When I started this blog 10 years ago, one of the first posts I wrote was a critique of an article on Vietnamese prehistory I found on the BBC Vietnamese site that was written by writer and amateur historian Hà Văn Thùy.

The gist of my critique was that Mr. Hà Văn Thùy’s interpretation of Vietnamese prehistory was very nationalistic and that it employed information from Western sources that was out-dated.

In the years that followed, I wrote other posts that criticized Hà Văn Thùy’s ideas, and there were several times that he criticized my ideas on his blog.

At the same time, over the years I became increasingly aware that Hà Văn Thùy is not the first person to view Vietnamese early history in ways that differ from what professional historians have written. Instead, on the “fringe” of official history there has long been alternative versions of history in Vietnam, what I call “Fringe History,” and over the past several years I’ve spent a good deal of time researching this topic.

I have posted a lot on this topic on this blog, but recently I published an article on this topic entitled “The Centrality of ‘Fringe History’: Diaspora, the Internet and a New Version of Vietnamese Prehistory.” Since publishing that article, I have had various people from the world of Fringe History contact me to engage in discussion, and then a couple of days ago Mr. Hà Văn Thùy himself sent me an email.

In the email, Mr. Hà Văn Thùy graciously stated that after many years of “fighting,” he now considers us to be “friends.” He stated that he appreciated what I wrote, but that he thinks DNA is going to ultimately reveal the true story of prehistory.

As it turns out, this is exactly the topic that I’ve been thinking and reading about recently, and I have just begun to write a series on this blog about what the latest archaeological and DNA studies are saying about prehistory. What is more, in my mind I was thinking that this would be helpful for people like Mr. Hà Văn Thùy and the followers of Fringe History to know about.

I was thinking of people like Hà Văn Thùy because in researching and writing this recent article, there are ways that I had gained respect for not only Mr. Hà Văn Thùy, but other people in the Fringe History movement, such as the late Mr. Cung Đình Thanh. I still found fault with the scholarship that they built their ideas on, but I gained respect for their efforts.

It was very kind of Mr. Hà Văn Thùy to send me such a gracious email. I would like to respond to that kindness by writing an “open letter” to express my gratitude

Dear Mr. Hà Văn Thùy,

Thank you very much for writing to me, and for your kind comments about me.

I am happy to see you say that after “fighting” for many years, you think that we have now become “friends.” I also think that way, and let me explain why.

When I first came across your writings, I could not understand why you wrote the things that you did. However, in researching the article that I published recently on what I call “Fringe History,” I was able to see where you get your ideas from, and I was impressed by what I saw.

One way that you and I are definitely alike, is that we are both very dissatisfied with the existing information about Vietnamese prehistory, and the fact that much of it hasn’t changed in decades.

That is not good because 1) some of the existing information is now outdated, and 2) there is a lot of information (from historical sources to the writings of “international” historians) that one can use to “rethink” what we know about the past.

It is also not good because, as I think you and I agree, history is important. It gives people a sense of who they are. What is more, that sense can and should change as people look back at the past with new information and from new perspectives.

In researching the “Fringe History” article, I gained respect for the effort that you put into trying to learn new information (such as the ideas of Solheim and new DNA research) and trying to look at the past from the perspective of that new information.

To be fair, I can now see that there were overseas Vietnamese who started to write about the topic of Vietnamese prehistory shortly before you did (Cung Đình Thanh, Nguyễn Thị Thanh, etc.), but I think that you played a very important role in 1) “synthesizing” that information, 2) connecting it to extant information in Vietnam (Nguyễn Đình Khoa, etc.), and 3) in introducing all of that information to people in Vietnam.

What is more, you did all of that back in 2005 (in Talawas)!

In seeing how you developed your ideas, I gained respect for your effort. However, as I pointed out in my article, there are a lot of problems with the scholarship that you used to support your ideas.

This is something, however, that it would have been very difficult for you (or Cung Dình Thanh, etc.) to know. To understand prehistory requires that one employ information from many different fields: archaeology, historical linguistics, genetics, etc.

Each one of those fields has its own “history,” and for anyone who is not a specialist in those fields, it is difficult to know that history. I, for instance, have to work really hard to try to understand what current ideas are in these fields and to figure out which ideas are now outdated and why.

As a result, it is difficult for people from outside of those fields to know which information is reliable, and which information is the most up-to-date. This is then made even more difficult when so much of the information from those fields is in a foreign language.

In the “Fringe History” article, I pointed out the problems with the international scholarship that you and others based your ideas on. However, I didn’t talk about what the current ideas about Vietnamese prehistory in international scholarship are, and recently there have been some people who have asked me to write about that.

I therefore decided to create a series on that topic that I will post to this blog. To do so, however, I realized that I can’t just introduce the findings of recent studies, because to understand what people are saying now, and why they are saying what they are saying, requires that one know the history of research on these topics (in archaeology, historical linguistics, genetics, etc.), so as to be able to understand the ways in which people’s ideas today differ from the ideas of scholars in the past.

So in the days and weeks ahead, I will try to write about these issues. By the end, I hope to be able to present a picture of prehistory that the current scholarship can support.

Is that picture of prehistory the same as yours? I think that what you and others will see is that in its general form it is similar, but in its details it is different, and the details are very important for us to understand.

On a final note, I think one more way that you and I are the same is that we both understand that the Internet is where people get their information.

One of the main points of the “Fringe History” article is to say that although you are not a professional historian, and although I think that there are problems with the evidence you build your ideas on, your ideas, and the ideas of the scholars you cite in your writings, are becoming much more influential than anything that professional historians in Vietnam have to say about prehistory.

Why do I say this? Because you are on the Internet and professional historians are not.

For instance, I can point to numerous Wikipedia pages that contain information that can be traced to your writings (many of which are easily available on the Internet), or the writings of the scholars who you introduced to Vietnamese readers. This is important because Wikipedia is the first place that people go today to get information.

Meanwhile, the professional world of historical scholarship in Vietnam has recently published a 15-volume history of Vietnam. The first volume contains the same information about prehistory that has been repeated for decades. However, I doubt that anyone will even notice that, because today the Internet is where people go to get information.

In conclusion, I respect the effort that you have made in trying to rethink Vietnamese prehistory. I respect the importance that you place on History. I respect that you have recognized the Internet as a key means to disseminate information. And I respect that you want people to know what you think, and that you work very hard to try to communicate your ideas.

Finally, as I said above, I am also pleased that you now consider me a “friend.” I consider you to be a “friend” as well. When I finish writing about the current scholarship on Vietnamese prehistory, I hope that we will still be “friends.” I think we can and should be.

Regards,

Liam Kelley