Khmers in the Mekong Delta
Dear list,
I came across the following statement in a 1954 French report about the way the Nguyen ruled the Khmer in the delta:
" The Cambodians established in Cochinchina, where their king had a residence in Thuan Thanh (My Tho), were expelled by the Annamese Emperor Hien Vo Vuong in 1758. Since that date, the khmer minority lived under the authority of the Hue court and rose up in rebellion numerous times, notably in 1780, 1822, 1841, and 1867.
"It appears that until 1856, these Cambodians were subject to different systems of rule [regimes] depending on whether they lived to the East or the West of the Saigon River. The first were directly under the Emperor of Annam, while the latter were administered by a representative of the King of Cambodia."
I am particularly interested in the second paragraph. Does anyone on this list know if this report is correct? And if so, how exactly did the "representative" of the Cambodian King exercise authority? Were there tribute relations between the Khmer of the delta and both the Nguyen and Cambodian courts?
Thanks for any elucidation, or for pointing me to the right books. Anything in French/ English/ Vietnamese would be helpful.
Shawn McHale
Director
Sigur Center for Asian Studies
Associate Professor of History and International Affairs
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
202/ 994-2760
Shawn,
Some of that account suggests that a parallel Khmer administrative system
might have been retained in Khmer communities around Chau Doc, as there had
been in the former Cham territories.
However, the Vietnamese court exercised the greater authority in that
region. In the early 1800s, Gia Long named Nguyen Van Thoai the "protector
of Cambodia," and Thoai was engaged in "pacifying" the border region.
While Cambodia had subordinated itself to Vietnam, apparently it still had
some say in the dispositions in the borderlands--my notes say that the
Cambodian monarch was consulted before Thoai began construction of the Vinh
Te canal in 1818, which parallels the modern border.
The note about a Cambodian king residing in My Tho as late as 1758 seems
most peculiar, in that the Nguyen lords had begun settling the Ming refugees
at My Tho in 1679. It doesn't seem likely that they would have settled the
newcomers right at the doorstep of a Cambodian king. Could they have made
an error in dating? (The date 1658, would make more sense, during the reign
of the Nguyen lord known as Chua Hien.)
Others can probably comment in greater detail.
:: Mike High
Great Falls, VA
Dear Shawn,
To start, you may want to refer to research by Li Tana, Nola Cooke and Wook Choi Byung for a better idea of power dynamics in the Mekong Delta from the 17th-19th century. Although Li and Cooke's pieces predate the 19th century, they portray very useful historical backgrounds. See, for example, Li Tana, “An Alternative Vietnam? The Nguyen Kingdom in the 17th and 18th Centuries”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, (Vol. 29, No. 1: March 1998): 111-121; See also Nola Cooke, “Regionalism and the Nature of Nguyen Rule in 17th Century Dang Trong (Cochinchina)”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (Vol. 29, No. 1: March 1998): 47-65. And Wook Choi Byung, “Vietnamization of Southern Vietnam during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” Asian Ethnicity (Vol. 4, No. 1: 2003)
Hope this helps.
Ngan Nguyen
hi shawn-
this is a very interesting question, and apologies in advance for a very longwinded answer. I find that French reports on Khmers in Vietnam, whether during the conquest or later, are often full of misleading but interesting information. West of the Saigon River essentially means Nam Ky Luc Tinh with the inclusion of Bien Hoa. Any Khmers living East must have lived up in Trung Nguyen so they would have been living on lands owned by the king.
1700's. While Khmers living in Mien Tay might have been technically living under the authority of a governor of a srok who in turn was linked to the Khmer monarchy, I find it extremely unlikely that the Nguyen recognized the Khmer court's rights over the sroc (such as Soc Trang) after 1757. That was the year that the western frontier, today's international boundary along the Vinh Te Canal (Chau Doc Tan Cuong) was officially ceded to the Nguyen Lord by the Khmer Court. SEE Dai Nam Nhat Thong Chiand other historical accounts of Viet-Khmer interactions in the 1700's.
1700's. Effectively, Chinese city states such as Ha Tien and larger Chinese militias affiliated with the Nguyen (Mac family in Ha Tien) and the Siamese court out of Chantaburi controlled the region in the period 1760-1780. There are numerous accounts of the naval battles around Ha Tien, Chinese pirates operating off of Kampot, and a Thai-Chinese fleet operating out of Chantaburi. Its in retaliation to Siam-Chinese offensives that the Nguyen army takes a more decisive role in the delta.
1780-1802. Then you have the Tay Son Wars where the Tay Son tended towards a very strong assimilationist policy towards both the Khmers and the Chinese in the Mekong Delta. The Nguyen's Dong Son army by the late 1780's included large Khmer-led (Nguyen Van Ton) units.
1802-1833. Gia Long's reward for the Khmers in the delta was that they would be able to live in self-governing srok during this era of rebuilding while Mien Tay was ruled under military governors such as Thoai Ngoc Hau. You'd probably find in descriptions of Viceroy Le Van Duyet's rule out of Gia Dinh interesting interactions with the Khmer "governors" of these enclaves, especially as the Nguyen moved to turn eastern Cambodia into Nam Vang circa 1811. Since the king of Cambodia was "protected" by the Vietnamese Resident at Lovea until 1833, its possible that governors of Soc Trang, Tra Vinh, Chau Doc, Long Xuyen and other Khmer enclaves were appointed; BUT they must have been simultaneously approved by the Vietnamese Resident since these governors operated in Nguyen-controlled territory.
1833-1840's. I think the big turning point would be the Le Van Khoi Rebellions of 1833-36. This is when Minh Mang moved to assimilate all VN territory and all of these autonomous zones into one national, civilian system. The Thai fleet again invaded the Vinh Te Canal, and the Chau Doc region was occupied by Thai troops (also protecting the Khmer monarch) until Thieu Tri made concessions ~1840.
1840-1867. From 1840 until the French conquest began in 1858, my understanding is that the delta was subject to many different instances of rebellion and disorder. However, I have found no evidence to suggest that Khmer srok by 1856 under Tu Duc were ruled by a representative of the King of Cambodia. That would be the case ONLY if the king at that time was a vassal of Vietnam, but in reality I imagine the relationship was only ceremonial.
French sources about this period include some of the accounts of the conquest by French officers such as Admiral Bonard and then the later provincial monographs authored 1901-1907. They include some interesting background history of Khmer regions such as Tra Vinh and Soc Trang that appears to have been gathered locally rather than copied down from Auburet's translation of Gia Dinh Thanh Tong Chi. There is discussion of cholera epidemics that struck the delta hard in the mid-1840's to mid-1850's. That was a major factor behind the development of Buu Son Ky Huong in the borderlands area, and it led to many anti-Nguyen uprisings which I believe the French officers tried to take advantage of after 1858.
I imagine French naval records of the provincial Inspectors des Affaires natives might include some interesting accounts of Khmer relations before and after the conquest.
-david
This is directed toward Prof. McHale, but any assistance from the list
is helpful.
During my research of Vietnamese Buddhism in the revival movement, I
came across a reference on a French conspiracy to gain the Vietnamese
trust by supporting the establishment of the Buddhist Associations in
all three regions as written by Tr?n Hông Liên. The book is Ð?a chí
Van hóa Thành Ph? H? Chí Minh (4 volumes) edited by Tr?n Van Giáu and
Tr?n B?ch Ð?ng. The section title is "Ph?t giáo ? Nam B? và Thành
Ph?," by Tr?n H?ng Liên. My first impulse was that this is great
information, but now I doubted the authenticity of the source. I was
hoping you can shed some lights onto this reference.
The statement as translated by me (page 353):
a letter (b?c thu) from the Chánh s? An ninh Nam k? (l'administrateur
chef de Service de la Sécurité) sent to the Th?ng d?c Nam k? (Le
Gouverneur de la Cochinchine) dated day 9 month 6 year 1928 with its
intention exposed.
Liên failed to reference where the data can be found.
Minh Huynh Tran
PhD Student
Dear Shawn,
some more references :
- Pierre Bernard Lafont (sous dir.), Les frontières du Vietnam, L'Harmattan, Paris, 1999 (especially Pierre Lamant's article, and more generally Pierre Lamant's research on Cambodia during the french colonial period).
- Khin Sok research, especially : Le Cambodge entre le Siam et le Viêtnam (de 1775 à 1860). Paris, EFEO (Collections de textes et documents sur l'Indochine XVIII), 1991.
- Lê Huong books published in Saigon during the 1960's and articles on "viet kiêu tai kampuchia" published in tâp san Su Dia
Best
Pascal Bourdeaux
David,
Thank you for your "long-winded" answer -- it is much appreciated. And thanks as well to Pascal Bourdeaux, Nguyen Ngan, Minh TRan, Mike High and others for their suggestions. I'm also going to post my question, revised in light of some of your suggestions, to the Thailand-Laos CAmbodia list to see if I can get additional different perspectives on this question.
The crux of the dilemma is raised in this part of David Biggs's post:
"1700's. While Khmers living in Mien Tay might have been technically living under the authority of a governor of a srok who in turn was
linked to the Khmer monarchy, I find it extremely unlikely that the Nguyen recognized the Khmer court's rights over the sroc (such as Soc
Trang) after 1757. That was the year that the western frontier, today's international boundary along the Vinh Te Canal (Chau Doc Tan Cuong)
was officially ceded to the Nguyen Lord by the Khmer Court. SEE Dai Nam Nhat Thong Chi and other historical accounts of Viet-Khmer interactions
in the 1700's."
The question here is: what does it mean to say that the Nguyen court did not "recognize" the authority of a governor over the srok (e.g. Soc Trang, Tra Vinh)? And what does it mean to say that the CAmbodian court "ceded" territory?
My working hypothesis is that the Khmer dominated Mekong delta (in 18th and early 19th century) was caught between two ways of imagining "rule." The first is the Vietnamese one, and I am guessing that the central Vietnamese court did indeed think that one could more or less demarcate borders and then control whomever lived within them. The second way of imagining rule, however, would be that shared throughout the rest of mainland SE Asia. Here I like Thongchai's formulation (for Siam) better than the usual mandala model that many invoke. Thongchai has argued that “Siam before the last decade of the nineteenth century was [ . . .] a discontinuous, patchy arrangement of power units where people of different overlords mingled together.” (Siam Mapped, p.79).
It seems clear, from premodern SE Asian history, that strictly defined and clearly demarcated borders were not the issue *EXCEPT* for short parts of a border.
In the premodern workings of power in SEA, it was common for small areas on peripheries of larger political units to have* multiple* overlords.
Given the above, what would it mean to say that the Cambodian court "ceded" territory to the Nguyen? Was this cession to one of the rival factions of the Cambodian royal family? More importantly, perhaps, what exactly was this cession of? Taxation. All territory east of the VinhTe canal? What was the relationship between these claims and Siamese claims? (I am not asking for responses to all these questions. I bring them up just because, fundamentally, I am not sure of the apparent Nguyen dynasty's belief that it had rights to these lands. The Mekong delta seems to have been one of these common sights in premodern SE Asia --like the area between Siam and Burma -- a borderlands area outside the strong administrative control of any large state for a long time. Was this really an area that the Cambodian court court really "cede."?
I bring all this up because it seems to me that the Vietnamese monarchy's story of consolidation of rule over the Mekong delta seems too pat. It is obvious that, again and again, Khmer of the delta opposed the imposition of rule. We tend to think of this opposition, retrospectively, as the actions of a "minority" opposing the inevitable consolidation of majority Vietnamese rule. But from the viewpoint of 1700 or 1800, it certainly looked far different.
All that being said -- thanks, thanks again for the help!
Shawn
Shawn McHale
Director
Sigur Center for Asian Studies
Associate Professor of History and International Affairs
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
shawn and all-
please cross-post what you find from the TLC responses. I think
readings of Khmer chronicles and especially the histories of individual
wats - perhaps even at Tra Vinh and Soc Trang - might shed some light on
whether the sroc inside Nguyen domains were economically or politically
independent.
what i guess, however, from various non-Khmer sources is that by 1780
the Nguyen had firm military and economic control over most present-day
Vietnamese territory in the delta. There are accounts of Nguyen
canal-building from Rach Vung Gu, just north up highway one from My Tho,
where they were purposefully extending strategic communications links in
the early 1700's (1701 I think) to My Tho from VN-held positions around
present-day Long An. This in 1816 was called Bao Dinh Canal (Arroyo de
la Poste). They tended to circumscribe or push out Khmer settlements in
building this new infrastructure.
the key here I think were the repeated VN-Siamese battles for control of
the delta from ~1770-1840. Khmers certainly played a role in these
battles, but I think the most powerful figures would have been the
Chinese congregations in My Tho and Ha Tien affiliated with the Nguyen
and the Chinese congregations around Chantaburi affiliated with Thaksin
and then folded into the Cakri army. Siam was repeatedly pushing
against Vietnamese expansion even after 1802. Both the Nguyen Court and
Siam were interested in the delta as a major territorial prize.
i'm also not sure that the Mekong Delta fits Thongchai's mandala model
well. There are some complicating factors. First, militarily, there is
a strong Chinese influence and I'm not sure that Qing-era or Ming-era
(they were described by VN as Minh-Hoa) rule over the periphery in China
matches the mandala system in the highlands of Laos or island SE Asia.
They built stone garrisons, highways, and insisted on pretty rigid,
centralized taxation schemes. Second, with the Nguyen re-conquest after
1788 there's an important French military influence in the training of
Nguyen forces. French engineers oversaw construction of Vaubanesque
forts--a huge one at Gia Dinh/Sai Gon. And they introduced new tactics
of naval patrols and infantry warcraft.
-david Biggs
Hi Mike;
I have just came across your old message regarding Khmer of the Mekong delta. I myself am a Khmer of the region. And I quote your message...
"It would be interesting to find out that the memory of the glories of Angkor was kept alive by the Khmer over the intervening centuries, but I suppose it is more likely that these elements are more recent, added after the temples at Angkor were once again made famous by western explorers."
I found the above statement in red is inaccurate regarding our history. The three-points tower of a gate of our Theravada pagodas in my homeland is simply our Khmer architectural icon, similar to Khmer's Angkor Wat in Cambodia. The three-points top of our architectural monuments are Khmer cultural icon rather and exist long in history in the region Mekong delta.
Attached is our brief history : KHMER-KROM The Indigenous Peoples of the Mekong Delta
Jeffery Kim