TL;DR: The Records of the Grand Historian describes the Tây Âu and Lạc peoples under the Nanyue kingdom; the Book of the Later Han and the geography text Commentary on the Water Classic describe Jiaozhi and Jiuzhen, all from the viewpoint of the northern court. The Commentary on the Water Classic quotes the Record of the Outer Lands of Jiaozhou, the earliest surviving text mentioning the Lạc king, Lạc lords, Lạc generals and the Lạc fields, which helps set these against the Hùng king legend in Vietnamese histories. Reading these sources requires clearly distinguishing what is historical record, what is legend and what is folk belief.
What were Giao Chỉ and Cửu Chân in Chinese histories?
Giao Chỉ and Cửu Chân were two ancient administrative units in the southern lands that Chinese courts established after taking control of the region. In Fan Ye's Book of the Later Han, Giao Chỉ and Cửu Chân appear as commanderies under the Inspector of Giao Chỉ (later called Giao Châu), located in the south of the empire. This naming reflects the perspective of historians writing from the northern centre of power, not how the local people called themselves.
According to the Book of the Later Han, volume 86 (the account of the southern and southwestern barbarians), Giao Chỉ was a region the Han made into a commandery after the fall of the Zhao dynasty[1]. The book records events in Giao Chỉ during the Eastern Han, including the uprising of Trưng Trắc and Trưng Nhị in 40 and the campaign of Ma Yuan[1]. This is the Chinese source to compare with Vietnamese histories about the Hai Bà Trưng.
Distinguishing Giao Chỉ from Cửu Chân
Giao Chỉ and Cửu Chân are often mentioned together, but they were not one region. Giao Chỉ was an administrative unit associated with the Red River Delta and the northern area, while Cửu Chân lay to the south, corresponding to present-day Thanh Hóa and Nghệ An. In Chinese histories, both commanderies belonged to Giao Châu, and Giao Châu also included Nhật Nam further south.
| Ancient administrative unit | Corresponding region today (common understanding) | Appears in sources |
|---|---|---|
| Giao Chỉ | Red River Delta and surroundings | Book of the Later Han, Commentary on the Water Classic |
| Cửu Chân | Thanh Hóa, Nghệ An | Book of the Later Han, Commentary on the Water Classic |
| Nhật Nam | Region further south | Book of the Later Han |
The table is only a relative comparison, because the boundaries of Han-era commanderies do not match today's administrative boundaries exactly.
What does the Commentary on the Water Classic record about the Lạc vương, Lạc hầu and Lạc tướng?
The Commentary on the Water Classic by Li Daoyuan is a 6th-century Chinese geographical text commenting on the older Water Classic. Volume 37 records the rivers of the Giao Chỉ region and quotes the Giao Châu ngoại vực ký, a text no longer intact but preserved in passages by the Commentary[2].
According to the quotation of the Giao Châu ngoại vực ký in volume 37 of the Commentary on the Water Classic, this land had Lạc fields, a Lạc vương, Lạc hầu, Lạc tướng, and the story of An Dương Vương and the magic crossbow[2]. This is one of the early surviving texts mentioning the Lạc vương, and it is therefore often used to compare with the Hùng Vương legend in Vietnamese histories[2].
It is worth noting that the Giao Châu ngoại vực ký is not an official history. It belongs to the genre of records of geography and customs of outer regions, mixed with legend. When reading, one must distinguish: the parts about rivers and locations are geographical records; the parts about the Lạc vương and the magic crossbow are legends that were written down, not verified events.
Why is the Lạc vương important to Vietnamese history?
In Vietnamese histories, the Hùng Vương legend is tied to the state of Văn Lang and the Hùng kings. Later Vietnamese histories record this legend as something handed down by the ancients, without asserting it as proven historical fact. The fact that the Commentary on the Water Classic quotes a Chinese text mentioning the Lạc vương shows that this name once existed in ancient texts, but it does not mean it confirms the entire Hùng Vương legend.
The common understanding in scholarship is that the Lạc vương, Lạc hầu and Lạc tướng reflect an ancient social organisation in the Giao Chỉ region, in which the Lạc vương was the head and the Lạc hầu and Lạc tướng were lower strata. However, the degree of connection between the Lạc vương in Chinese texts and the Hùng Vương in Vietnamese legend remains a matter of discussion, with no unified conclusion.
Does Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian record Giao Chỉ?
Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian, the great history of the Western Han, records the southern lands mainly in the Account of Nam Việt (volume 113). That chapter does not name the commanderies of Giao Chỉ or Cửu Chân, but it does mention Tây Âu and Lạc: after Empress Lü died, Triệu Đà used military pressure and gifts to bring Mân Việt, Tây Âu and Lạc under his sway[4]. These passages are short and set in the context of relations between the Han and Nam Việt, not specialised studies of Giao Chỉ or the Lạc Việt people.
Việt Nam sử lược by Trần Trọng Kim, written in 1920, recounts the period when Triệu Vũ Vương proclaimed himself emperor and the Han sent generals to attack Nam Việt, with the Han army defeated because it could not adapt to the southern climate[3]. The book also records that Emperor Han Wen sent Lu Jia with a letter advising Triệu Vũ Vương to submit[3]. This is how a modern Vietnamese history retells events related to the Giao Chỉ region, based on Chinese-language sources.
It should be noted that the Records of the Grand Historian is not a specialised source on the Lạc Việt people. Information about the Lạc vương and Lạc fields comes mainly from the Commentary on the Water Classic quoting the Giao Châu ngoại vực ký, and from later histories such as the Book of the Later Han[2][1].
What does the Book of the Later Han record about the Hai Bà Trưng and Ma Yuan?
The Book of the Later Han, volumes 86 and 24, are the two sections recording Giao Chỉ during the Eastern Han and Ma Yuan's campaign. This is an important Chinese source to compare with Vietnamese histories about the Hai Bà Trưng.
According to volume 86 of the Book of the Later Han, in 40, Trưng Trắc and her sister Trưng Nhị raised troops against the Han, capturing many cities in Giao Chỉ[1]. The Han sent Ma Yuan with troops to suppress them, and this campaign is recorded in the Ma Yuan biography in volume 24[1]. Vietnamese histories also record this event, but place it in a different narrative frame, emphasising the role of the Hai Bà Trưng as leaders against foreign invasion.
The difference between the two accounts lies not in the main event but in evaluation and context. The Book of the Later Han calls the uprising a rebellion, while Vietnamese histories call it an uprising. This is a typical example showing that the same event can be recorded from two different perspectives, and the reader needs to know which source they are reading.
Why read both sides?
Reading the Book of the Later Han helps one know what the Chinese court recorded about Giao Chỉ, such as dates, names of figures and place names. Reading Vietnamese histories helps one understand how the Vietnamese received and evaluated the events. Combining both sides gives a fuller picture, instead of relying on a single source.
How are the Lạc Việt people recorded?
The name Lạc Việt appears in the Ma Yuan biography of the Book of the Later Han: it records that Ma Yuan reported more than ten points where Việt law differed from Han law, and that he obtained Lạc Việt bronze drums in Giao Chỉ and cast them into a model horse[1]. The Commentary on the Water Classic mentions them through terms such as Lạc vương, Lạc hầu, Lạc tướng and Lạc fields[2]. These sources write from the rulers' point of view, mainly recording social organisation and place names, and say little about the life of the Lạc Việt themselves.
Some scholars hold that the terms Lạc vương, Lạc hầu and Lạc tướng reflect the ruling class of an ancient society in the Giao Chỉ region, possibly connected with the Lạc Việt in Vietnamese legend. However, scholarship has not reached consensus on the degree of connection between the figures in Chinese texts and those in Vietnamese legend.
In Vietnamese folk belief, the Lạc Việt are often associated with the legend of Lạc Long Quân and Âu Cơ, with the image of the dragon and fairy descendants. This is a folk belief handed down over many generations, not a verified historical record.
What should one note when reading Chinese histories about Giao Chỉ?
When reading Chinese histories about Giao Chỉ, Cửu Chân and the Lạc Việt, one must distinguish four different layers of information.
- The first is geographical and administrative records: commandery names, positions of rivers and mountains, boundaries. This is the part that can be compared with maps and other sources.
- The second is records of events: dates, names of figures, main developments. This part can be compared between Chinese and Vietnamese histories.
- The third is legends that were written down: the story of the magic crossbow, the story of the Lạc vương. These are legends, not proven events.
- The fourth is the evaluation of the historian: calling the uprising a rebellion or an uprising. This is the writer's viewpoint, not objective data.
Distinguishing these four layers helps avoid confusion between what a text says and what it intends to convey.
The role of the Commentary on the Water Classic in research
Volume 37 of the Commentary on the Water Classic is an important source because it quotes the Giao Châu ngoại vực ký, a text no longer intact. Thanks to the Commentary, the passages about the Lạc vương and Lạc fields are preserved[2]. However, since this is a 6th-century text copying an older text, caution is needed when using it as evidence for events further back in time.
Conclusion: how should one read these sources?
Chinese histories such as the Records of the Grand Historian, the Book of the Later Han and the Commentary on the Water Classic provide valuable information about Giao Chỉ, Cửu Chân and the southern lands, but always from the perspective of the northern court. Reading these sources together with Vietnamese histories gives a more balanced view. The important thing is to distinguish clearly what is historical record, what is legend, what is folk belief and what is the evaluation of the historian. One should not use a single source to assert the whole historical picture, nor should one conflate legend with verified events.
