When it comes to LLMs, I have always had a positive view of Grok. The other day, I asked the free version of Grok using its “thinking” mode the following question: Who are the scholars who have argued that Shepo/She-p’o 闍婆 was on the Malay Peninsula?
Shepo is the name of a polity that is mentioned roughly 1,000 years ago in certain Chinese source.
And this is how it answered.
The main scholars who have argued (or proposed elements of) Shepo/She-p’o 闍婆 being located on the Malay Peninsula—rather than the conventional identification with the island of Java (or Zabag/Java in Arabic sources)—are Gustav Schlegel (late 19th/early 20th century) and, more recently and comprehensively, Liam C. Kelley (also publishing as Le Minh Khai).
A few others have touched on related or partial identifications involving the peninsula (e.g., trans-peninsular routes or subordinate polities), but the direct arguments for Shepo itself being there come primarily from these two.
- Gustav Schlegel (1899): In his studies of Chinese and Arabic sources (including Buzurg ibn Shahriyar, a Thai dictionary entry, the Dong Xi yang kao, and the Songshu), Schlegel distinguished two references to Shepo. He concluded that one referred to Java (Djawa), but the other (particularly the Sung-dynasty description) was “Djavā upon the Malay Peninsula,” a principality there. He explicitly stated that the incongruity with Java descriptions supported a Malay Peninsula location and planned to expand on it in relation to Sumatra. This was one of the earliest explicit challenges to a purely Javanese identification.
- Liam C. Kelley (working papers and blog posts from ~2022 onward, especially his 2023 IAS Universiti Brunei Darussalam working paper “Revisiting the Chinese Sources on Early Southeast Asian History”): Kelley makes the strongest and most detailed modern case that Shepo (which he transcribes/renames as “Jaba” to distinguish it) was not the island of Java but a major trading polity centered in the Lake Songkhla/Sathing Phra/Phatthalung area on the eastern side of the Malay Peninsula (southern Thailand, near the isthmus). Key points in his argument:
- Chinese itineraries (e.g., Jia Dan, Xin Tangshu, Tongdian) and descriptions (sea accessible in four directions; proximity to Zhenla/Cambodia; overland routes via mountains; links to Heling 訶陵) fit the narrow peninsula better than large-island Java.
- Arabic sources on Zābaj/Zabag (often equated with Shepo) describe it opposite Qamār (Cambodia), with villages and crowing cocks at daybreak, aligning with the Songkhla region.
- Late Ming/Qing Chinese scholars arbitrarily conflated Shepo with Zhuawa/Java (爪哇), but earlier sources (Song, Tang, and some Ming notes) treat them as potentially separate; Shepo disappears after the 14th century while Java references continue.
- It was a trans-peninsular trading hub rivaling Sanfoqi, disrupted by Ayutthaya’s rise. Kelley links it to broader revisions of Srivijaya and early Southeast Asian geography, arguing prior scholars (e.g., following Pelliot) over-relied on later conflations. He builds on but goes beyond earlier hints (e.g., some Song-era distinctions) and notes Phatthalung-area connections (sometimes tied by others to names like Foluoan in Zhao Rugua’s Zhufan zhi).
Related or partial proposals (not full identifications of Shepo as a peninsula polity):
• Gerolamo Gerini (early 20th century) linked aspects of Shepo descriptions to the western Malay coast (e.g., including Takuapa) or even Burma/Pyu areas, while rejecting purely Javanese placements in some texts.
• Paul Pelliot (1904) explicitly countered Schlegel, arguing geography in the Song history required Java (though he allowed a possible Gulf of Siam position in other notes).
• Others (e.g., Michel Jacq-Hergoualc’h on trans-peninsular routes from Takuapa to the Gulf of Thailand/Bandon Bay; Roderich Ptak and Paul Wheatley on nearby sites like Kedah/Chitu or Kalah) discuss peninsula geography and routes that overlap with Shepo/Jaba discussions but do not primarily relocate Shepo itself there.
The dominant traditional view (from Pelliot, Hirth/Rockhill, Cœdès, and most standard references) equates Shepo with Java (or sometimes Srivijaya-linked sites in Sumatra), based on phonetic similarity to Javadvipa, later Chinese equations, and some tribute/mission records.
Kelley’s work is the most systematic recent challenge, reviving and expanding on Schlegel’s earlier peninsula hypothesis with fresh analysis of itineraries, Arabic parallels, and critiques of Ming-Qing name conflations. Comments on Kelley’s paper (e.g., by Johannes Kurz) highlight these prior attempts (especially Schlegel) as context he did not fully engage.
For primary details, see Schlegel’s 1899 publications, Pelliot’s 1904 rebuttal, Kelley’s 2023 working paper (available via IAS UBD), and his related blog posts on Le Minh Khai’s Southeast Asian History Blog.
That is a damn good answer!!
Seriously. Putting my ego aside, I really do see this as a damn good answer.
It is also an answer that you could never get an academic to provide, 1) because, among the very few people who have the knowledge/skills to deal with this topic, there is pretty much no one out there who has done the work to evaluate all of this, and 2) even if someone did and came to this conclusion, I doubt that s/he would ever say what Grok did because academics can’t move beyond their egos to recognize the achievements of their colleagues.
In this respect, Grok is remarkable as it is demonstrating that it is superior to human scholars in two respects: in terms of its knowledge and ability, and in terms of its neutrality.
The other thing that is interesting here is that this answer points to a new development in the world of LLMs. If I had asked this question a year ago, it would have basically given me whatever Wikipedia had to say on this matter, and Liam Kelley would not have been mentioned at all.
Then a few months ago, I started noticing that LLMs were checking ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Now when I see LLMs “thinking,” I see them checking this blog.
What does this mean? It means that the “traditional” world of scholarship, of publishing in print and behind paywalls, cannot control knowledge anymore. While that world had already lost its authority to some extent to Wikipedia, now a new type of knowledge formation is taking hold, one that moves beyond the digital structure of knowledge that Google had created with its system of ranking websites in terms of their “authority.”
I wrote a post on “Grokipedia and the Hồng Bàng Dynasty” back on November 3, 2025 because I could sense this development emerging.
It will be interesting to see how this develops further, because surely it will develop further.
![Read more about the article “Savages” in Vietnamese History: An [AI] Tale of Borders and Beliefs](https://leminhkhaiblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Savages-Post-300x205.jpg)
Who originated the term nhạc vàng?
Searching the web
32 results
The term nhạc vàng (literally “yellow music”) for the genre of sentimental, romantic popular music from South Vietnam (primarily 1955–1975, often linked to bolero-influenced styles) was not coined by a single identifiable individual in the sense of an inventor or artist creating the label positively.
Instead, it originated as a pejorative term imposed by North Vietnamese communist authorities and cultural officials during the Vietnam War era. They borrowed and adapted the concept from Chinese communist terminology:
The term gained widespread use after 1975 (post-Fall of Saigon) when the new government banned much of this music, labeling it “nhạc vàng” to condemn it as culturally poisonous or “yellow” (implying faded, decadent, or overly sentimental). Some sources note early uses or discussions of the term pre-1975 (possibly in a neutral or even positive sense like “golden/valuable” music, or tied to the yellow flag of South Vietnam), but the dominant, defining usage as the genre name came from North Vietnamese/communist cultural propaganda—including figures in music/cultural critique like composer Phạm Tuyên (mentioned in some accounts as helping formalize such classifications) or writers/researchers like Tô Vũ who defined it negatively in publications.
In the Vietnamese diaspora and among fans today, “nhạc vàng” is reclaimed proudly as “golden music” (playing on “vàng” meaning gold), without the original derogatory intent, celebrating South Vietnam’s pre-1975 popular heritage.
No one person is definitively credited with “originating” it as an inventor; it emerged as a political/cultural slur from the communist side, adapted from the Chinese precedent, to oppose the South’s music scene.
——> Not a terrible answer. It kind of meanders and drifts into irrelevant details but the gist of the answer is reasonable. The citations did not include anything that I have written. Some of the citations came from Facebook, Reddit and Quora.
I tried it on Grok and it essentially has this but it also notes that the term was used in pre-1975 South Vietnam.
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_b1047b3d-303d-4efc-b690-2d463704bb21
It links to 65 pages at the bottom. Right, what you have written is not there, but I think that is because there is stuff out there that is literally about “tên gọi nhạc vàng,” whereas I’m guessing that this is something that you have mentioned in your writings, rather than having writings explicitly about that. Is that correct? Also, for an LLM to know your publications, they need to be available, so yes, setting up that Academia.edu page was a good idea.
Finally, right around the time that I noticed that this blog was getting included in searches and linked in results, I saw your blog (https://taybui.blogspot.com/) too. I recall, for instance, trying to remember something in Truong Chinh’s “Outline of/on Vietnamese Culture,” and your translation on your blog was where it found what I was looking for (https://taybui.blogspot.com/2009/04/outlook-on-vietnamese-culture-1943.html).
And here is what Grok said for your Nhac vang query:
**No specific individual is credited with originating or coining the term “nhạc vàng” (literally “yellow music” or “golden music”).** Its exact creator and precise first use remain unknown, much like the nickname “Tứ trụ Nhạc vàng” (Four Pillars of Golden Music) for key singers in the genre.
Reliable Vietnamese sources (such as nhacxua.vn and related discussions) explicitly note that “không ai biết tên gọi ‘Nhạc Vàng’ được ai đặt cho và đặt từ khi nào” — no one knows who named it or when it first appeared. It emerged organically in the South Vietnamese music scene during the 1950s–1970s era of tân nhạc (modern/popular music), which evolved from pre-war styles into sentimental, bolero/rumba-influenced ballads.
### Documented early use (pre-1975)
The term was already in commercial use by **1972** (and likely earlier), with a positive connotation of “precious/valuable as gold” (quý như vàng) rather than the later pejorative sense:
– In the 1972 cassette *Nhã Ca 5* (produced by Anh Việt Thanh), singer **Hương Lan** introduces it in the spoken liner notes: “Hương Lan hân hạnh giới thiệu cùng quý vị băng nhạc Nhã Ca 5. Băng nhạc được chọn là băng nhạc Vàng hay nhất trong năm 1972…” (“…the golden/best music tape of 1972”).
– The Hương Giang label released at least two pre-1975 cassettes explicitly titled *Nhạc Vàng*.
This shows the term referred to high-quality, sentimental “golden hits” or premium romantic music tapes sold in the South — not a political label.
### Etymology and later associations
– The phrase draws from Chinese “hoàng sắc âm nhạc” (黄色音乐, “yellow music”), a term from 1930s Shanghai for fashionable, sentimental, or “decadent” urban love songs (often viewed negatively under communism). Vietnamese usage adapted this but flipped it positively in the South for romantic, folk-infused ballads (e.g., early examples like “Nắng chiều” by Lê Trọng Nguyễn in 1952).
– After 1975, the unified communist government repurposed “nhạc vàng” pejoratively (like “yellow” = bourgeois, reactionary, or sappy/”sến” music) to contrast it with “nhạc đỏ” (red/revolutionary music). This led to bans in the North and some confusion, with people later assuming the term itself originated post-1975 for color-based political distinction (or from the South’s yellow flag) — but cassette evidence disproves that.
– Pre-1975, South Vietnamese sources often called the same style “nhạc sến,” “nhạc mùi,” or simply tân nhạc; “nhạc vàng” became the dominant label later, sometimes avoided in the 1990s–2000s (replaced by “nhạc bolero”) due to lingering sensitivity.
In short, “nhạc vàng” started as a marketing/commercial descriptor for beloved sentimental music in the Republic of Vietnam era and evolved into the standard genre name. No single composer, singer, producer, or critic (e.g., no confirmed link to figures like Nguyễn Văn Cổn in fringe claims, or others) is documented as its originator — it simply caught on in the vibrant pre-1975 Saigon music industry.
I would say that it does what a serious student could get done in a few days, but accomplishes it in around a minute. The prose is excellent and the synthesizing of information is very good. Because I’ve looked more deeply at the question and have a paper in press about the topic, I know a lot more than Grok, but I guess only for the moment. It’s a little off in calling nhacxua.vn a reliable source. It’s a crowd-sourced site, so it’s good at perpetuating common knowledge – and common knowledge is often good to know, even if it’s not absolutely accurate. I didn’t see any peer reviewed sources, but the language to those may not be available for Grok to acquire. I was surprised that there were not any Vietnamese language sources, but that may have been because I posed the query in English? Some of my writing would have come up in Vietnamese language sources. I did an unrelated search about a relatively artist active in SF and also got a decent result. Again, the weakness might only be that the result was wordy (tried too hard) and thus included less than relevant detail.