I have been searching for pre-modern Chinese-style guns in Asia over the past five years.    

I became interested in gunpowder technology while writing my dissertation during 1998-2000, but did not start searching for actual guns until 2003. It all began when I made my first trip to Vietnam in 2003, sponsored by the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore. For that trip, I planned to undertake some archival research at the Han-Nom Institute in Hanoi, but expected to see some physical firearms. Prior to this, I had only seen the pictures of Chinese firearms of the Yuan (1279-1368), Ming (1368-1644), and Qing (1644-1911), and Chinese-style firearms of the Korean Choson dynasty (1392-1910), but never of Southeast Asia. I was even not sure whether Chinese-style firearms had survived in Southeast Asia, despite relatively rich written records on them in Vietnamese, Burmese, and Tai/Thai historical records.

Hanoi, 2003: “Eureka! Eureka!”

Therefore, when I entered History Museum of Vietnam in Hanoi in October 2003, I had high expectations. The museum did not disappoint me. After viewing the first floor, on the second floor, in the Later Le Dynasty (1428-1778) section, I finally saw Chinese-style guns! I could not help shouting “eureka! eureka!” in Chinese to my Chinese friend who worked in the Chinese embassy in Hanoi and drove me to the museum that day. I was indeed extremely excited, and probably as much as Arkimedes more than 2,000 years ago. In a showcase containing firearms, there were six Chinese-style handguns on the top shelf. They were very much like their Chinese (and Korean) counterparts, with the vase-shaped gunpowder-chamber being a prominent feature (Figure 1). Another feature on three guns that struck me even more was the priming pan lid (Figure 1 and 2). Research had speculated it was a Vietnamese invention to cope with the frequent and heavy rain and then was adopted by the Chinese. This feature on actual Vietnamese guns more supported the above speculation. The inscription in Chinese on some guns (Figure 2) should not mislead one to think these guns were made by the Chinese. Archaeological evidence shows these six handguns were manufactured by the Vietnamese in the late sixteenth century during the reign of the famous Vietnamese king Le Thanh Tong (r. 1460-1497). The beauty, grace, and vigor of the Chinese characters on, and the high craftsmanship of, these guns testify to the greatness of the “golden age” under Le Thanh Tong’s rule in Vietnamese history.

I spent another half a day that day examining and photoing these guns via the showcase glass from different angles and perspectives, and the pictures I took proved to be very valuable for my future publications, including this short essay.

On the bottom shelf of the showcase in the History Museum of Vietnam, there were some other firearms, including two Chinese-style bombards (Figure 3). They represent another type of firearms invented and employed by the Chinese. The most salient features of them are much thicker body, big round- or vase-shape of the gunpowder chamber, and tend to (at least some) have bigger muzzle and bore. The one on the right side in Figure 3 belongs to the eighteenth century while the date of the other one is unknown yet.

Ten days in Hanoi passed by quickly, I had to return to Singapore. I had half a day free time before my flight, hence I went to the Military Museum to see if there were Chinese-style guns there. It did not disappointed me. I saw four more Chinese-style firearms in the central room of the first floor, all belonging to the fifteenth-seventeenth centuries and were discovered in Thanh Hoa. Two of them were of the bombard type, while the other two were of the smaller cannon type (Figure 4). They should be the products of the Mac-Le civil war during the late sixteenth century when Thanh Hoa was the major battlefield.

 

In December 2003 I visited Burma, hoping to find Chinese-style guns. Nothing existed in Yangon and Mandalay. I only saw European-style firearms. Any slightest archaeological trace of the influence of Chinese gunpowder technology would be exciting, but it seemed to be that this kind of trace completely disappeared. In other countries in Southeast Asia such as Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines, one is not positive on discovering Chinese-style firearms (apart from these that were from shipwrecks). If this proves to be true, then we can say that Vietnam is the only country in Southeast Asia that borrowed heavily from Chinese gunpowder technology and manufactured large numbers of them. This is not surprising, as Vietnam was the only Confucianized country in the region.

Nanning, 2007: “Vietnamese guns in China?”

    In March 2007, with the support of California State University, Fullerton and Guangxi Nationalities University (in Nanning, Guangxi), I went to the latter to deliver some lectures. Learning about my research in firearms, Qi Bing, a scholar and collector of Southeast Asian coinage in Nanning, informed me that there were Vietnamese guns at the antique market called “Antique City” in Nanning. “Vietnamese guns in China?” I murmured. I got excited and curious despite some doubts. Mr. Qi accompanied me there. After his inquiry door by door, we finally entered Mr. Guo’s shop. Mr. Guo and his wife generously showed me their guns and allowed me to handle them freely. I photoed, meansured, and weighed all the  five guns (plus one Chinese gun from Hainan) (Figure 5). When asked about the origins of these guns, Mr. Guo only knew they came from Vietnam. Looking at their shape and the inscription on one of the guns (the lack or brevity of inscription is a major feature of Vietnamese firearms, in contrast to their Chinese counterparts which normally contain detailed information), I concluded that they should be Vietnamese guns, belonging to the handgun type discussed above but were of a later date (exact date still unknown). Mr. Guo informed me that he sold some Vietnamese guns and still had more in stock at his warehouse. At Mr. Qi’s institution (Guangxi Coin Museum), I was shown a picture of another Vietnamese gun on display in Liuzhou, another city in Guangxi. It indeed looked like a Vietnamese one.

     Seeing Vietnamese guns in the capital of Guangxi added more excitement to my Guangxi trip. Not only did I handled Vietnamese guns with my own hands, but also because of the interesting fact that the flow of Vietnamese antiques into China. Over the past decade, the trade between China and Vietnam has been booming. As the southernmost province and adjacent to Vietnam, Guangxi plays the most important role in this trade. Along with official trade is the smuggling of commodities, such as Vietnamese antiques including ancient firearms. This is an exciting age for both China and Vietnam, another peak of Sino-Vietnamese interaction (fortunately a peaceful one). To be sure, this is not the first time that Vietnamese guns flowed into China. As early as the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, high-quality Vietnamese (European-style) guns spread to China and played a certain role in Chinese warfare during this time period.1 I went to Nanning again in 2008 and visited the antique market. I did not see any Chinese-style firearms, but saw some Vietnam-manufactured European-style cannon of the nineteenth century. I learned from the antique shop owners that they ordered these antique firearms from Vietnamese antique dealers and more were coming from Vietnam. This suggested a vibrant antique trade between China and Vietnam, and also the big market in increasingly rich China.

Hanoi, 2008: “I have guns, come to see them tomorrow”

    My 2008 Hanoi trip was better prepared. First, I learned from Hoàng thành Thăng Long [Thang Long: The Imperial citadel] (Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Văn hóa thông tin, 2006) compiled by the Institute of Archaeology of Vietnam that both the History Museum of Vietnam and Hanoi City Museum held more Chinese-style firearms. I could not wait to see them. Second, from my communication with Philip Tom (a California based specialist on Asian swords) and my 2007 experience in Nanning, I was convinced that in addition to museums I needed to seek and visit antique dealers who had ancient firearms in their stock.

Moreover, my trip to Hanoi in 2008 (which was sponsored by the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University) was also different from the one in 2003. While I traveled to Hanoi from Singapore by air in 2003, I went to Hanoi from Nanning by bus with two young Vietnamese historians (Hoang Anh Tuan and Vu Duong Luan) in March 2008. That was after the conference on the history of the Tonkin Gulf organized by Australia National University and Guangxi Academy of Social Sciences, an academic discussion triggered by the high tide of Sino-Vietnamese economic interaction. Travelling overland from China to Vietnam for the first time, I was excited and curious all the way to Hanoi. Witnessing the heavy flow of people (mostly from China to Vietnam, including factory/company owners, miners, office workers including interpreters, students, factory workers, etc.), seeing all kinds of people benefiting from the brisk trade of the two countries (for example, the money changers on the Chinese side at the border), I had a strong feeling and told my Vietnamese colleagues that peace was better than war.

    I stayed at the Pan Hotel in the old quarters in Hanoi. Before my serious search for guns, I walked around to see the shops nearby my hotel. One night I was attracted by some weapons of a shop several doors away from the Pan Hotel. I went in and chatted with the shop owner, a Vietnamese lady who spoke very good English.  I ended up helping her identify the Zao (called “Yao” in China) ritual books (written in Chinese characters but in the Yao way, one who knows Chinese language can only guess somewhat the content but cannot understand completely). At this time, a “White” man walked into the shop and spoke to the shop owner with standard American English. Soon I learned he was the owner of the 54Traditions, an antique shop dealing with ethnic artifacts. His name was Mark Rapoport, an American grew up in New York. “Do you have old firearms?” I asked him.  “I have guns, come to see them tomorrow.” To my surprise, Mark gave me an affirmative answer.

    I arrived at the 54Traditions before 10am next day, and Mark finally showed up. He generously had three firearms carried to his office for me to study freely. The firearms represented three types of Vietnamese firearms: small handgun, bombard, and cannon (Figure 6).  I examined, photoed, measured, weighed, and recorded all the three firearms with great interest. When asked about their origins, Mark only told me they all should come from northern Vietnam. My subsequent research shows that at least the cannon (at the bottom of Figure 6) should have come from the Thanh Hoa province and may have been used in the Mac-Le civil war during the late sixteenth century.

    Another high point in my search for firearms during this trip was my viewing of the Hoang Thanh (Imperial Citadel) cannon. Among the large quantities of artifacts from the imperial citadel was the bronze cannon, the only firearm discovered from the site. With the hospitality of archaeologist Bui Min Chi and the help of Vu Duong Luan, I was able to view, measure, and photo this important cannon. It was 120.5cm long, weighed over 100kg (according to Bui Min Chi, I did not weigh myself), the diameter of the bore at the muzzle was 4.1cm (Figure 7). However, this cannon seemed not to have a touch hole. If this is the case, it means it cannot shoot, then it should be only for ceremonial purposes. Despite this, it can at least give us a very good idea on the Chinese-style cannon in early modern Vietnam.

    The day before my return to China from Hanoi, Chinese language expert Dinh Van Minh accompanied me to visit both the History Museum and the Military Museum. At the former, I saw nothing new, but at the latter, new firearms were on display. They were three handguns and two cannon (Figure 8). The display label stated they were of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries and were discovered in Thanh Hoa. Very probably they belong to the late sixteenth century and were employed for the Mac-Le civil war. No more new types of Chinese-style firearms, but it was fascinating to see more of them were unearthed after a five-year interval between my two visits in 2003 and 2008. One believes that more will be discovered in the future. My search for firearms in 2008 did not end with my departure from Hanoi, as a few months later, with the help of Hoang Anh Tuan, Pham Vu Son of the Military Museum of Vietnam provided me with high-quality photos of and detailed information (including accurate measurements) on some of the firearms at his museum.2

I should, however, point out that my plan to view more firearms at the History Museum of Vietnam and Hanoi City Museum did not materialize, despite the warm help from Hoang Anh Tuan. I was told that one needed to obtain permission from the Ministry of Culture to see any artifacts in the warehouse. This had to be a long and difficult process. I simply did not have time in 2008.

Concluding Remarks

    I would like to conclude this report by making the following remarks.

    First, based on what I have seen so far, the Chinese-style firearms in early modern Vietnam can be classified into three types, handgun, bombard, and cannon. More searches will be done in the future in places such as Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, but it seems these three are the basic forms of Vietnamese firearms based on the Chinese models.

    Second, research on gunpowder technology changed my methodology in research. Prior to 2003, I only dealt with written historical records, but my interest in firearms pushed me into museums and antiques shops. As a result, I paid more attention to archaeological discoveries and made friends with antique dealers. While the threshold of state museums is too high and hard to get in, antique shops, antique dealers, and private collector always welcome those who have an interest in their collection. 

I thank everybody who helped with my search for guns

Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia Issue 10 (August 2008)