In the early twentieth century, French scholar Henri Maspero came up with an undocumented theory about Han migration into the Red River delta in the first century AD (view the previous post for details).

Seeing accounts in historical records indicating that in the early first century AD there were two Han Dynasty administrators in the area of what is today Vietnam who sought to implement certain cultural policies (such as requiring people to wear caps and shoes, and following certain marriage practices), Maspero argued (without evidence) that these administrators were able to implement these policies because Han Dynasty migrants arrived in the Red River delta at that time and aided these two men.

That Maspero came up with this idea is, I would argue, because he was relying on a means of explaining historical change that was very popular among European scholars at that time. I will explain more about this later, but the gist is that in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, migration was widely seen by European scholars as a key means by which societies changed.

Migrations were used to explain everything from the rise of civilization in Mesopotamia to the decline of the Roman empire.

In the case of Indochina, French and European scholars put forth various theories about ancient migrations into the region, and as bronze drums were discovered in the years after Maspero wrote his article, those artifacts were also attributed to a people who had migrated into the region.

Therefore, that Maspero employed migration to explain why two Han Dynasty administrators tried to change the cultural and social practices of people in the area of what is now Vietnam in the first century AD is not surprising given how popular it was among European scholars at that time to see migration as a key agent of change.

What is surprising, however, is that Western scholars in the postcolonial era would continue to rely on Maspero’s mode of explanation. Indeed, the colonial-era reliance on migration as a means of explanation was widely criticized by the generation of Western scholars who developed the field of Southeast Asian Studies in the 1950s-1970s, as they sought to emphasize “indigenous agency” over “foreign influence.”

Why then did Maspero’s undocumented claim persist? I can’t say for sure, but I can see that it fits with a particular form of Vietnamese nationalism that gained popularity starting in the 1960s.

The idea that the Vietnamese have always been resisting Chinese aggression emerged in North Vietnam during the Vietnam War as a form of propaganda that was meant to mobilize the North and to discourage Americans.

This idea was accepted by anti-war activists and young scholars in the West who were seeking to demonstrate that they could produce scholarship that was less Eurocentric than their colonial-era predecessors, in part by emphasizing indigenous agency over foreign influence.

Given that background, why would Western scholars rely on an undocumented colonial-era explanation that relies on migration (i.e., outside influence) to explain why two Han Dynasty administrators tried to implement some cultural/social policies in the first century AD?

After all, the colonial-era idea that bronze drums were created by a people who migrated into the Red River delta region was not based on evidence and it was rejected in the postcolonial era. However, this colonial-era idea that two Han administrators were only able to implement cultural/social policies because they had the support of people who had migrated into the region is also not based on evidence but it has been repeated many times.

Why is that? Why is migration a problem in one of those (undocumented) cases and not in the other?

I think it comes down to Vietnamese nationalism. Saying that the bronze drums were developed indigenously obviously supports a Vietnamese nationalist view of the past. However, saying that Han officials needed the support of outside help to bring about changes supports a Vietnamese nationalist view of the past as well.

To argue that Xi Guang and Ren Yan (the two Han Dynasty officials) needed a large number of Han Dynasty officials and scholars to suddenly appear in the region in order to be able to implement certain policies is to believe in the form of Vietnamese nationalism that started to get promoted in the 1960s in North Vietnam. That is to say, one needs to believe that there has always been a clear divide between “the Vietnamese” and “the Chinese,” and that these two distinct groups have always been in a zero-sum game with each other. When one gains, the other looses.

Let’s follow that perspective and take a look at how that game played out in the early first century AD.

At the turn of the first century, the game is tied. “The Chinese” just don’t have the strength to overcome the steady resistance of “the Vietnamese.” Then with the (supposed) arrival of Han migrants during the Wang Mang era, “the Chinese” make their move by trying to change the culture of “the Vietnamese.”

But wait! Not so fast!! Because here come the Trưng Sisters!! Right! Just as “the Chinese” make a push to get ahead, “the Vietnamese” push back even harder.

Unfortunately though, this is a game that is being played by two unequal teams (and that’s what gives this nationalist narrative its emotive energy, because of course everyone will want to support the underdog). As such, when “the Chinese” team decides to send in new players, they don’t play fairly (they never do!). Instead, they let loose Ma Yuan with a massive army that crushes “the Vietnamese” team (for now. . . because the game isn’t over yet. . .).

In other words, I think Maspero’s undocumented claim has made sense to people because it fits with this larger Vietnamese nationalist perspective of the past, a perspective that has been very influential in Western historical scholarship.

By contrast, when I look at the historical sources for this period, I don’t see two sides. Instead, I see various gradations of relationships. And in that world of different relationships between different peoples, I can see that Han Dynasty officials did not need to rely on migrants for help to do what they wanted to do.

This is a point that I will elaborate on in a subsequent post.