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

[LoveIsAllAround]

Noone still could answer me whom is Kit Mow?

Also, I would like to know why people think SriVijaya was Mon and not Malay. Wasn't the Lingua Franca used by Srivijaya Malay??? How does that relate to Mon?

Southern Thailand were Mon since the beginning, Chitu, Langasuka etc. Malay were not inhabitant of southern Thailand. It's always Mon, Many mon tribes still lives in Mountaineous area in Malaysia, and in islands in Andaman ocean. If Srivijaya, first stage was in Chaiya, then their king must be Funanese-Mon. Srivijaya expanded their power to south then they met Malay in Palembang, Sumatra, and used Malay as lingua franca. This is Middle Srivijaya period.

[chadwarden]

They described all non-Chinese as barbarians, that's all. Have you ever heard 'Bai Yue'? They didn't even care so they grouped many different ethnics as one.

yea so thats why you guys are using the chinese transliterations to base your conquest of funan right...

chinese already had a distinction for yue which should have included you being a tai or the supposed tai kings of funan. so again why didnt the chinese say these kings of funan these people are part of the yue race and differ from the others. its interesting because yue does not stretch down there to funan area or cambodia. so u almost suceeded by the chinese and u failed by the chinese


the green is the mon khmer people



This post has been edited by chadwarden: Feb 16 2012, 04:17 AM

[LoveIsAllAround]

Well, Ladang is a very widely used Khmer name that comes from Pnomh Penh, Kam is probably from Kron or Kampuchea

WHAT??? LOL

[LoveIsAllAround]

yea so thats why you guys are using the chinese transliterations to base your conquest of funan right...

chinese already had a distinction for yue which should have included you being a tai or the supposed tai kings of funan. so again why didnt the chinese say these people are part of the yue race and its interesting because yue does not stretch down there. so u almost suceeded by the chinese and u failed by the chinese


the green is the mon khmer people

Did they describe the ethnicity of Chenla? I think they recorded only city names, not ethnics, becos they saw SEA as same people (dark, naked, whatever that same as barbarians).

But if Funan were really Khmer. It's no doubt that Funanese king names must be 'Kum Mun Tin blah blah blah' not just a simple Tai-like 2 syllables words (one syllable is title, and another is king name)

[SEAhistory]

What proof makes you are so confident say that Chenla rulers were Khmer ethnic?

Because Chenla rulers descended form Funan rulers

[SEAhistory]

Southern Thailand were Mon since the beginning, Chitu, Langasuka etc. Malay were not inhabitant of southern Thailand. It's always Mon, Many mon tribes still lives in Mountaineous area in Malaysia, and in islands in Andaman ocean. If Srivijaya, first stage was in Chaiya, then their king must be Funanese-Mon. Srivijaya expanded their power to south then they met Malay in Palembang, Sumatra, and used Malay as lingua franca. This is Middle Srivijaya period.

Haha, so they switched language immediately and abandoned their own original language??? Doesn't add up. I have seen no civiliization in SEA abandoning their language, unless they were overpowered. Sri Vijaya came from south, and there are many referrences to Malay names in the old kingdoms. Also, the art of seafaring and building canals and the architecture comes from oldest sources in Borneo and Java.

Also the Varman title is first seen in India then Indonesia then Champa and Funan.

This post has been edited by SEAhistory: Feb 16 2012, 04:38 AM

[chadwarden]

Did they describe the ethnicity of Chenla? I think they recorded only city names, not ethnics, becos they saw SEA as same people (dark, naked, whatever that same as barbarians).

But if Funan were really Khmer. It's no doubt that Funanese king names must be 'Kum Mun Tin blah blah blah' not just a simple Tai-like 2 syllables words (one syllable is title, and another is king name)

高棉語中扶南国王叫“山帝”（Kurung bnam），Kurung（帝） bnam（山）。扶南是高棉語bnam（山）的对音。king of the mountain


真腊占婆碑名 kmir，为中南半岛古国，在今柬埔寨境内
The Chenla accounted woman monument kmir, Indo-China Peninsula, ancient, in the territory of today in Cambodia
Yue people which were broadly lumped as vietnamese and Tai groups were not as dark as mon khmers so im sure the chinese arent that stupid. They wrote the inhabitants of funan were dark skinned people. So how did these supposed tai kings not stand out from the rest of the bunch? the chinese recorded the appearance of the funanese but couldnt do the same for the Tai kings in charge? thats a bit fishy isnt it ? surely they would spent most their time with the king in charge than the dark regular funanese.

This post has been edited by chadwarden: Feb 16 2012, 04:40 AM

[SEAhistory]

Did they describe the ethnicity of Chenla? I think they recorded only city names, not ethnics, becos they saw SEA as same people (dark, naked, whatever that same as barbarians).

But if Funan were really Khmer. It's no doubt that Funanese king names must be 'Kum Mun Tin blah blah blah' not just a simple Tai-like 2 syllables words (one syllable is title, and another is king name)

Or maybe Kit Mow?????? Since noone can place them!

[SEAhistory]

Mueang Fa Daet Song Yang, an ancient site in Kalasin province, Thailand

This is Mon art, so??

[SEAhistory]

高棉語中扶南国王叫“山帝”（Kurung bnam），Kurung（帝） bnam（山）。扶南是高棉語bnam（山）的对音。king of the mountain


真腊占婆碑名 kmir，为中南半岛古国，在今柬埔寨境内
The Chenla accounted woman monument kmir, Indo-China Peninsula, ancient, in the territory of today in Cambodia
Yue people which were broadly lumped as vietnamese and Tai groups were not as dark as mon khmers so im sure the chinese arent that stupid. They wrote the inhabitants of funan were dark skinned people. So how did these supposed tai kings not stand out from the rest of the bunch? the chinese recorded the appearance of the funanese but couldnt do the same for the Tai kings in charge? thats a bit fishy isnt it ? surely they would spent most their time with the king in charge than the dark regular funanese.

Do you know what else is fishy? Zou Daguan spoke of Siamese people, but did not say anything related to the rulers. Also he said that Khmers and Siamese spoke similar languages but were not able to understand eachother. Also he said that there were rich and poor Khmer people, and Chinese already described poor and rich people in Funan wearing the same clothes. Do you know what else is fishy? That Chi Tu was conquerred by Kit Mow from SOuthern Cambodia that displaced the original inhabitants. But the original inhabitants were Mon according to these lying Thais, but the Funanese rulers were also Mon, isn't that fishy?????

Also, the images of rulers and subjects are portrayed in Angkor as same people, but distuinguished by what they wear, while other ethnics are being portrayed differently.

This post has been edited by SEAhistory: Feb 16 2012, 05:08 AM

[SEAhistory]

Did they describe the ethnicity of Chenla? I think they recorded only city names, not ethnics, becos they saw SEA as same people (dark, naked, whatever that same as barbarians).

But if Funan were really Khmer. It's no doubt that Funanese king names must be 'Kum Mun Tin blah blah blah' not just a simple Tai-like 2 syllables words (one syllable is title, and another is king name)

I have some homework for you. Go find out how Chinese rulers spoke about Malay rulers and what names they used for them. Then re-read this comment and you will get the answer.

[Sengto]

Old Chinese already knew what was Khmer language. They transcribed Khmer 'Kamraten' as 'Kam Mun Tin'. If Funan kings really Khmer, then like you have said, the French must know this!!!

LOL! There you at it again with the Chinese this and Chinese that! Funny that you Thai have to use Chinese history for most of you're excuse. Thai aren't so smart to logically think for themselves then to be a Kheeka.

[SEAhistory]

LOL! There you at it again with the Chinese this and Chinese that! Funny that you Thai have to use Chinese history for most of you're excuse. Thai aren't so smart to logically think for themselves then to be a Kheeka.

Yeah, but explaining who were Kit Mow and how they sailed to Chi Tu to conquerr original inhabitants, they can not.

[Leeporter]

Hahaha, now you come again with your nonsense. But according to the Chinese, the Funanese sailed from a place that must have been South-Cambodia (the sailing took 10 days to reach Champa). And they were called Kit Mow, so what does that Thai word mean haha. And according to the Chinese centuries later Chi Tu was inhabited by the original inhabitants (Sri Vijaya), which must have been in 7th century. Your such a liar! So again the source of Funan comes from South-Cambodia and again sea-faring was involved. Which was not done by Mon people, since Mon people only capture through land, right SabaiSabai?

So, tell me, when do you suppose these Thai rulers came to Chi Tu? As Chi Tu was founded in 1st century by Funanese??

OK, SEAhistory.

Where did you take that story from? Show me the source of this part of history when you had Srivijaya in the 1st century. ??? I never heard of it.

The earliest history of Funan was Hun Tian and it started around 150 A.D. Sri Vijaya didn't existed until 670 A.D.

Where did you get that story from?

[Leeporter]

No, the Chinese and Sri Lankese came there. Its a common fact that Mon people got Indianization through the Pyu states.

"The promotion of friendly ties with China’s emperors through trade relations, but primarily through tribute, had long been pursued by the kings of Siam. Some academics cite evidence of a Sukhothai king’s trip to China, to bring the technology for producing glazed ceramic ware known as sangkhalok back to Sukhothai. However, academics of later periods believe that it was the kings from Suphannaphum who were more likely to have traveled to China."


"Since the Sukhothai period and beyond, through the Ayutthaya and Rattanakosin periods, the monarchs of Thailand have adopted Buddhism as the foundation of their administrative principles, keeping the Kingdom strong and peaceful. In this way has Buddhism prospered in the land of the Thais up to the present time. The traditional royal connections between kingdoms have thus been made through Buddhism. King Ramkhamhaeng the Great of Sukhothai, for example, invited learned senior monks from Nakhon Si Thammarat, a major center of Theravada Buddhism established by monks from Sri Lanka, to his court, in addition to establishing direct links with the city of Pan in Burma and with Sri Lanka. A senior monk of Sukhothai, the Venerable Sisattha Ratchachulamani, made a pilgrimage to Sri Lanka himself."

I hope you don't say that they walked to China and Sri Lanka.

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Feb 16 2012, 07:15 AM

[Leeporter]

OK, this is what I found to show you how Srivijaya linked to Siam.
I don't have access to the English version, but this is the one in Thai language.

“พ.ศ. 1504 พระเจ้าแผ่นดินประเทศสัน-โฟ-ชิ ทรงพระนามว่า เช-ลี-วู-เย ส่งคณะทูตคุมเครื่องราชบรรณาการไปยังราชสำนักจีน คณะทูตกราบทูลรายงานว่า ประเทศสัน-โฟ-ชิ ของพวกเขานั้น เวลานี้มีชื่อเรียกว่าเสียน-หลัว-กวั่ว..”

My translation:

"In 961 A.D. (Sung Dynasty), the king of San-fo-chi (Srivijaya) named "Se-li-fu-ye" sent his envoy and tribute to China. The envoy told the emperror that San-fo-chi then was called "Xian-Lou-Kok"

I hope you don't tell me "Xian-Lou-Kok" is Malay, ok?

I don't know whether they were Mon or Tai or what, but they sure called themselves "Xian-Lou"

And that was 961 A.D.!
Sukhothai history started 1240.
Think about it.



This post has been edited by Leeporter: Feb 16 2012, 07:52 AM

[Leeporter]

OK, this is what I found to show you how Srivijaya linked to Siam.
I don't have access to the English version, but this is the one in Thai language.

“พ.ศ. 1504 พระเจ้าแผ่นดินประเทศสัน-โฟ-ชิ ทรงพระนามว่า เช-ลี-วู-เย ส่งคณะทูตคุมเครื่องราชบรรณาการไปยังราชสำนักจีน คณะทูตกราบทูลรายงานว่า ประเทศสัน-โฟ-ชิ ของพวกเขานั้น เวลานี้มีชื่อเรียกว่าเสียน-หลัว-กวั่ว..”

My translation:

"In 961 A.D. (Sung Dynasty), the king of San-fo-chi (Srivijaya) named "Se-li-fu-ye" sent his envoy and tribute to China. The envoy told the emperror that San-fo-chi then was called "Xian-Lou-Kok"

I hope you don't tell me "Xian-Lou-Kok" is Malay, ok?

I don't know whether they were Mon or Tai or what, but they sure called themselves "Xian-Lou"

And that was 961 A.D.!
Sukhothai history started 1240.
Think about it.

^^ Ok, I found it on page 164-165 of a book "Ancient Indian Colonies In The Far East Vol II Suvarnadvipa Part I Political History""

http://www.archive.org/stream/ancientindia...163mbp_djvu.txt

"During the winter of 961 A.D. the tribute was sent by a king called Che-li Wou-ye. These ambassadors reported that the kingdom of San-fo-tsi was also called Sien-lieou."



Now, follow me.

San-fo-tsi = Srivijaya
Sien-lieou = Siam-Lavo

I can prove that Srivijaya = Siam-Lavo since at least 961 A.D.

Whether Siam-Lavo was "seafarers" or not is not the question any more. Srivijaya was 100% seafarers

Now, I can confirm my theory that Siam developed from sea up to north.

And I can trace back to atleast 961 A.D. that Siam was there in the golden peninsular;

whether they were Mon, Tai or what race, we will find out.

But one thing for sure, Siam-Lavo was not Khmer.



Now, Srivijaya began its first period in 670.

So, if Srivijaya was changed to be "Siam-Lavo" in 961 A.D., can I conclude that "Siam-Lavo" was the same thing with Srivijaya in 670 A.D.?

That mean, Siam history can be traced back to 670 A.D. in the golden peninsular!

Very beautiful proof!



Any one want to disprove me?



This post has been edited by Leeporter: Feb 16 2012, 08:37 AM

[KhmerBoi]

OK, SEAhistory.

Where did you take that story from? Show me the source of this part of history when you had Srivijaya in the 1st century. ??? I never heard of it.

The earliest history of Funan was Hun Tian and it started around 150 A.D. Sri Vijaya didn't existed until 670 A.D.

Where did you get that story from?

I believe Srivijaya were even more stronger then Funan!!! Do you really think the Srivijaya who used to conque Chenla is existed in 670 A.D.. You must be funny!!!

Khmer Empire existed in 9 century... We need at least 8 centuries to finally establish a real empire base on mainland...

What about the Srivijaya which base on the island? do you really think they have only 200 years to conquer even on the mainland? They must be really genius!!! Don't you think so?

Even though most strong kingdom were depend on the seaport but they still need long period of time to stable their power and expend it....

Tai people from Southern China.. they even never have a chance to live next to the sea... even though they established long before but they still enable to maintain their power until Mongolian invaded them and took refugee in Khmer Empire.. until they was enable to cooperate with Mon who under Khmer Empire and as well... Khmer who is Theravada Buddhism take opportunity when the Khmer Empire was in trouble and natural disaster... and with support from China they invade their Master (Khmer) and proclaim Empire... and when the France come and promote Cambodia then they getting nervous and re-write the history to maintain their emperorism and save face to his people but it still only existed in Thailand only. and I call it Product of Thailand!

[KhmerBoi]

^^ Ok, I found it on page 164-165 of a book "Ancient Indian Colonies In The Far East Vol II Suvarnadvipa Part I Political History""

http://www.archive.org/stream/ancientindia...163mbp_djvu.txt

"During the winter of 961 A.D. the tribute was sent by a king called Che-li Wou-ye. These ambassadors reported that the kingdom of San-fo-tsi was also called Sien-lieou."



Now, follow me.

San-fo-tsi = Srivijaya
Sien-lieou = Siam-Lavo

I can prove that Srivijaya = Siam-Lavo since at least 961 A.D.

Whether Siam-Lavo was "seafarers" or not is not the question any more. Srivijaya was 100% seafarers

Now, I can confirm my theory that Siam developed from sea up to north.

And I can trace back to atleast 961 A.D. that Siam was there in the golden peninsular;

whether they were Mon, Tai or what race, we will find out.

But one thing for sure, Siam-Lavo was not Khmer.



Now, Srivijaya began its first period in 670.

So, if Srivijaya was changed to be "Siam-Lavo" in 961 A.D., can I conclude that "Siam-Lavo" was the same thing with Srivijaya in 670 A.D.?

That mean, Siam history can be traced back to 670 A.D. in the golden peninsular!

[b][b]Very beautiful proof![/b]



Any one want to disprove me?

[/b]

........

[LoveIsAllAround]

khmer ler are from the original people that settled cambodia. in vietnam they are called montagnards. but these people are khmer or came with the khmer from the northwest like ive shown. where in the world does it show a siam people coming along with the AA mon khmer peoples that originally habitated se asia? nowhere

khmer kandal are khmer by race and culture khmer ler are khmer by ethnicity but do not share the same culture because of the indianization of khmer kandal.what im saying is we can look at khmer ler and see the original culture of khmer and in retrospect the mon khmer peoples. khmer ler montagnards khmu wa brao all these people are what the original mon khmer peoples were without indic and buddhist influence. blood types have been tested of the mon khmer people and they all share similar traits.

ZDG said, slaves in Chenla were Chong (one of Khmer Lue). These slaves were Khmer. AA tribal people were captured to be labors in cities. I think 'Khmer' is a new name that gave to these tamed 'Khmer Lue'. So, 'Khmer' didn't exist as an ethnic. Your 'Khmer Kandal' is actually 'Khmer Lue' the AA tribals plus Cham tribals who were tamed/indianized to be city people (not tribal anymore). Khmer is just ancient (and modern) nationality.

Added: Khmer identity first appeared on stone inscription, dated around 1050 AD. 200 years after Angkor (Kambujadesa) was created.

Ive always encountered so called Thai belittling people for being dark and "khamen". So when did they and you decide you are a mix of mon AA and tai blood? I think people even in thailand have no clue what to claim or choose.ive never heard people openly claim things like you its always that thai are superior to all others. I am very sure your opinion of what thai is is really just a fail attempt to say we "thai" have been here as an AA people and then as a tai people as well. you are covering all your possible racial aspirations really.

If french were not here then im sure "thai" would be claiming everything from burma to vietnam because that is the nature of your people.

and finally why did siam change their name to Thai land. Because it wants to gain international knowledge and wants to be known for a fake history. how was siam proud of being a mix of mon khmer and tai by changing its whole name to thailand. i dont buy the free monicker one bit and anyone who buys that is really not informed. Why did Siam want to be part of the tai identity sobad? it proves siam has no really cultural heritage except from being mutts and weasling its way into taking things orginally khmer mon and from nanchao.

Siamese is the name of people who populate Siam (central+southern Thailand). Old Chinese called this area as Xian. They are multi-ethnic people (same as Khmer and Cham). Their lingua franca changed by the most powered ethnic in Siam. Angkorean called them Syam. Malay called them Siyae. Mon of Burma call them Sem. Lawa called them Sem. You can't just deny the existance of Siam/Siamese. Chinese recorded that Siam were Xian kok and Lorhu kok. Both sent envoys to China, later both merged to become one Xianlor (Siam). Angkorean carved picture of Syam kuk on Angkor wall, this happened before 1300. Didn't you say Tai didn't came to SEA before 1300. Khmers were slaves of Angkorean, so you changed Syam to Siem, and think Siem is only Tai becos they speak Thai. Didn't you read SEAhistory explain how Cham are mixed of Malay from Boneo and Khmers. Are they Khmer? Are they Boneo Malay? Or, Are they still Cham? LOL I doubt that Khmer might be mixed people of Cham and Khmer (Indianized AA tribals) in Angkor, they mixed and caused the change in their language, create their new counting system, which based on five. And they still call Khmer, even being mutts of AA tribals and Cham Austronesians.

This post has been edited by LoveIsAllAround: Feb 16 2012, 09:45 AM