Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Controversies over Contested Intangible Heritage in Vietnam Seen from the Case Study of Lady Phi Yen

Abstract

Le Thi Ram, or Phi Yen the Imperial Concubine as she is more commonly known, is a divisive figure in the folklore of Vietnam. The inhabitants of Con Dao Island have held Phi Yen in high esteem for many years because of her noble deeds in the nineteenth century. A memorial service was organized in her honour by the Con Dao community and was added to the register of Vietnam’s intangible cultural treasures in early 2022. However, this prompted debate about the veracity of the memorial service and the character being honoured. This study uses three theoretical frameworks to analyse the debates over whether to remove the commemoration of Lady Phi Yen’s death: contested heritage, heritagization and historical revisionism. The debate centres on two opposing camps: those supporting keeping the commemoration and those who do not. This research adds to our understanding of the debates surrounding Vietnam’s efforts to protect and promote its intangible cultural heritage and suggests directions for the future.

Keywords

Contested heritage heritagization historical revisionism Lady Phi Yen Nguyen Phuc clan

I. Introduction

Le Thi Ram, better known as Imperial Concubine Phi Yen, is a contentious figure in local legends from the Con Dao archipelago, Ba Ria-Vung Tau, a province located on the coast of Vietnam’s southeast region. Legend has it that she was Lord Nguyen Phuc Anh’s concubine and gave birth to Prince Cai. Lord Anh later became King Gia Long, who founded Vietnam’s Nguyen dynasty (1802–1945). The tale goes that she advised Lord Anh against seeking foreign assistance because that interference could alter their victory and cause problems in the future, prompting Lord Anh to become suspicious of her motives and lock her away in a cave. Later, when their young son questioned his mother’s whereabouts, Lord Anh murdered him by throwing him into the sea. After having a hard time mourning her son, she later killed herself when touched by a butcher, making her feel dishonoured. As a result, the people of Con Dao have been venerating her, honouring her legend with an annual festival.

The commemoration event held in her memory was included in the list of intangible cultural properties of Vietnam in April 2022. Unfortunately, this inscription sparked tension between the two camps over the legitimacy of the event and the character herself. On the one hand, heritage officials, experts, locals and Phi Yen’s nomination-making group are pleased with Ba Ria-Vung Tau’s first intangible heritage being recognized. On the other hand, the Nguyen Phuc clan consisting of those who reside away from Con Dao Island, approximately 1,000 km, feels distressed because the official recognition of the commemoration distorted Nguyen Anh’s image (King Gia Long) as their forefather. This is the first controversy over an ICH inscription, thus drawing huge attention from members of the public and revealing complicated issues about the heritagization of contested heritage in Vietnam.

The concept of ICH was introduced in Vietnam by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in the 1990s. Around the turn of the millennium, ICH emerged more substantially due to Vietnam’s response to UNESCO policies and the perceived threats of globalization’s impacts on Vietnamese cultural identity (Norton, 2014). Notably, at the Eight National Congress of the Central Committee of the Vietnamese Communist Party (1998), Resolution 5, ‘Building and Developing a progressive Vietnamese culture having national characters’, was imposed, thus indicating a crucial shift in Vietnam’s cultural policy. Notably, the Resolution made way for the creation of laws, decrees, ordinances and action plans for ICH, including the Law on the Protection of Cultural Heritage (2001), the Law on Amending and Supplementing some articles of the Cultural Heritage Law (2009), the Circular on the inventory and making application for ICH (2010), the Decree in the Implementation of several documents in the Cultural Heritage Law and the Amended Law and a few additions to the Cultural Heritage Law (2010). Vietnam had also ratified the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of ICH by 2005. These unveil that the Vietnamese government has focused more on its cultural heritage, particularly ICH (Norton, 2014). By comparison, Vietnam’s recognition of ICH is later than that of tangible cultural heritage. After the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (9/1945) was established, the Presidential Decree No. 65/SL of the Provisional Government came into force on the 23rd November 1945 as the earliest legal framework in Vietnam that took heritage management and conservation into consideration (Nguyen et al., 2022).

Regarding international recognition of Vietnamese heritage, precedents for tangible heritage were Hue and Hoi An being added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1993 and 1999, respectively. The subsequent inscriptions of three other sites, such as My Son Sanctuary Temple, Ha Long Bay and Phong Nha-Ke Bang Parks, drew huge attention from the Vietnamese (Salemink, 2012). In terms of ICH, nhã nhạc (court music) from Hue and không gian văn hóa cồng chiêng (space of gong culture) of Vietnam Central Highlands’ ethnic groups were considered ‘Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity’ in 2003 and 2005 respectively by UNESCO. So far, UNESCO recognition has been given to 14 intangible heritage elements in Vietnam (Vietnam News Agency, 2022). On the domestic level, there have been 65,900 ICH elements in Vietnam, of which 431 are included on the national list of ICH, having 171 heritage elements categorized as traditional festivals, according to Vietnam’s Department of Cultural Heritage (DCH). These inscriptions have laid a solid foundation for a boom in the Vietnamese cultural tourism industry. For instance, visitors to Hoi An grew substantially from 58,834 domestic and 81,148 international (1997) to 424,320 domestic and 606,477 international in 2007 (Logan, 2014).

Various aspects of Vietnam’s ICH have been examined in recent decades, ranging from the significance of ICH (Logan, 2001), the connection between ICH and its contributions to sustainable development (Huong, 2015), the cultural politics of ICH making (Salemink, 2012), dynamics of heritagization and the safeguarding of traditional festivals (Nguyen, 2021), measures and recommendations to conserve and promote ICH (Vo, 2010), implications for the protection of Vietnamese ICH from a comparative study (Nguyen, 2007) to museums and its role towards ICH protection (Galla, 2006). However, few studies have been published regarding the controversy of ICH inscription in Vietnam. As a result, this study investigates contested heritage through the controversy of the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen. For the following reasons, the Lady Phi Yen festival has been integral to the Con Dao Island community, Ba Ria-Vung Tau province (Vietnam). First, the traditional ceremonies and worshipping space for the anniversary have been maintained for many generations and are a central cultural practice for the local community. Second, the architectural values of the Lady Phi Yen temple, such as the structure, materials and geomancy, demonstrate various local characteristics. Approximately 1 million visitors annually visit the Lady Phi Yen temple (Nguyen & Nhat Linh, 2022). However, once it was listed on the national ICH list, it led to a heated debate among different stakeholders, causing a drop in attendance. This study’s objective is to understand the fact that ICH elements and ICH inscription in Vietnam are not merely about the recognition of ICH’s values and fierce competition among various localities for titles but also about the policy negotiations and flexibility recorded in the Vietnamese authorities’ approach to contested heritage in a war-torn country where history-related matters can provoke unprecedented storms of objections.

After this introduction, the article is split into several parts. Section II focuses on why the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen is representative enough that it deserves academic attention. The conceptual framework is introduced in section III, presenting three main concepts: contested heritage, heritagization and historical revisionism. The study continues with the research method (section IV), illustrating how this research was undertaken before delving into research findings (section V) and discussion (section VI). This article is wrapped up with several concluding remarks in section VII.

II. The Death Anniversary of Lady Phi Yen: A Unique Case Study

According to the application prepared by the Ba Ria-Vung Tau province, Lady Phi Yen is known as Le Thi Ram, the Concubine of Lord Nguyen Phuc Anh, later King Gia Long (1802–1820). In legend, they gave birth to a son named Prince Hoi An, also known as Cai. When Cai turned 4, Nguyen Phuc Anh, Lady Phi Yen and their son Cai fled to Con Dao Island since they were hunted down by Tay Son’s troops. Since the Tay Son’s army defeated the Nguyen Phuc Anh’s troops in various battles, Phuc Anh planned to ask a French missionary named Pierre Pigneau de Behaine (transliterated into Vietnamese as Ba Da Loc) to seek French support. Cai was expected to go with Pierre Pigneau de Behaine as a hostage on a trip to France. Lady Phi Yen strongly advised Phuc Anh not to do so since the country was in chaos. However, Nguyen Anh became angry about Phi Yen’s suggestion, claiming she would collude with the Tay Son troop. Nguyen Anh wanted to behead her, but some Phuc Anh comrades prevented this. She was subsequently locked in a cave having little food and water. Once the Tay Son’s troops were expected to go to Con Dao, Nguyen Anh and his troops wanted to go to Phu Quoc by ship. Cai realized that there was no Lady Phi Yen in the troop. He questioned his father, Nguyen Anh, where she was. He insisted on staying with his mom on the island. Once the Tay Son’s troops were approaching closely, Nguyen Anh was so furious that he threw his son Cai into the sea. His body was washed back to the Co Ong seashore, and the locals at the Cau temple worshipped him. Lady Phi Yen was saved by a white monkey and a black tiger and then was supported to have a small house to take care of her son’s grave by some Con Dao residents. At the age of 24, she went to An Hai village to attend a ceremony praying for those who lost their lives. However, a butcher named Bien Thi intended to rape her. Once he sneaked into Phi Yen’s room and touched her hand, she immediately woke up and yelled for help. Finally, she kept herself safe thanks to people’s support. She felt so humiliated that she decided to chop her hand and committed suicide to maintain her honour. Admiring Phi Yen’s virtue, Con Dao inhabitants built a temple to worship her in 1875. She has been considered a local guardian, and the death anniversary for her is held on the 17th and the 18th of October (lunar calendar) at An Hai village (Thanh, 2001; Viet, 2022). As a consequence, there is a proverb about Lady Phi Yen (Ram) and her son (Cai) made by the Con Dao residents:

Gió đưa cây Cải về trời

Rau Răm ở lại đời đời đắng cay

[Cai is taken to the sky by wind

Ram keeps staying and faces with humiliation forever]

The anniversary death of Lady Phi Yen was recognized as the province-level festival in 2007 by the Ba Ria-Vung Tau province’s people committee (Nguyen & Nhat Linh, 2022). On the 25 October 2021, Ba Ria-Vung Tau submitted the application of Lady Phi Yen to the DCH and MCST. After the application was initially examined and analysed against the regulations by DCH, an evaluation committee was established by MCST to assess the application on the 21 of January 2022. Based on the committee’s results, the decision to recognize the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen was submitted to the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism for approval. Decision No. 773/QĐ-BVHTTDL recognizing the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen on the national list of ICH was issued on the 4 April 2022, and controversy immediately followed.

III. Conceptual Framework

This study is framed based on three conceptual frameworks: contested heritage, heritagization and historical revisionism. Each framework helps shed light on the controversy over the inscription of Lady Phi Yen’s death anniversary.

Contested Heritage

Given its broad range of stakeholders, various uses and the need to balance conservation and change, heritage is a matter of contestation. According to Dissonant Heritage, written by Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996, p. 21), dissonance or lack of agreement is the intrinsic nature of heritage, and thus ‘all the heritage is someone’s heritage and then logically not someone else’s’. Heritage conflicts may also represent themselves in terms of ownership, interpretation, and various uses (Ingerpuu, 2018). Olsen and Timothy (2002) categorized contested heritage into two types. First, several social groups take ownership of the same heritage, but they have different interpretations. Second, heritage is interpreted and used differently by various divisions in one group. Meanwhile, contested heritage sites are linked to various aspects such as colonization, war, totalitarianism, religious division, atrocity and death, slavery, historic neighbourhoods, ethnic heritage, museums, archaeological sites, industrial heritage and urban heritage (Liu et al., 2021). Since heritage contestation is common in many societies, many examples can be examined to help comprehend the complexities (Kisić, 2016). According to Wu (2020), the UNESCO inscription of khoomei by officials in Beijing and Inner Mongolia encountered considerable resentment from Mongolian people. They accused the Inner Mongolians of stealing Mongolia’s cultural heritage for China. In 2010, Mongolia managed to have the ‘Mongolia traditional art of khoomei’ registered on the UNESCO ICH list. In another case of the Zwarte Piet tradition, while many people consider the tradition part of Dutch heritage and identity, others consider it a kind of dark heritage to be abandoned. This has been critical for the representational battle on Dutchness (Rodenberg & Wagenaar, 2016).

Heritagization

In the 1990s, heritagization was conceptualized to describe a ‘negative and destructive process’ (Walsh, 1992, p. 35). Nevertheless, Byrne (2008) indicated that heritagization should concentrate more on heritage as a form of social action, which makes way for the appreciation of change. This perspective is supported by Karlström (2013), who stated that heritage is a cultural production that can create something fresh. Salemink (2016, p. 314) asserts, ‘heritagisation of cultural sites, objects, and practices effectively disenfranchise the cultural communities involved from the legacy that they formed over years of cultural and ritual labour, as other players—cultural experts and scientists, state agencies, tourist companies—effectively take over the management and organisation of the heritage for their benefit’. He clearly states that ‘heritagization brings in not just the state, but also the market, as the label of heritage’. Take a folksong tradition of hua’er in China as an example. Hua’er, a kind of improvisational folksong, is prevalent in Qinghai province, Gansu province, Ningxia Hui region and some parts of Xinjiang region. This song is considered taboo as it is a flirtatious musical genre by which singers can express their love and sexual desires for another person without regard for someone’s marital status. However, love and sex are sensitive and private topics in China. The designation of hua’er as an ICH element has transformed it from a forbidden and taboo song practised at rural communities’ margins into a well-respected element of global and national heritage (Yang, 2020).

Historical Revisionism

In the field of history, rewriting history often takes the form of historical revisionism, which refers to the act of reinterpreting historical accounts (Krasner, 2019). It often entails questioning professional historians’ established, accepted or conventional views regarding a historical event, period or phenomenon, adding data that contradicts such views or reinterpreting the motives and actions of the persons involved. Tucker (2008) indicated that historiographic interpretation might be impacted by moral and aesthetic standards, the affiliations and prejudices of those who write them, thus resulting in different historical interpretations. In its most fundamental form, legitimate historical revisionism is a widespread practice that does not generate a disproportionate amount of controversy when creating and improving history writing. The reversal of moral conclusions, in which what orthodox historians had regarded as good influences are presented as bad, is a far more contentious topic that has generated much controversy. If such revisionism is challenged, it can become an illegitimate form of historical revisionism known as historical negotiations if it involves inappropriate methods such as the use of forged documents or an implausible distrust of genuine documents, attributing false conclusions to books and sources, manipulating statistical data and deliberately mistranslating texts (Evans, 2002). This kind of historical revisionism can provide a different interpretation of the ethical significance of the historical record. Recently, Banner (2021) postulated that historical revisionism is a change in historical interpretations and a challenge to current interpretations of the past based on new evidence, arguments, perspectives and methods. Therefore, he suggests that understanding primary topics among modern historians has never stood still, and fresh perspectives have seldom gone without objection or challenge.

Historical revisionism has been applied to several historical dynasties and figures in Vietnam. The Mac dynasty (1527–1683) showcased humility and obedience towards the Ming Dynasty and even offered some land parts in Northern Dai Viet to China. Some historians strongly criticized this as an act of treason, and the Mac dynasty was considered a puppet regime (Lien, 1993). On the flip side, Taylor (1993) postulates that the Mac dynasty took a proper measure to cool down the Chinese ambition to invade Vietnam. A mode of ‘obeying’ or ‘pretending’ of the dynasty benefited Vietnam more than the war did (Taylor, 1993, p. 271). Similarly, the Nguyen dynasty (1802–1945) used to be substantially condemned, and its inefficient, oppressive, and reactionary policies were blamed for the country’s failure to fend off French troops (Van, 1972). Tran (1973) considered the Nguyen dynasty’s Confucianism a ‘weapon of aggression’ that was wielded by the rulers against their subjects. Since the Đổi mới or Reform (1986), this dynasty is credited with achievements, like expanding Vietnam’s territory and consolidating the state’s control over that territory (Lockhart, 2001). As for the Vietnam War, it has been seen differently by various American politicians and researchers. A study undertaken by Summers (1983) complements and encourages the understanding of the war, as President Reagan regarded it as noble and winnable. In addition, Lewy (1978, p. 440) claims that he desired to ‘challenge the facile and unhistorical assumptions of an inevitable collapse of South Vietnam’. He blames the media, particularly television and the antiwar movement, for disillusionment among Americans, which resulted in subsequent withdrawal. On the other hand, the lessons from the Vietnam War have been strongly raised for American presidents since the 11 September attacks. For example, once President George Bush decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, different commentators supposed that the president had forgotten the lessons of Vietnam and the ‘Vietnam syndrome’-caution against having a military abroad (Priest, 2013).

Although refining historical accounts should be seen as a regular activity that both professional and amateur historians perform as a part of their duties, endeavours to challenge some seemingly fixated historical data could easily be accused as reactionary acts, especially when it involves sensitive periods, events or relationships like the First Indochina War, the Vietnam War, Vietnamese sovereignty or the heated relationship between Vietnam and China.

IV. Research Method

A primarily qualitative case study approach was deployed after the controversy over the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen (Yin, 2018). Empirical data were collected through in-depth interviews and document reviews during the field trip.

This study primarily relies on 6 interviews with experts (from Expert 1 to Expert 6) and 12 interviews with locals (from Local 1 to Local 12) to gather their perspectives about the inscription of the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen. Specific identifiers were removed, and efforts were made to ensure the anonymity of the experts. These experts have been working and studying ICH for decades; therefore, they possess knowledge of the research topic at the specialist level (Bogner et al., 2009). We acknowledge that six is a number that might sound limited to be credible; nonetheless, since expert interviews are the primary method recruited, we strongly agree with Malterud et al. (2016) that the main factor here is information power. According to Malterud et al. (2016), information power refers to the idea that the more information the sample holds relevant to the actual study, the fewer participants are needed. The experts in this study work at various ICH-related institutions such as DCH, the National Council of Cultural Heritage, universities, and research institutes, representing the main stakeholders involved in this case. Thus, we believe that they can offer incomparably valuable insider insight. In addition, voices from locals were utilized to provide their knowledge and thoughts about Lady Phi Yen and the recognition of the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen as part of the national ICH register.

All discussions, meetings and interviews were tape-recorded or noted. Open-ended questions were utilized to elicit information from the participants in the interviews. These in-person interviews were further complemented and supported by online materials from media correspondents. Also, a close analysis of the seminar papers, petitions and state decisions was employed with the expectation that it could help explain the viewpoints of the related stakeholders. Additional documents such as laws, decrees and ordinances about ICH’s inscription and protection being retrieved from national archives and official online sources (mainly the official gazette published on the Vietnamese government portal) were carefully studied. Besides, some old documents such as historical records and folk stories related to Lady Phi Yen were also gathered and examined in this study. Regarding data analysis, thematic analysis is utilized in this article as it is a foundational method for identifying, examining and reporting themes within data. This method provides a flexible approach and research tool for researchers to generate new insights and concepts from interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

V. Research Findings

The inscription of the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen resulted in a heated debate between a representative from the DCH, heritage experts, some historians and the Con Dao residents in Vietnam. The perspectives from various stakeholders were grouped into two camps of thought: (a) in favour of retaining the anniversary and (b) in disagreement over the representation of the anniversary and whether it should be removed from the ICH register. The final section of research findings focuses on how the controversy is addressed.

In Favour of Retention

A consensus was reached between locals, a representative of the DCH and experts in agreement with the inscription of the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen. It is critical to acknowledge that all of the 12 locals interviewed said they were proud and happy with the fact that the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen has been added to the national list of ICH. The anniversary has been a critical part of local people’s lives. Therefore, they find it crucial to protect and promote this cultural heritage. Regarding the legislative framework, Le Thu Hien, chairwoman of DCH, MCST, confirmed that procedures to assess and recognize the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen were compliant with the law. Once the nomination for the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen was submitted by Ba Ria-Vung Tau province’s people committee, it underwent the DCH and the ICH Committee review. After the nomination had passed all the procedures, the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism added it to the national ICH list. She also explained that this decision was consistent with 2009 Amending and Supplementing several Articles of the Law on Cultural Heritage:

Intangible cultural heritage means spiritual products associated with related communities, individuals, objects and cultural spaces, which are of historical, cultural or scientific value, express the identity of communities, are constantly recreated and transmitted from generation to generation orally, through craft teaching, performing arts or in other forms. (Clause 1, Article 4)

In favour of Thu Hien’s opinion, female Expert 2 is a leading expert on Vietnamese cultural heritage, claiming that it is required to follow all procedures to have heritage listed on the national ICH list. All required materials, including application forms, photographs, videos, letters of confirmation ensuring the commitment to safeguard intangible heritage values by individuals, heritage practitioners and the community, reports from the Ba Ria-Vung Tau province’s people committee and other related documents must be prepared and submitted. Heritage must represent the community’s culture and identity, and its existence for an extended time must be recorded. This is pursuant to Circular 04/2010/TT-BVHTTDL on the inventory and making a scientific application for the ICH in Vietnam:

To be listed on the national ICH list, one is required to meet some criteria like to be representative and to have the local community’s identity; to reflect cultural diversity and human creativity; to have the ability to recover and survive for a long time and to be voluntarily nominated and protected by the community. (Article 10, Circular 04/2010/TT-BVHTTDL)

From the ICH perspective, male Expert 1, who has been researching Vietnamese ICH for more than four decades and worked at the Institute of Culture Studies, revealed that it is vital to acknowledge the role of Lady Phi Yen towards the local community’s rituals:

She is not a real historical figure, but the local communities created her for their spiritual needs. For a long time, Con Dao residents have been worshipping and considering her a sacred factor of the festival named the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen. (Expert 1)

The role of Lady Phi Yen is also presented through the interview with the female Local 1, who is more than 70 years old. She supposed that the Lady was so sacred that you would be punished if you said something wrong about her. In the case of controversy, if no agreement is reached among the parties, people would swear in the Lady Phi Yen temple. Expert 1 further highlighted that it is not necessary to emphasize the historical aspects of ICH but its characteristics and significance. This stems from the fact that new elements of ICH have been produced over the years.

Expert 3, a female expert on Vietnamese ICH, used to work at the Institute of Culture and Arts. She supposes that many locals have been familiar with the worship of Lady Phi Yen for a long time as ‘those in their 80s or 90s share that they have known the custom of worshipping Lady Phi Yen since they were children’. This is in line with the study conducted by Jacobs (2016), supposing that each community and individual could assess the value of their intangible heritage, and this intangible heritage should not be subject to external assessment of its worth or values at all.

There is also a suggestion from a senior anthropologist (Expert 5) who worked for Smithsonian Institute and studied Vietnamese ICH for decades. He believes ICH should be distinguished from history because they contain different values and meanings. Besides, the ideas from ICH experts would be critical for assessing intangible heritage matters:

We must never lose sight of the fact that history and legends are two separate phenomena (and the traditions stemming from legends are the third phenomenon), and they should not be confused. People in Phu Tho can venerate the Hung Kings with various festivals and rituals, regardless of whether the legends of the Hung Kings are provable historical facts. People in Con Dao can venerate Lady Phi Yen regardless of whether she can be found in historical documents. The worshipping activities of the community are not something that historians can decide. If your foot hurts, you do not ask a dentist to examine you. Do not consult a historian if you are concerned with ICH practices. (Expert 5)

In addition to ideas raised by Experts 5 and 6, a female member of the National Council of Cultural Heritage for the second term, contends that there are possibly commonalities between history and heritage. However, historical records cannot be utilized to explain intangible heritage issues. She asserts that ‘[…] History needs facts and truth, but intangible heritage does not need those. The bottom line is to answer why people practise that festival. What do people gain from that? Also, other things are not written in history but exist in folk life’.

From a broader perspective, Con Dao communities created a figure of Lady Phi Yen because they needed some spiritual support [bệ đỡ tâm linh] for their daily lives. This notion is further explained by Expert 2, who has been studying Vietnamese Goddesses for years, claiming that the Lady Phi Yen figure is not the only case. Lady Phi Yen-like figures are present in many communities: ‘They can be Mother Goddesses or the Guardians taking care of local people’s health, careers, crops and even sovereignty. Each figure plays a crucial role in people’s spiritual lives regardless of whether they are historical or legendary figures’. The female Local 5 shared her experiences about the Lady Phi Yen:

‘I was advised to go to the Lady Phi Yen temple for my marriage since I was single in my early 30 years old. I did go to the temple and then asked the Lady for my future husband. One year later, I got married to my husband’.

In addition, Local 8, who is a second-year male student at Hoa Sen University, Ho Chi Minh City, told us his thoughts about the Lady:

Prior to my university study, I was so worried about the exams. As a result, I decided to go to the Phi Yen Temple, just 5 km from my house. I passed the exams with good results, and then I can pursue my undergraduate at my favourite place like Hoa Sen University.

Expert 2 also commented, ‘Through the figure of Lady Phi Yen, the local community places the trust on her, consolidated unity, and strength among different community members. It is to help the community to overcome difficulties and barriers’. This notion is also represented in the interview with Expert 4, who used to work at the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology as he highlighted that the scaredness in the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen should be taken into consideration ‘The figure of Lady Phi Yen who is the sacred and the core part of ICH, is created by local people’.

From a different angle, national recognition over the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen could potentially boost tourism for Con Dao Island, Ba Ria-Vung Tau province. This is clearly explained by Local 9, who works as a tour operator in Con Dao Island ‘Ba Ria-Vung Tau province has been well-known for its sea tourism, the recognition of the Lady Phi Yen as the national list of ICH might develop heritage tourism for the local economy, thus generating more jobs and income for locals’.

In Favour of Removal from the ICH List

The inscription of the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen was confronted with much anger and disagreement from the Nguyen Phuc clan and other researchers. This section concentrates on different explanations and reasons why some people insist on revoking Lady Phi Yen’s death anniversary from the national ICH list. The most vital voice was from the Nguyen Phuc clan, whose community held a scientific seminar on ‘An Son temple and Lady Phi Yen in Con Dao island: from the legend to the application’ on the 26 April 2022 at Tùng Thiện Vương palace in Hue. There were 16 articles presented in the seminar being grouped into three themes: (a) whether Nguyen Anh travelled to Con Dao Island, (b) the legend of Le Thi Ram (Lady Phi Yen) and (c) the protection and promotion of the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen and An Son temple.

Whether Nguyen Anh travelled to Con Dao Island is a point of contention among some researchers. Even during the Nguyen dynasty’s reign, historians debated whether or not the mythology accurately reflected real events. In 1942, Tri Tan Magazine carried a story entitled ‘History of Discourse: A Letter from Huế’ (Sử học luận đàm: Một bức thư Huế) where Ton That Duong Ky highlighted that there was no historical evidence to suggest that Lord Nguyen Phuc Anh travelled to Con Lon Island (Nguyen & Nhat Linh, 2022). Do Bang, Vice Chairman of the Vietnamese Association of History, asserted that Con Dao was not the place Nguyen Anh went to during the war with Tay Son troops in the late eighteenth century. Con Dao had been known by various names, including Con Lon, Con Son, Con Lon Son and Con Non. Westerners considered it Poulo Condor, which originated from the name ‘Pulau Kundur’, meaning Bi island. According to Phủ biên Tạp lục [Miscellaneous Chronicles of the Pacified Frontier], the term Con Lon was utilized to name three different mountains in the estuaries of Binh Thuan, Gia Dinh and Ha Tien (Le, 1964). Therefore, Con Lon referred to the newly reclaimed areas by the Nguyen Lords in the eighteenth century. He also emphasized that Nguyen Anh’s escape route from the pursuing Tay Son army was only in the southwest region through Rach Gia–Ha Tien and then to Phu Quoc, Tho Chu, Co Cot and Co Long and then Siam; therefore, Con Lon was linked to Con Dao Island. In addition, the Southwest region of Vietnam was believed as a route for Nguyen Anh to keep his troops safe. More precisely, Phu Quoc Island is located in the Kien Giang Sea. To the west of Phu Quoc is a chain of islands in Thailand Gulf close to Siam (Thailand) and Chan Lap (Cambodia). This location is more favourable than Con Dao to go overseas if there is no safe place for Nguyen Anh. If Tay Son troops encircled Con Dao Island, there was no exit for Nguyen Anh to leave for another country.

Extending Do Bang’s view, Dinh Van Hanh, through his research ‘Who does the Con Dao temple worship?’, suggested that Con Lon is not Con Dao. According to Đại Nam thực lục [Annals of Dai Nam], Nguyen Anh left for Con Lon (or Co Long) island and Phu Quoc Island when Tay Son troops wanted him. Con Lon Island is in the Cambodia Sea, with a significant distance between Con Lon Island and Con Dao Island. Also, Nguyen Quang Trung Tien, the former Head of the History Faculty at Hue University of Sciences, confirmed that from the 30 June to the 28 July 1783, Nguyen Anh left Phu Quoc Island for Con Lon Island to escape the Tay Son troops. However, Nguyen Anh’s troops were attacked by the troops of Tay Son, so they had to move to Co Cot island from the 29 July to the 27 August 1783. According to Đại Nam thực lục [Annals of Dai Nam] and Histoire, moderne du pays d’Annam (1592–1820) [History of Annam in the modern period 1592–1820] published in Paris, France in 1920 as well as spatial and military analysis, he concluded that there was no chance for Nguyen Anh to travel to Con Dao (Imperial Archives of Nguyen Dynasty, 1963; Maybon, 1919). Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge that Con Lon Island could not be Con Dao Island from the military, marine and historical perspectives.

Several researchers, including Nguyen Thanh Loi, Dinh Van Hanh and Phuoc Loc, explained the legend of Lady Phi Yen. The folklore researcher Nguyen Thanh Loi suggested that the Lady Phi Yen legend has its origin in the local worshipping custom:

Lady Phi Yen’s legend stems from the Thien Y Ana worshipping tradition on the Central Coast of Vietnam. In the south of Vietnam, this tradition integrates with the veneration of Thuy Long Goddess—another incarnation of Thien Y Ana and is turned into the Bà Cậu worshipping. Later, this figure is also transformed into the figure of Lady Phi Yen, and she is supposed to link to Nguyen Anh, who was the first king of the Nguyen dynasty.

He also contended that the legend of Lady Phi Yen helps us understand some historical, cultural and spiritual aspects of the Con Dao people. Over the years, additional layers of information have been added to the legend, so it is critical to separate those layers. Dinh Van Hanh extended this view and concluded that the temple in Con Dao might ‘worship the local Goddess who is supposed to be the community guardian. This guardian might originate from Cham people’. He emphasized that there are many folk legends throughout Con Dao. For instance, every mountain, island and water area has its legend.

Lady Phi Yen and Prince Cai were the only legendary figures in the research conducted by Nguyen Phuoc Vinh Dung, Chairman of the Nguyen Phuc clan’s Research Board. This was confirmed by Nguyen Phuoc Buu Nam, the Chairman of the Nguyen Phuc clan, in his response to the newspaper, claiming that the executive board of the Nguyen Phuc clan has reviewed Nguyen Phuc clan’s tree and the Dai Nam historical records; no one is named as Le Thi Ram (Lady Phi Yen) and Prince Cai or the son of King Gia Long (Nguyen & Nhat Linh, 2022). As a result, the historian Nguyen Van Dang postulated: ‘The DCH has been arbitrary, simple and irresponsible in its recognition without evaluating the historical background of the An Son Temple relic and the legend of Ms Phi Yen’.

Right after the conference ended, a petition to revoke the decision over the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen was submitted to the Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh, MCST, DCH, National Council for Cultural Heritage. The petition supposed that many history books have information about Nguyen King during this dynasty. The petition highlighted that the inscription of the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen is an insult to Nguyen Anh, the Nguyen dynasty and the Nguyen Phuc clan: ‘Inscribing the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen as a national ICH element is an insult to Nguyen Anh as the founder of the Nguyen Dynasty and the Nguyen Phuc descendants’.

The petition also supposes that some modern Vietnamese historians are often biased against Nguyen Anh and the Nguyen dynasty. For instance, some modern Vietnamese historians often underestimate Nguyen Anh as the founder of the Nguyen dynasty. Finally, the petition stated that Nguyen Anh is not a legendary figure, thus he should not have been compared with other legendary figures such as Lieu Hanh Goddess, Giong God and Hung King. It will be detrimental for people to write and popularize some poems, literature and folk performances related to the figure of Lady Phi Yen.

The Fall of Controversy

After the members of the Nguyen Phuc clan expressed their disagreement over the decision to inscribe the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen on the national ICH list, the MCST took quick action. Meetings between the DCH, the National Council of Cultural Heritage, the Ba Ria—Vung Tau Province’s People Committee and the Nguyen Phuc clan (Hue) were organized to understand people’s viewpoints. Discussions among stakeholders were held, and summaries were submitted to the MCST for review.

On the 20 June 2022, the MCST issued Document No. 2135/BVHTTDL-DSVH to respond to the petition of the Council of the Nguyen Phuc clan in Vietnam. The decision stated that Lady Phi Yen’s death anniversary met the criteria of ICH. The anniversary being added to the national ICH list is to recognize the cultural values and significance created by the Con Dao people. It encourages the local community to continue practising, protecting and passing that cultural heritage to younger generations. Also, this recognition emphasizes that festival practice in the community is protected by the law, not to highlight any historical figures or events.

It is also stated that the MCST requests Ba Ria-Vung Tau Province’s People Committee to conduct various tasks:

To collaborate with the local community as heritage practitioners to study and adjust the heritage title and its related content to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

To study, amend and complete the nomination for ICH to enhance the core values such as traditional and cultural characteristics of the islander community and remove inaccurate details and information.

The decision to recognize this heritage on the National List of ICH will be re-examined and decided by the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism upon the National Committee for Cultural Heritage had studied and discussed the amended nomination submitted by Ba Ria-Vung Tau Province’s People Committee.

It is necessary to adjust promotional information related to the heritage since it has been recognized as a provincial heritage element, and the venue for organizing this ceremony should be considered to avoid any misunderstanding and conflicts among various communities.

Once this decision was imposed, it helped reduce the intense controversy from the initial inscription. A few months later, another decision, No. 2705/BVHTTDL-DSVH, on amending the festival title from Imperial Concubine Phi Yen’s death anniversary to Lady Phi Yen on the register came into force, thus reducing the controversy in Vietnam. This decision was made based on multiple meetings and discussions between DCH, National Committee for Cultural Heritage, the Nguyen Phuc clan and the Con Dao community. Accordingly, the title of the death anniversary of Imperial Concubine Phi Yen was changed to the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen. The decision seemed to solve the controversy over the inscription of the death anniversary of Imperial Concubine Phi Yen. However, this was again encountered with disagreement from the Nguyen Phuc clan in November 2022 for the following reasons. First, there was no attached document stating the responsibility of Ba Ria-Vung Tau province as managing authority over the Lady Phi Yen application. Second, the Nguyen Phuc clan’s petition to revoke the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen’s title has not been answered yet by the MCST. Therefore, another petition was submitted to the MCST asking for (a) revoking the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen or (b) removing all inaccurate information related to King Gia Long to maintain the inscription. Since the authority has not replied and seemed to adhere to the decision already made, it is clear that disagreements over historical interpretations still affect the management of ICH in Vietnam.

VI. Discussion

This research examined the controversy around the inscription of the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen seen from the diverse perspectives of locals, heritage experts and researchers. The research findings uncover two main groups of thoughts (a) to favour and retain the festival inscription and (b) to disagree and revoke the title. These conflicting views reflect that contested heritage is dynamic since heritage is a product of modern times (Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996). Also, heritage is utilized to ‘construct, reconstruct and negotiate a range of identities, and social and cultural values and meanings in the present’ (Smith, 2006, p. 3), and the memory and meaning tied to heritage might vary from generation to generation which means heritage contestation keeps shifting (Harrison, 2004). According to a study by Ross (2007), heritage contestation is strongly linked to different and competing narratives of meaning. This can be seen clearly from how locals, heritage experts and historians have responded differently to the inscription of the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen. These sharp differences result from how history and heritage are presented. While historical analysis is viewed as a way of finding the facts of what happened (Jordanova, 2019), heritage is not a kind of physical element that remains from the past but is an active discourse about the past (Smith, 2006). As a result, there is a need to double-check historical information of intangible heritage, particularly those historical figures and events that can be justified. However, balancing the history and heritage approach seems a complicated and challenging task.

The death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen also uncovers a broader picture of heritagization in Vietnam. Since the first intangible heritage element of nhã nhạc (music court) was added to the national ICH list in 2012, the list had substantially increased to 137 by 2015 and 171 in 2022 (Department of Cultural Heritage, 2016). There is no doubt that Vietnam has been developing a ‘heritage craze’ in recent decades (Salemink, 2018, p. 126). Economic gain is crucial in intangible heritage protection (Deacon et al., 2004). Unfortunately, heritage is intrinsically political and implicated in the making of collective identities because heritage formation in the formal contexts is a selective and official process, thus leading to elites’ modern uses of the past (Harrison, 2010; Salemink, 2012). These factors explain why local authorities and application-making groups have overlooked the Phi Yen festival’s history, meaning and community. Notably, there is a lack of local practitioners who have maintained and passed down the festival for generations in the heritage-making process. What happened to the Lady Phi Yen inscription might be seen in China, where both central and local cultural officials have the power to decide which heritage elements to register and to choose application materials for heritage registration (Wu, 2020). Another source for arguments between locals, heritage experts and historians stems from how the sanctity of the festival is perceived. The sacred is considered a catalyst to safeguard and conserve the continuity of festivals for generations as ‘sacralisation is helpful to grasp better the success or failure of making heritage appeal, as well as the contestations invoked by it’ (Meyer & Witte 2013, p. 80). Over the years, the sacred might be added to intangible elements, which is accurate with some festivals or traditions in Vietnam, such as the Gióng festival and the Tổ cô worship (Nguyen et al., 2022). This is the primary argument against which various locals, heritage officials and experts lean to protect and retain the death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen. However, those historical events and characters can be verified based on written records. Examining, adjusting or removing incorrect information from intangible heritage elements is critical. This is to show respect for history and avoid hurting those communities involved.

There was a sharp and immediate backlash from several historians, especially from the Nguyen Phuc clan, over the decision to inscribe Lady Phi Yen’s death anniversary on the ICH national list. This is not only a response from the third party but also a historical revisionism trend that has been growing since the 1986 Reform or Đổi mới. Indeed, the reform has created a Vietnamese version of openness, and hence researchers can question and reject traditional interpretations of various historical events and figures during the Nguyen dynasty (1802–1945). In addition, there is a growing number of Nguyen scholars in Vietnam. Finally, there is a greater willingness to recognize parallels between problems handled by the Nguyen dynasty and issues facing the existing regime to draw some lessons and solutions for the next ones (Li, 1999; Lockhart, 2001). In addition, tremendous efforts are being made by the Nguyen Phuc clan to acknowledge the legacy of the Nguyen King’s contribution towards Vietnamese history. For instance, on the anniversary of the 220 years of King Gia Long uniting the country, a conference was organized to re-assess Gia Long’s contributions. Accordingly, his most critical legacy is that he laid a foundation for a united Vietnam and imposed effective domestic and foreign policies. As a result, the conference proposed a call for the local authority to have a street named after Gia Long in Hue City, the former capital of the Nguyen dynasty (Bui & Nhan, 2022). The Nguyen Phuc clan has substantially contributed to protecting and conserving the Nguyen’s cultural heritage. For instance, there were attempts to get the VaDeIn company, a local enterprise of Hue, to rebuild the tomb of one of King Tu Duc’s concubines since the tomb was damaged due to a parking lot project (Vo, 2022). The latest move regarding the Nguyen dynasty’s cultural heritage recently occurred when the Nguyen Phuc clan officially sent a letter to French President Emmanuel Macron to ask to cancel the auction hosted by Millon & Associés, a well-known auction house in Paris. In this contentious auction, the Nguyen dynasty’s artefacts would spark concerns if sold: a golden bowl and a royal seal formerly used by King Bao Dai, the last emperor of the Nguyen dynasty. An agreement was made between Millon & Associés and the Vietnamese government, resulting in the return of the royal seal to Vietnam (Thien, 2022).

VII. Concluding Remarks

This article aimed to shed light on the controversies around the inscription of Lady Phi Yen’s death anniversary on the national ICH list. There are different and even conflicting viewpoints about this inscription. The research findings uncover that while locals, heritage officials and experts favour retaining and protecting the title for the local community, the Nguyen Phuc clan and other historians and researchers are keen to revoke the title. In this case, the death anniversary is considered a form of contested heritage since there are opposing stakeholder groups with varied interpretations of a heritage piece (Liu et al., 2021). The heritage experts use their knowledge and experiences of intangible to assess the ICH, whereas the Nguyen Phuc clan members and other historians are based on their historical viewpoints and their connections to the Nguyen dynasty. By virtue of the timely involvement of the different state authorities and the National Council of Heritage, the controversy around the inscription has substantially fallen.

However, several lessons can be drawn from this controversy. First, the DCH and National Committee for Cultural Heritage would be more careful in reviewing and assessing the nomination for intangible heritage to double-check the application’s information and materials. Second, those nominations are made to promote and develop local tourism and must be reviewed carefully against the criteria. Lastly, the heritage elements having historical figures have to be carefully examined by historical records and communities if possible. While other studies contested that heritage studies focus on the use of past heritage in the production and enhancement of national celebration in the contemporary time (Robertson, 2018), the authenticity of heritage practices (Zhu, 2015), competing narratives over the tradition (Rodenberg & Wagenaar, 2016) and heritage ownership (Wu, 2020), this study provides new insights into controversy over Vietnamese heritagization. This process is also impacted by Vietnamese historical revisionism, which has been profoundly developing in recent decades thanks to national reforms and the availability of media and technologies. However, there are some limitations with this research since it focused on perspectives from the locals, experts and researchers, the future work concentrating on perspectives from other stakeholders, for instance, would be of interest.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors want to express gratitude to Mr. Calum Farrar (Griffith University) for his resourceful feedback.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This study is solely funded by the Academic Publishing Fund of VNU-University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Hanoi, under Project Number USSH.2023.05.

References

Banner Jr.

J. M.

(2021). The ever-changing past: Why all history is revisionist history. Yale University Press.

Bogner

, Littig

, & Menz

(2009). Interviewing experts. Springer.

Braun

, & Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Bui

N. L.

, & Nhan

L. H.

(2022). Hội đồng Nguyễn Phước tộc Việt Nam đề nghị đặt tên đường Gia Long ở Huế [Nguyen Phuc Association requests the local authority to name the Street Gia Long in Hue city]. https://thanhnien.vn/hoi-dong-nguyen-phuoc-toc-viet-nam-de-nghi-dat-ten-duong-gia-long-o-hue-post1464326.html

Byrne

(2008). Heritage as social action. In Fairclough

, Harrison

, Jameson

& Schofield

(Eds), The heritage reader (pp. 149–173). Routledge.

Deacon

, Dondolo

, Mrubata

, & Prosalendis

(2004). The subtle power of intangible heritage: Legal and financial instruments for safeguarding intangible heritage. HSRC Press.

Department of Cultural Heritage. (2016). Danh mục Di sản văn hóa phi vật thể quốc gia [National list of ICH]. http://dsvh.gov.vn/danh-muc-di-san-van-hoa-phi-vat-the-quoc-gia-1789

Evans

R. J.

(2002). Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving trial. Basic Book.

Galla

(2006). Museums in sustainable heritage development: A case study of Vietnam. INTERCOM 2006 Symposium, Taipei, November 2–4, ICOM-INTERCOM, Taiwan R.O.C. https://mapa.valpo.net/sites/default/files/repositorio-documentos/museums_in_sustainable_heritage_development_a_case_study_of_vietnam_gala.pdf

10.

Harrison

(2004). Introduction: Contested narratives in the domain of World Heritage. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(4–5), 281–290.

11.

Harrison

(2010). What is heritage? In Harrison

(Ed.), Understanding the politics of heritage (pp. 5–42). Manchester University Press.

12.

Huong

P. T. T.

(2015). Living heritage, community participation and sustainability: Redefining development strategies in the Hoi An Ancient Town World Heritage property, Vietnam. In Labadi

& Logan

(Eds), Urban heritage, development and sustainability (pp. 274–290). Routledge.

13.

Imperial Archives of Nguyen Dynasty. (1963). Đại Nam thực lục [Annals of Dai Nam]. Su hoc Publishing House.

14.

Ingerpuu

(2018). Socialist architecture as today’s dissonant heritage: Administrative buildings of collective farms in Estonia. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24(9), 954–968.

15.

Jacobs

(2016). The spirit of the convention: Interlocking principles and ethics for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of Intangible Heritage, 11, 72–87.

16.

Jordanova

(2019). History in practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.

17.

Karlström

(2013). Spirits and the ever-changing Heritage. Material Religion, 9(3), 395–399.

18.

Kisić

(2016). Governing heritage dissonance: Promises and realities of selected cultural policies. European Cultural Foundation.

19.

Krasner

(2019). Historical revisionism. Greenhaven Publishing LLC.

20.

Q. D.

(1964). Phủ biên Tạp lục [Miscellaneous chronicles of the pacified frontier]. Khoa hoc Xa hoi Publishing House.

21.

Lewy

(1978). America in Vietnam. Oxford University Press.

22.

(1999). Xứ Đàng trong, lịch sử Kinh tế–Xã hội Việt Nam thế kỉ 17 và 18 [Cochinchina, Vietnam’s economic and social history during the 17th–18th centuries]. Tre Publishing.

23.

Lien

N. S.

(1993). Đại Việt sử kí toàn thư [Complete annals of Dai Viet] (Vol. I). Social Science Publishing House.

24.

Liu

, Dupre

, & Jin

(2021). A systematic review of literature on contested heritage. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(4), 442–465.

25.

Lockhart

(2001). Re-assessing the Nguyễn Dynasty. Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 15(1), 9–53.

26.

Logan

(2001). Heritage significance and the intangible in Hanoi, Vietnam. Historic Environment, 15(3), 46–55.

27.

Logan

(2014). Making the most of heritage in Hanoi, Vietnam. Historic Environment, 26(3), 62–72.

28.

Malterud

, Siersma

V. D.

, & Guassora

A. D.

(2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760.

29.

Maybon

(1919). Histoire moderne du pays d’Annam (1592–1820) [History of Annam in the modern period 1592–1820]. Plon.

30.

Meyer

, & De Witte

(2013). Heritage and the sacred: Introduction. Material Religion, 9(3), 274–280.

31.

Nguyen

D. L.

, Nguyen

K. N.

, & Phan

Q. A.

(2022). The sanctity of goddesses: An insight into the worship of Bà Tổ Cô in Northern Vietnam. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1–11.

32.

Nguyen

H. T.

(2021). The sacred and heritagization in the safeguarding of traditional village festivals in Viet Nam: A case study. Journal of Asian Humanities at Kyushu University, 6, 25–39.

33.

Nguyen

(2022). Nguyễn Phúc tộc Việt Nam gửi thư kiến nghị hủy đấu giá ấn vàng triều Nguyễn [Nguyen Phuc clan sends a petition asking for the cancellation of auction for the Nguyen dynasty’s gold seal]. https://tienphong.vn/nguyen-phuc-toc-viet-nam-gui-thu-kien-nghi-huy-dau-gia-an-vang-trieu-nguyen-post1482579.tpo

34.

Nguyen

K. N.

, Phan

Q. A.

, & Nguyen

N. M.

(2022). Archaeological site management and the legislation challenge in Vietnam: a case study of Vuon Chuoi. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development.

35.

Nguyen

T. L.

, & Nhat

Linh

. (2022). Lễ giỗ Bà Thứ phi Hoàng Phi Yến thành di sản quốc gia, vì sao giới sử học băn khoăn? [The death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen became the national intangible heritage, why do historians worry?]. https://tuoitre.vn/le-gio-ba-thu-phi-hoang-phi-yen-thanh-di-san-quoc-gia-vi-sao-gioi-su-hoc-ban-khoan-20220418230010885.htm

36.

Nguyen

T. T. H.

(2007). Chính sách bảo tồn và phát huy di sản văn hóa phi vật thể của Nhật Bản [Some policies to conserve and promote ICH in Japan.] Journal of Cultural Heritage 1(58), 107–110.

37.

Norton

(2014). Music revival, Ca Trù ontologies, and intangible cultural heritage in Vietnam. In Bithell

& Hill

(Eds), The Oxford handbook of music revival (pp. 158–179). Oxford University Press.

38.

Olsen

D. H.

, & Timothy

D. J.

(2002). Contested religious heritage: Differing views of Mormon heritage. Tourism Recreation Research, 27(2), 7–15.

39.

Priest

(2013). The rhetoric of revisionism: Presidential rhetoric about the Vietnam war since 9/11. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 43(3), 538–561.

40.

Robertson

(2018). Celebrating a Scottish past: Construction, contestation and the role of government. World Archaeology, 50(2), 337–346.

41.

Rodenberg

, & Wagenaar

(2016). Essentializing’ Black Pete’: Competing narratives surrounding the Sinterklaas tradition in the Netherlands. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(9), 716–728.

42.

Ross

M. H.

(2007). Cultural contestation in ethnic conflict. Cambridge University Press.

43.

Salemink

(2012). Appropriating culture: The politics of intangible cultural heritage in Vietnam. In Tai

H. T. H.

& Sidel

(Eds), State, society and the market in contemporary Vietnam (pp. 178–200). Routledge.

44.

Salemink

(2016). Described, inscribed, written off: Heritagisation as (dis) connection. In Taylor

(Ed.), Connected and disconnected in Viet Nam: Remaking social relations in a post-socialist nation (pp. 311–345). ANU Press.

45.

Salemink

(2018). Southeast Asia as theoretical laboratory for the world. SUVANNABHUMI, 10(2), 121–142.

46.

Smith

(2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge.

47.

Summers

H. G.

(1983). On strategy: The Vietnam war in context. Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College.

48.

Taylor

K. W.

(1993). China and Vietnam: Looking for a new version of an old relationship. In: Werner

& Huynh

L. D.

(Eds), The Vietnam war: American and Vietnamese perspectives (pp. 271–284). M. E. Sharpe.

49.

Thanh

(2001). Côn Đảo sự tích và truyền thuyết [Legends and Tales in Con Dao Island]. Ho Chi Minh Publishing House.

50.

Thien

(2022). Nhà đấu giá Millon đồng ý chuyển giao ấn vàng ‘Hoàng đế chi bảo’ cho Việt Nam. [Millon agreed to return ‘Hoang De chi bao’ gold seal to Vietnam]. https://tuoitre.vn/nha-dau-gia-millon-dong-y-chuyen-giao-an-vang-hoang-de-chi-bao-cho-viet-nam-20221114202455246.htm

51.

Tran

V. G.

(1973). Sự phát triển của tư tưởng ở Việt Nam từ thế kỷ XIX đến Cách mạng Tháng Tám [The growth of Vietnamese ideology from the 19th century to the August Revolution]. Khoa hoc xa hoi Hanoi.

52.

Tucker

(2008). Historiographic revision and revisionism. Past in making. In Kopecek

(Ed.), Historical revisionism in Central Europe (pp. 1–15). CEU Press.

53.

Tunbridge

J. E.

, & Ashworth

G. J.

(1996). Dissonant heritage. The management of the past as a resource in conflict. J. Wiley.

54.

Van

(1972). Nguyễn Đình Chiểu, một trí thức yêu nước nồng nàn, một nhà thơ lỗi lạc của dân tộc Việt Nam [Nguyen Dinh Chieu, a patriotic intellectual and famous poet in Vietnam]. Nghiên cứu Lịch sử [Historical Studies], 143(2), 1–10.

55.

Viet

(2022). Lễ giỗ bà Hoàng Phi Yến là nhân tố gắn kết tinh thần cộng đồng [The death anniversary of Lady Phi Yen is the factor connecting local communities]. https://plo.vn/le-gio-ba-hoang-phi-yen-la-nhan-to-gan-ket-tinh-than-cong-dong-post678215.html

56.

Vietnam News Agency. (2022). Độc đáo 14 di sản văn hóa phi vật thể đại diện của nhân loại của Việt Nam [Masterpieces of the oral and intangible heritage of humanity]. https://hanoimoi.com.vn/infographic/Van-hoa/1024171/doc-dao-14-di-san-van-hoa-phi-vat-the-dai-dien-cua-nhan-loai-cua-viet-nam

57.

Q. T.

(2010). Các giải pháp bảo tồn và phát huy giá trị di sản văn hóa phi vật thể ở Thăng Long-Hà Nội [Some measures to protect and promote ICH at Thang Long, Hanoi]. Journal of Social Sciences Vietnam, 5, 60–75.

58.

(2022). Khôi phục lăng mộ vợ vua Tự Đức [Rebuild the tomb of the Tu Duc’s wife]. https://vnexpress.net/khoi-phuc-lang-mo-vo-vua-tu-duc-4495012.html

59.

Walsh

(1992). The representation of the past: Museums and heritage in the post-modern world. Routledge.

60.

(2020). To share or not to share: Contested heritage in Inner Mongolia, China: A case of overtone singing (khoomei). International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26(3), 267–280.

61.

Yang

M. B.

(2020). From wild songs to intangible cultural heritage: The heritagization of Hua’er in China. International Communication of Chinese Culture, 7(2), 215–230.

62.

Yin

R. K.

(2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.

63.

Zhu

(2015). Cultural effects of authenticity: Contested heritage practices in China. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21(6), 594–608.