparative History, East and Southeast Asia.
|
|