New Theory on Angkor, Who were the last Varman kings? Options

[Leeporter]

Read this book and you'll get all the answers:

Wheels od Dvaravati

Why don't you summarize what you want to say?
Throwing me the whole book to read without telling what your point is is quit a lazy approach, don't you think so?

[SEAhistory]

[SEAhistory]

Why don't you summarize what you want to say?
Throwing me the whole book to read without telling what your point is is quit a lazy approach, don't you think so?

Haha, youre right, I dont have much time, but I will post more (conclusive) information soon. For now, I have other obligations, but I am writing a report about my findings so far.

To summarise what Ill be describing is the following:

1. Which is the place called Java, mentioned in inscription about Jayavarman II
2. Which is the source of Angkorean culture: Is it South-Cambodia or North-East Thailand?
3. Did Angkorean culture came through Mon, Cham, India or Malay?
4. Where are the oldest sources of Khmer language?
5. Where was Funan?
6. What is connection between Chenla and Mon?

I think a lot of people will be amazed with what I have come up so far and I have e-mailed many scholars with questions. So, for now I will not post much more evidence since I am absolutely sure. But thanks everyone for the input. It has been very interestingly!

[SEAhistory]

It was not me who say Zaba and Java is the same name. It was James Richardson Logan (1819–1869)

JAMES RICHARDSON LOGAN (1819–1869) said "The name Java, Jaba, Saba, Zaba, Jawa, Hawa, is the same word, which is used for rice-fields which are irrigated. The word is primarily connected with the flowing of water."

Let me show you why Java was a port city name of Chaiya.

During Ptolemy, Zaba was a name of a city port in Chaiya before Srivijaya (Sri Bodhi to be precise) conquered Sumatra and Java.

From Ptolemy's description, it was on the land, not far from Takola (Taguapa in west coast) and from the map (drawn according to Ptolemy's description) we can conclude that it's on the opposite coast (east coast), which is Chaiya.

So, we got this:

1) Zaba was a port city of Chaiya
2) Zaba is the same word with "Java" (Jaba, Saba,Jawa, Hawa etc.)

So we can conclude that the port city in Ptolemy's Geographia was Java in Chaiya.

What's wrong with my conclusion???

And please show us stone inscription of Jayavarman II.

Al-Biruni, a noted writer during this period who travelled to India wrote that Zabag was placed on the eastern side of the Sea of Sanf (Champa or coastal central/south Vietnam). This is confirmed by another famous geographer, Mas’udi, who stated Zabaj was oriented toward Khmer, which comprises modern Cambodia and South Vietnam, as Ceylon is oriented toward Madurai in South India. It was known as an island rich in gold mines.

[SabaiSabai]

Al-Biruni, a noted writer during this period who travelled to India wrote that Zabag was placed on the eastern side of the Sea of Sanf (Champa or coastal central/south Vietnam). This is confirmed by another famous geographer, Mas’udi, who stated Zabaj was oriented toward Khmer, which comprises modern Cambodia and South Vietnam, as Ceylon is oriented toward Madurai in South India. It was known as an island rich in gold mines.

please provide source material and also what he actually referred to as Sea of Sand. As far as I know there is no desert in SEA roflmao where is this Sea of Sand? the Gobi? lol

There are no deserts in SEA (well perhaps a very small one in the philipines) stop bringing up irrelevant sources roflmao

East of the Sea of Sand. Sea of Sand being Arabia? India? all of SEA is east of the Sea of sand. I suggest you actually investigate your sources before using them lol ridiculous.

[SabaiSabai]

if you want to post this crap. Do it on the other thread. This thread is for important things. Not for your fanboi activites lol

[Leeporter]

Well, that's a wellknown story from Arab.

It was the same story I told you, except that I've shown you that Zabag or Zaba can't be on the island of Java because it was on the same land, opposite to Takuapa, according to Ptolemy's Geographia.

Do you have any argument on this?

Also in the story I heard, the king of Zaba didn't take anything back from Chenla except Chenla King's head.

The story goes like this:

A young king of Chenla one day discussed with his chief commander about Chenla and Zabag. His officer told him that although Chenla was a beautiful kingdom, it still couldn't compare with Zabg. The king got mad and told him he wanted to see Zabag King's head in front of him. The chief warned him that he shouldn't say like that, Zabag and Chenla were not enymy. But the king didn't listen to him, he kept telling his dream to everybody in his kingdom.

The news came to Zabag's King. He was a calm old king. He told his chief commander to prepare a big navy and announced to his people that he was going to make a normal visit to his island colonials. Then he marched his navy to Chenla, went quietly via the river upto where the king's palace was and captured him without doing any harm to Chenla's people.

He told Chenla king, "If you wanted to take over Zabag, I would do the same by taking over Chenla and take everything from Chenla, but since you only want to see my head, I will do the same to you, I will take nothing from Chenla but your head"

Then he chopped his head and told Chenla's Chief commander that "You are a good man for warning your king, so I will let you choose a good person to be the next king of Chenla." And he then marched back to Zabag with only Chenla King's head with him.

At Zabag, he washed the head and returned it for the next king of Chenla to see, together with the head, he sent a message "I did this because your previous king threatened me first, so please be a good king and don't be like him"

His reputation was heard as far as India and China. And every morning since then, Chenla king, after waking up, will turn to the direction of Zabag and bow to the floor for the king of Zabag.

That was told by Arab sailors, nothing distorted.

No nothing taken back to Zabag, except for the king's head.

Chaiyavarman II was not a prince captured from Chenla to Zabag. He was a Silendra prince from Zabag or Zaba or Chaba or Java, a city port in Chaiya for the reason I will give you below.

Al-Biruni, a noted writer during this period who travelled to India wrote that Zabag was placed on the eastern side of the Sea of Sanf (Champa or coastal central/south Vietnam). This is confirmed by another famous geographer, Mas’udi, who stated Zabaj was oriented toward Khmer, which comprises modern Cambodia and South Vietnam, as Ceylon is oriented toward Madurai in South India. It was known as an island rich in gold mines.

That was a mis-interpretation of Ptolemy's map.

The first map of Golden Penisular was drawn in 14th century, showing cities in Malay Penisular (Golden Penisular) like this one.



Because it didn't cover a lot of area so it was hard to identify each location, people misinterpreted Perimoulikos Gulf as Gulf of Thailand and placed Zaba to somewhere in Vietnam.

An Italian, G.E. Gerini has drawn a new version later which cover a wider area so we can see the land on the right side of Zabag which is supposed to be Vietnam and Cambodia and Gulf of Thailand in the map is above of Zabag. See the new version below.



So what was previously taken as Gulf of Thailand (Perimoulikos Gulf) was actually Ban Don Gulf in Suratthani.

And therefore, Zaba can't be in either Java (Indonesia) or Vietnam.

It can't be Java in Indonesia because it must be on the land, not on the island.

It can't be in Vietnam because there is another big land just opposite of the sea from Zabag.

It took me a long time to understand Ptolemy map.

I tried to make it clear to everybody, I hope you understand it.

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 26 2012, 09:17 PM

[Leeporter]

lol, I thought you didnt care?, why'd you set ur myspace to private now?

Could you please leave this thread. It's not a place for trolling.

[SabaiSabai]

Well, that's a wellknown story from Arab.

It was the same story I told you, except that I've shown you that Zabag or Zaba can't be on the island of Java because it was on the same land, opposite to Takuapa, according to Ptolemy's Geographia.

Do you have any argument on this?

Also in the story I heard, the king of Zaba didn't take anything back from Chenla except Chenla King's head.

The story goes like this:

A young king of Chenla one day discussed with his chief commander about Chenla and Zabag. His officer told him that although Chenla was a beautiful kingdom, it still couldn't compare with Zabg. The king got mad and told him he wanted to see Zabag King's head in front of him. The chief warned him that he shouldn't say like that, Zabag and Chenla were not enymy. But the king didn't listen to him, he kept telling his dream to everybody in his kingdom.

The news came to Zabag's King. He was a calm old king. He told his chief commander to prepare a big navy and announced to his people that he was going to make a normal visit to his island colonials. Then he marched his navy to Chenla, went quietly via the river upto where the king's palace was and captured him without doing any harm to Chenla's people.

He told Chenla king, "If you wanted to take over Zabag, I would do the same by taking over Chenla and take everything from Chenla, but since you only want to see my head, I will do the same to you, I will take nothing from Chenla but your head"

Then he chopped his head and told Chenla's Chief commander that "You are a good man for warning your king, so I will let you choose a good person to be the next king of Chenla." And he then marched back to Zabag with only Chenla King's head with him.

At Zabag, he washed the head and returned it for the next king of Chenla to see, together with the head, he sent a message "I did this because your previous king threatened me first, so please be a good king and don't be like him"

His reputation was heard as far as India and China. And every morning since then, Chenla king, after waking up, will turn to the direction of Zabag and bow to the floor for the king of Zabag.

That was told by Arab sailors, nothing distorted.

No nothing taken back to Zabag, except for the king's head.

Chaiyavarman II was not a prince captured from Chenla to Zabag. He was a Silendra prince from Zabag or Zaba or Chaba or Java, a city port in Chaiya for the reason I will give you below.




That was a mis-interpretation of Ptolemy's map.

The first map of Golden Penisular was drawn in 14th century, showing cities in Malay Penisular (Golden Penisular) like this one.



Because it didn't cover a lot of area so it was hard to identify each location, people misinterpreted Perimoulikos Gulf as Gulf of Thailand and placed Zaba to somewhere in Vietnam.

An Italian, G.E. Gerini has drawn a new version later which cover a wider area so we can see the land on the right side of Zabag which is supposed to be Vietnam and Cambodia and Gulf of Thailand in the map is above of Zabag. See the new version below.



So what was previously taken as Gulf of Thailand (Perimoulikos Gulf) was actually Ban Don Gulf in Suratthani.

And therefore, Zaba can't be in either Java (Indonesia) or Vietnam.

It can't be Java in Indonesia because it must be on the land, not on the island.

It can't be in Vietnam because there is another big land just opposite of the sea from Zabag.

It took me a long time to understand Ptolemy map.

I tried to make it clear to everybody, I hope you understand it.

Fantastic

[SabaiSabai]

So now we have confirmed that Chinese, Arab and Italian sources all show as Funan not being in Cambodia.

Anymore questions? oh and still no reply from Mr Charles Higham lol wondering whats happened? did he not get my mail?

This post has been edited by SabaiSabai: Jan 26 2012, 10:08 PM

[Leeporter]

So now we have confirmed that Chinese, Arab and Italian sources all show as Funan not being in Cambodia.

Anymore questions? oh and still no reply from Mr Charles Higham lol wondering whats happened? did he not get my mail?

According to my understand, we should say like this.

The early period of Funan was in Chaiya (Pan-Pan)

Chenla was established as a new kingdom of Funan by one of Hun-Tien's son.

Funan's capital was moved to Cambodia and later betrayed by Chenla. <-- sound familiar?

The elites of Funan fled to Chaiya and formed Sribodhi (G. Coedes called Srivijaya)

Later it took Chenla as a vassal state.

There were several attacking back and forth. At one time Chenla attacked Srivijaya and forced it to leave Chaiya to deep south in Nakorn Sridhamarath.

But in a short time (20 years), Seivijaya could take Chaiya back and regain its supremacy over Chenla again.

Chaiyavarman (Jayavarman II) was actually a prince from Srivijaya at Chaiya, sent to rule Chenla.

So did Suriyavarman I from Nakorn Sridhamarath.

[Leeporter]

In the book written by H.G. Quaritch Wales after exploration of the transpenisular route from Takuapa to Chaiya in 1935, he wrote about where Srivijaya's capital should be. The theory that Srivijaya's capital was in Chaiya is not new, it was proposed since 1934 but Cordes's followers rejected it.

This is what he said on page 167-168 of:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52047112/Towards...n-invaders-1937


The very fact of such an empire's (Srivijaya) ever having existed is scarcely known, except by a handful of Oriental scholars; and even these were at a loss to know where to place its capital until in 1918 M. Coedes bravely suggested Palembang, in Sumatra.

This theory, tentative as it was, held its ground, and was adopted by various writers until 1934- Then an Indian scholar, Professor R. C. Majumdar, published two brilliant articles based on interpretation of all the inscriptions and other records. He adduced strong evidence that the capital of this empire was situated, not in Sumatra, where incidentally no ruins that could be those of such a great city have been found, but somewhere in the northern part of the Malay Peninsula, where it seemed certain that these new colonists had first landed.

This literary evidence does not have to stand alone. Early in 1935 I crossed the Transpeninsular Route from Takuapa to the Bay of Ban don, and its importance as a channel of Indian expansion strongly impressed me. Moreover, when I had reached the eastern end of the route my explorations in that region convinced me that at Chaiya, a site I have already had occasion to mention, I had located the capital of this great empire. Indeed, the combined literary and archaeo logical evidence seems to me to leave no reasonable room for doubt, and any other interpretation leaves the archaeology of the period in chaos.

See? Quaritch Wales also confirmed that if we put Chaiya as the capital of Srivijaya, it fits all evidences. But if we places the capital of Srivijaya to Palembang, each evidences contradict to itself.

Now, if you want, you can read about fighting in India that lead to a big wave migration to SEA in his book after page 168.

Later on page 170, he wrote about the Silendra king or the King of the Mountain and the mountain called Girirashtra (Kiritath Mountain between Takuapa and Chaiya which I already talked about it)

This is what he said:

As is so often the case with great undertakings, the initial step, that by which this adventurous prince (from India) made himself master of the Transpeninsular Route, was the most fateful.

Though no details of this first campaign have come down to us we need not doubt its possibility. History, both in the Old World and in the New, can supply us with plenty of parallels dazzling conquests in which a few resolute men, fired by a burning religious zeal and pitted against an unprepared enemy, have made themselves masters of a nation in the twinkling of an eye. But if the inspiration of the Mahay ana and the torpidity of the people made these things possible, they could have been carried into effect only by the bold resolution of the man- the hero whose name we do not even know.

There is nothing curious about this. It was tabu to refer to the personal names of Indian kings; and in Indo-China down to quite recent times a ruler was referred to only by highsounding epithets. Indeed, it would be quite easy to find peasants in Siam and Cambodia, even at the present day, who are ignorant of the names of the present kings or of any of their predecessors.

However, if we cannot put a name to the hero, at least we have no lack of grandiose epithets. In the Indian inscriptions he is known as the Sailendra, which means "the King of the Mountain," and, as mentioned in an earlier chapter, the east-flowing river by which he reached the Bay of Bandon till this day bears the name Girirashtra "the River of the Kingdom of the Mountain/*

Perhaps the Sailendra named it so because it reminded him of his mountainous homeland in Mysore. To the Arab merchants, who from the middle of the ninth century began to write their travels, he is known as the Maharaja, King of the Mountain and Lord of the Isles.

Having mastered the central part of the Malay Peninsula, the King of the Mountain appears to have looked round him to see what next step he could best take to further his dream of conquering the world or that part of it which was known to him. It may seem strange that he did not extend his conquests northward along the coast of the Gulf of Siam. That he did not was probably due to the fact that north of the Bay of Bandon the coastal strip between the mountains and the sea narrows to such an insignificant stretch of habitable land as would hardly have repaid his efforts. It may have formed a sort of No Man's Land between his territory and that of the Buddhist kingdom of Dvaravati. Moreover, the farsighted outlook characteristic of his genius turned his attention southward, and he longed for the control of the Straits of Malacca.

That Girirashtra moutain is where the town called "Phnom" located.
It's middle way bettwen Takuapa on the west coast to Chaiya on the east coast.

And if it's true that Funan was from "Phhom" as G. Coedes said, it must be this "Phnom" or Girirashtra or "Kingdom of the Mountain" or Sailendra near Chaiya in Suratthani, southern Thailand.

There was no where else that fit this name of Sailendra.

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 27 2012, 02:25 AM

[SabaiSabai]

1. Which is the place called Java, mentioned in inscription about Jayavarman II

Java = Nakorn Sri Dhamaraja, southern Thailand.


2. Which is the source of Angkorean culture: Is it South-Cambodia or North-East Thailand?

Angkorian Culture is a mix of Chenla culture and Nakorn Sri Dhamaraja culture


3. Did Angkorean culture came through Mon, Cham, India or Malay?

Chenla were Mon/Tai. Nakorn Sri dhamaraja were Mon/ possibly Tai mix


4. Where are the oldest sources of Khmer language?


https://digital.lib.washington.edu/ojs/inde...ile/10808/10668


5. Where was Funan?

From what I can picture from all the evidence we have so far. Funan was a coastal kingdom spread over many lands and islands in SEA. Its center however is in southern Thailand.

6. What is connection between Chenla and Mon?

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/ojs/inde...ile/10808/10668

The people of Chenla practiced Mon culture as found in archaeological sites such as Sri Thep, Fa Daed, Sima etc etc all the major kingdoms in Isan region Thailand in the Era of Chenla.

Can't believe I haven't come across this article before but it just about confirms my findings with Chenla

[KhmerBoi]

Tired to see this Thai crap-

[Leeporter]

oh and still no reply from Mr Charles Higham lol wondering whats happened? did he not get my mail?

You should send him a postal mail. Maybe your email got to his junkbox or it didn't get his attention enough.

Do you have his address? I want to write him also.

Also if you have other scholar's address (postal address), please share. I will send them these evidences and help them solve the long time unsolved mistery of where Funan was and what Hun Tian is. (They thought that Hun was a surname ha ha ha )

I read this article last night and it's very funny seeing these scholars trying to squeeze Hun Tien, into their old Funan framework.

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/presc...3_num_90_1_3609

They reviewed new information every year or two but they still can't figure it out what Hun Tien is, and they still think that Shih-li-fo-shih was Srivijaya while it should be "Sri Bodhi"

Also they should know that Srivijaya and Srivichai or Sri Vichaiya are the same.

And what they called Jayavarman was actually Chaiyavarman from Chaiya, the capital of Sri Bodhi.

The problem why everything can't fit into their framework because they put Cambodia as the center of everything and they didn't believe that Tai speaking people were all over SEA since at least 2,000 - 3,000 years ago.

They thought that southern thailand was a no-land part of SEA while we've seen that Chaiya was once a luxury city with trading between India and China.

You may also send them this info, it's great to be part of the history.

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 28 2012, 08:04 AM

[Leeporter]

Tired to see this Thai crap-

Hey KhmerBoi, speechless again?

Do you agree with me on that Zaba/Zabag/Chaba/Java map from Ptolemy's description?

I am sure I left no room for you to disprove me. It's logical and make perfect sense and it can solve several contradict evidences.

Even a Khmer-biassed scholar couldn't argue with me on this map, I am 100% sure.

Zaba in Ptolemy was Java on Malay Penisular, not Java in island of Indonesia.

And Jayavarman or Chaiyavarman II was from Java, a port city of Chaiya, the capital of Sri Bodhi (aka Srivijaya)

[SEAhistory]

1. Which is the place called Java, mentioned in inscription about Jayavarman II

Java = Nakorn Sri Dhamaraja, southern Thailand.


2. Which is the source of Angkorean culture: Is it South-Cambodia or North-East Thailand?

Angkorian Culture is a mix of Chenla culture and Nakorn Sri Dhamaraja culture


3. Did Angkorean culture came through Mon, Cham, India or Malay?

Chenla were Mon/Tai. Nakorn Sri dhamaraja were Mon/ possibly Tai mix


4. Where are the oldest sources of Khmer language?


https://digital.lib.washington.edu/ojs/inde...ile/10808/10668


5. Where was Funan?

From what I can picture from all the evidence we have so far. Funan was a coastal kingdom spread over many lands and islands in SEA. Its center however is in southern Thailand.

6. What is connection between Chenla and Mon?

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/ojs/inde...ile/10808/10668

The people of Chenla practiced Mon culture as found in archaeological sites such as Sri Thep, Fa Daed, Sima etc etc all the major kingdoms in Isan region Thailand in the Era of Chenla.

Can't believe I haven't come across this article before but it just about confirms my findings with Chenla

Consistent with the hypothesis of a rupture in construction following the building of Prasat Ak Yom in the first half of the 8th century would be the view that most of the Phnom Kulen workmen came from outside the Angkor region. Vickery wrote that later inscriptions preserved a genuine genealogical memory, of families that had accompanied Jayavarman II from southeastern Cambodia to the Angkor area (1998: 396). If that is the case, sculptors could certainly have been among the migrants. A Jayavarman who is likely to be the Angkorian "Jayavarman" of later tradition is attested in two contemporary inscriptions, K. 103 of 770 and K. 134 of 781, from Sambor on the Mekong (Kratie) (Vickery 1998: 395-96). The 770 inscription was found near an ancient walled city, Banteay Prei Nokor (Kompong Cham), where there is a pre-Angkorian temple with octagonal colonnettes—but not one that can be firmly dated (Bénisti placed it closer to 700 than to 800, 2003: 232 and Figure 378).
FILLING IN THE 8TH CENTURY
There are two good reasons for paying especial attention to southeastern Cambodia, particularly the Delta region. One is that some of the artistic practices seen on Mt. Kulen can perhaps be traced back to this area, and associated with the progression of Jayavarman north- and westward. The other is that Water Zhenla, no less than Wendan, needs to be considered a historical reality, and therefore there should be traces of its existence in the Delta.
First, however, several incidental issues relating to Wendan should be addressed. One is its relationship to Dvaravati. If Si Thep was so powerful in the 8th century, it is possible that it exercised some control, not just over Lopburi, say, but sites further west, Nakhon Pathom, U Thong, and even Khu Bua. This, in turn, raises questions about the history of central Dvaravati: did it have pre- and post- Wendan phases? Certain Dvaravati features at Si Thep might have been the result of interaction following conquest. (On the other hand, they may have come about from the peaceful movement of a certain number of monks, perhaps preceding Wendan’s rise.) The two giant rectangular platforms—Wat Khlong at Khu Bua and Chedi Khao Khlang Nai at Si Thep, which are similar in character—beg for explanation. Santi Leksukhum has suggested that both were originally chedi-wihan, with stupas at the western end and halls for worship at the eastern (2009: 131). One intriguing stone sculpture, the Buddha image in the Cleveland Museum of Art (Brown 1996:35, Figure 50), can be understood as the product of an 8th-century Si Thep workshop, the Buddha’s facial modeling indebted to stuccos at Nakhon Pathom or U Thong (e. g., Baptiste and Zéphir 2009: 168, 183).
Another matter is that of the extent of Wendan presence on Mt. Kulen. If the hypothesis concerning the inspiration for Prasat Ak Yom is correct, maybe the great pyramid on Mt. Kulen, Prasat Rong Chen, was also a Wendan foundation. The possibility that two sets of boundary stones were constructed prior to the Jayavarman II period was raised at the beginning of the article, and to these Smitthi Siribhadra proposed an intriguing addition, namely the giant image of the reclining Buddha (2009: 25 n. 3). If these works post-date 802, on the other hand, an alternative historical scenario is still conceivable: perhaps the presumed dominance of Si Thep was resented by the communities of the Mun and Chi watersheds, and Jayavarman II found allies among the Khmer and Mon of these regions in a war against Si Thep. It would have been these amicable relations, in turn, that led to the foundations on Mt. Kulen.

Where does it say the rulers are not Khmer??

[SEAhistory]

Why don't you summarize what you want to say?
Throwing me the whole book to read without telling what your point is is quit a lazy approach, don't you think so?

Why I suggested to read this book, is because here all of the inscriptions, artifacts, temples, monuments, etc. are studied in order to see the connection between Chenla and Mon. And guess what: Mon Dvaravati is an extension of Khmer art!

Not only that, if we look at the first Khmer evidence:

Phnom Da’s site is about 15 miles from Angkor Borei, today hillcrowned by an impressive 11th century Angkorian-era brick and sandstone prasat (tower), the oldest historical site in Cambodia and the place which gave the name to the earliest Khmer art style (514-600 A.C.). Rudravarman, king of Funan, reigned from 514 until 545 and probably the first capital was Angkor Borei. Thus the Phnom Da style is regarded as the first real Khmer style. In Pre Khmer time Phom Da was a site of the Gods of Hindu cult. The style derives from the Indian Gupta style, a Brahmanical (early Hindu) art style. In 1996 widespread researches started in the Angkor Borei region on the Cambodian side of the Mekong (Lower Mekong Archeological Project).

We can only conclude that Khmer cultrue derrived in Southern Cambodia and extended to Mon territory (Dvaravati).

[SEAhistory]

Archaeological evidence suggests that the Mekong delta region has been inhabited since at least 4000 BCE. The earliest migrations of the proto-Malays were followed by people from southwest China and northeast India. From 1000 BCE, groups organized themselves into villages which often had a circular layout and were fortified. The houses of this period are thought to have been constructed on stilts and reached by ladders. The people had domesticated pigs and water buffaloes, and grew rice and root crops.

So Cambodian people are a mix of these three groups of Southwest Chinese (Mon-Khmer), North-East Indians (Mon-Khmer; Naga people?) and Proto Malays (Pearic people).

This post has been edited by SEAhistory: Jan 28 2012, 09:08 PM

[SEAhistory]

This post has been edited by SEAhistory: Jan 28 2012, 09:08 PM