I’m really getting tired of seeing people mention the “Âu Lạc Kingdom” (甌貉國). That was never the name of an actual kingdom, but I keep seeing people mention it again and again.
This term is used today to refer to a supposed kingdom that a certain figure by the name of King Anyang/An Dương reportedly created in the Red River Delta in the third century BC.
To be honest, we don’t really have sufficient historical evidence (be it textual or archaeological) to demonstrate that this person did actually establish a kingdom. There are written records that say that he attacked and subdued the ruling elite in the Red River Delta region, and he reportedly had a palace within the walls of an existing citadel at a place that is now known as Cổ Loa.
But beyond that, we do not have any other information about this “kingdom.” Therefore, it is difficult to say that he really had a “kingdom,” as we don’t know if he really “ruled” beyond the walls of Cổ Loa. Did he appoint officials to govern over the countryside? Did he collect taxes? There is no information about this.
There is also no mention about this “kingdom” being called “Âu Lạc,” not, that is, until some 1,700 years later in the fifteenth century when this term appeared in two texts, the Lĩnh Nam chích quái and the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư, two texts that somehow were able to “reveal” a great deal of information about antiquity that had never been recorded before. . .
I’ve written about much of that problematic information before. The name “Âu Lạc” is yet another “invented tradition” from that time.
The earliest information, and really the only “historically reliable” information (and it’s not super reliable by any means), that we have about King Anyang/An Dương comes from a sixth century text, Li Daoyuan’s Annotated Classic of Waterways [Shuijing zhu 水經注], which in turn cites a couple of slightly earlier text.
This is what that text records:
“The Record of the Outer Territory of Jiao Region states that In the past, before Jiaozhi/Giao Chỉ had commanderies and districts, the land had lạc fields. These fields followed the rising and falling of the tidal/flood waters. The people who opened these fields for cultivation were called lạc people. A lạc king [or lạc princes] 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.”
《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，因名為雒民，設雒王、雒侯，主諸郡縣。縣多為雒將，雒將銅印青綬。
“Later, a Shu/Thục prince led 30,000 soldiers to fight the lạc king [or lạc princes] and lạc marquises, and subdued the lạc generals. The Shu/Thục prince then declared himself to be King Anyang/An Dương.”
後蜀王子將兵三萬來討雒王、雒侯，服諸雒將，蜀王子因稱為安陽王。
“Later, King of Southern Yue [Nam Việt/Nanyue] Commissioner Tuo [i.e., Zhao Tuo/Triệu Đà] led people to attack King Anyang/An Dương. King Anyang/An Dương had a supernatural person [shenren/thần nhân 神人] named Gao Tong/Cao Thông who served as his assistant and who made for King Anyang/An Dương a supernatural crossbow that could kill 300 people in one shot. The king of Southern Yue knew that he could not battle [against this], so he retreated with his troops and encamped in Wuning/Vũ Ninh District.”
後南越王尉佗舉衆攻安陽王，安陽王有神人名臯通，下輔佐，為安陽王治神弩一張，一發殺三百人，南越王知不可戰，却軍住武寧縣。
“According to the Records of the Taikang Era of the Jin, this district was part of Jiaozhi/Giao Chỉ [Commandery]. [Southern] Yue sent the heir apparent, named Shi/Thủy [i.e., the son of Zhao Tuo/Triệu Đà], to surrender to King Anyang/An Dương and to serve him as an official. King Anyang/An Dương did not know that Gao Tong/Cao Thông was supernatural and treated him unfairly. Tong/Thông thereupon departed, and said to the king, ‘If you possess this crossbow you can rule All Under Heaven, but if you do not possess it, you will lose All Under Heaven.’ Tong/Thông left.”
按《晉太康記》，縣屬交趾。越遣太子名始，降服安陽王，稱臣事之。安陽王不知通神人，遇之無道，通便去，語王曰：能持此弩王天下，不能持此弩者亡天下。通去。
“King Anyang/An Dương had a daughter called Mei Zhu/Mỵ Châu. She saw that Shi/Thủy was honest and upright. Zhu/Châu and Shi/Thủy linked up. Shi/Thủy asked Zhu/Châu to show him her father’s crossbow. When Shi/Thủy saw it, he secretly broke the trigger. He then returned to inform the king of Southern Yue about this.
“Southern Yue advanced its troops to attack. King Anyang/An Dương fired the crossbow, but the crossbow was broken so he was defeated. King Anyang/An Dương got in a boat and went out to sea. Today behind the Pingdao/Bình Đạo District [seat] in the royal citadel are the old remains [of King Anyang/An Dương’s palace].
安陽王有女名曰媚珠，見始端正，珠與始交通，始問珠，令取父弩視之，始見弩，便盜以鋸截弩訖，便逃歸報南越王。南越進兵攻之，安陽王發弩，弩折遂敗。安陽王下船逕出于海，今平道縣後王宮城見有故處。
So that’s the story. Again, it’s difficult to tell to what extent King Anyang/An Dương established a “kingdom.”
But it’s easy to see that it was not called “Âu Lạc.”
How about the Au Lac country in “Records of the Grand Historian”, worted by Sima Qian was at the same period with Zhao Tuo? It was noted at west of NanYue and possibly include Red River Delta.
Yes, the term did appear, but 1) I don’t see evidence that we can call it a “country.” As far as archaeologists have been able to determine, there were mainly small polities in the region at that time, similar to Thai “muang,” that is, a small polity in a mountain valley. 2) I don’t see any evidence that ties the Red River Delta to that polity/group of people.
http://ctext.org/pre-qin-and-han?searchu=%E7%94%8C%E9%A7%B1
You said that “As far as archaeologists have been able to determine, there were mainly small polities in the region at that time”. However, I read “The Origins of Ancient Vietnam” (one book you used to note about), wrote by Nam C. Kim. He found some archaeological evident proof that Co Loa is the strong evident of state.
“At its broadest level, I believe the state is marked by institutionalized forms of leadership, and not transient rule based on charismatic qualities of individual leaders. As discussed earlier, the conceptualization of state favored in this study pertains to a socially stratified society, in which political authority and governance are centralized, institutionalized, and permanent, and where rulers hold a preponderance of coercive power with a territorial base. The state is therefore distinct from middle-range societies (e.g., chiefdoms) because leadership is not merely based on social power that stems from ascribed status, wherein forms of political authority can dissipate within a generation.
Defied in this way, the term “state” is applicable for the Co Loa Polity, in which we can identify elements of territoriality and coercive power, clearly manifested by the monumental fortifiation system. “Both the rampart system and the institutions necessary to direct and organize its construction are symptomatic of the presence of an archaic state””
It depends on what the conception of state/country. However, archaeological evidences show that Co Loa region/polity has water control system, military manufacturing place, roof tiles, very large bronze drum suggest that they had strong financial and military power.
This state could possible control all part of Red River delta or only a small part, but it was there. As for the name, the authorities from XI century called it like that until today. You can said that it is possible not true but you cannot, at least now, claim that it is surely not true. The term Au Lac was repeated 4-times by Sima Qian at the west of Phiên Ngung/蕃隅 could show us that Au Lac has importance role in region nearby. And the existence of Co Loa polity, west of Phien Ngung, could be possibly Au Lac.
Co Loa was a form of “state.” I have no problem with that. And yes, Nam Kim demonstrates that very well.
As for the name Au Lac, there is nothing in the Shiji that can clearly show that Au Lac has anything to do with Co Loa. Yes, there is mention of something or someone called Au Lac to the West of Panyu, and when the information is more detailed than that, we see that it is not referring to the Red River Delta.
Take the account from 111 BC when Lu Bode and Yangpu attacked Nanyue. It says that the king/prince of Cangwu agreed to submit to the Han and that the Nanyue official in Guilin ordered the “oulue/Au Lac” to submit to the Han too. Wasn’t Cangwu between Guilin and the Red River Delta? In fact, Guilin and Cangwu were quite close together, and relatively close to Panyu, and the Red River Delta was far away from those two places. So how do we explain this comment? Do we say that this guy went all the way down to the Red River Delta and told the Au Lac to surrender? There is no evidence of that.
蒼梧王趙光者，越王同姓，聞漢兵至，及越揭陽令定自定屬漢；越桂林監居翁諭甌駱屬漢：皆得為侯。
My point is that if you are going to use the Shiji to try to find evidence that Co Loa = Au Lac, then you have to consider ALL of the evidence in the Shiji. Yes, there is vague information about an Au Lac place or people being to the West of Panyu, but there is also more specific information indicating that this place/people was not in the Red River Delta.
When we combine the vague and specific information together, then there is no clear evidence that Co Loa = Au Lac. If anything, we have a stronger case to say that Au Lac was definitely not Co Loa.
Was Co Loa a powerful kingdom/state? Yes, the archaeological evidence definitely shows that. Was Co Loa known as Au Lac? There is no historical information that demonstrates that. If anything, the evidence points more clearly to Au Lac being a people/polity somewhere around what is today northeastern Guangxi Province.
I think Le Minh Khai meant “country” as defined by the standards at the time (Warring States): unique identity and culture, common language, a king, political system…etc. Maybe we should look at other “countries” in South East Asia at the same time to see if there was a different definition, instead of using Chinese reference framework. Then we could call Au Lac (or more appropriately the country of King An Yang) a country (by SEA standards).