Funan | A little-known ancient civilisation of Southeast Asia

Funan

Peruse the archaeology section of any library or major bookstore and you’ll see a collection of tomes on ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt; possibly a smattering of works on Sumeria and Assyria and even a selection on the Mayas, Incas and Aztecs but it would have to be a very extensive library indeed for you to find anything whatsoever on Funan. With increasing travel to the region, you may now find a coffee-table-style book or two on the temples of Angkor, for instance, but generally speaking, in the Western World, Southeast Asian archaeology is a large blank.

With the aforementioned rise in travel to Southeast Asia, as well as UNESCO World Heritage list bait, sites such as Borobudur, Angkor, Bagan, My Son and the ancient Thai cities of Sukhothai and Ayutthaya are now commonly-known to the wider-travelled,  yet, how many know anything about the civilisations and peoples behind the iconic vistas?

The Funan culture/kingdom/empire (historians still debate the precise form the polity took), occupied the region of modern-day Vietnam and Cambodia consisting of the Mekong Delta and – broadly speaking – flourished from the 2nd to 6th century CE. It grew wealthy on maritime trade with an extensive network stretching as far as China to the east and, via India and the Gulf, as far as the Mediterranean to the west. (Middle Eastern, as well as Roman and Greek artefacts have been unearthed at Funanese archaeological sites.)

The civilisation is one of Southeast Asia’s oldest and predated and heavily influenced subsequent cultures such as that of the Cham in Vietnam, Srivijaya in what is today Indonesia and, of course, Angkor in Cambodia. Along with the also little-known Mon city states of Myanmar and Central Thailand, (e.g. Si Thep), it is considered to have been the earliest ‘Indianised’ culture of Southeast Asia; to have adopted the subcontinent’s great religions of Hinduism and Buddhism as well as being heavily influenced by Sanskrit. However, while undeniably of great historical significance, its 21st-century PR image does suffer from a lack of impressive ruins or ancient temples. Regrettably, however impressive their cities and sanctuaries were 1500 years ago, nothing has survived intact today.

Funan’s capital is likely to have been at Angkor Borei in Cambodia’s Takeo Province, with its principal port occupying the site of Oc Eo in Vietnam. Archaeological digs at both sites have uncovered important arrays of artefacts and the extensive foundations of temples and city walls. While many of the former are now on display at Phnom Penh’s National Museum and Saigon’s History Museum, the original sites themselves are admittedly of little interest to the casual observer.

However, it isn’t just that few remains can be visited, or that visitors to the region are uninformed on this ancient culture, and if we refer back to our initial paragraph, the reason that there are so few books available on the subject is simply because very few scholars have written any. A library in Ho Chi Minh City or Phnom Penh wouldn’t have many either.

Despite the importance of this ancient culture, historians are yet to decide on precisely who its inhabitants were or even what its original name was. Funan is merely the Sinocised term given by early Chinese travellers, and we have no idea what the Funanese called themselves. Certain archaeologists describe its people as Austronesian (Mon-Khmer), and others as Austroasiatic (Cham). Ethnic Cham groups occupied the coasts of much of what is today southern and central Vietnam at this time and while the majority of the population of the hinterland were undoubtedly Mon-Khmer, there is some evidence – in the form of burial sites – that at least the rulers, and probably the aristocracy, were indeed ethnic Austroasiatic. (Furthermore, Cham cultures were renowned maritime traders and seafarers; the Khmers were not.)

(Ptolemy describes 2nd-century Roman trade missions to an important Southeast Asian port named Kattigara, which may correspond to Oc Eo, but fails to describe its people.)

The 6th century saw the rise and assertion of independence of the Khmer kingdoms in the interior (known collectively as Chenla), which may formerly have fallen under Funan’s control. Combined with the increase in prominence of Srivijaya in east-west trade routes, this led to a sharp decline in Funan’s fortunes. From their new power base at Isanapura (today’s Sambor Prei Kuk) the Khmer kings Isanavarman I and Bhavavarman II are recorded as having led successful military campaigns against declining Funan, thus reversing the roles of the 2 kingdoms. (There are some records of subsequent Funanese trade missions to China but it was to spend the great majority of the following 700 years as a somewhat remote outpost of the Khmer empire.

The once great port of Oc Eo appears to have been largely abandoned while the former Funan heartland around Angkor Borei today features later Khmer sanctuaries such as the 6th century Prasat Asram Moha Russei, 11th century Prasat Phnom Da and Suryavarman I’s great city at Phnom Chisor. (Although far-flung, the region retained importance to Angkor into later periods as evidenced by Jayavarman VII’s nearby temple complex of Tonle Bati.)

As mentioned, the scant ruins of the great cities of Oc Eo and Angkor Borei are today somewhat underwhelming for the casual visitor, although impressive period sculptures are on show at the National Museum of Cambodia and the Ho Chi Minh City Museum – both of which are optional, time-permitting visits on our Cambodia and Vietnam tours respectively. The spectacular, hilltop temple of Phnom Chisor also features on both our Beyond Angkor tour and Kep, Kampot and Takeo extension to southern Cambodia.