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

[LoveIsAllAround]

Lol @ soma is tamil. again if kaudinya is indian and its documented he met soma in nokor kok tlok how is she tamil? it would have said that kaudinya brought soma with him from india region not met her in nokor kok tlok. Again reaching and failing

I dont get what you "thai" are trying to accomplish here anyway. you want to be able to claim 2 lineages by saying your people were here first but now they are a tai indianized people? if you want to claim these "siam" as an original inhabitant of southeast asia you were just as dark and primitive as you guys have always made fun of "khamen".

the fail comes when you posted that research. the scientists discovered "thai" origins is wrong. the scientists discovered these people to be tai that is wrong too. and lee porter you are wrong and keep repeating it that the funan leaders are tai speakers. so what happen to your supposed Siam relatives like your buddy love keeps talking about. the siam according to you guys " which is never recorded in mon khmer movement charts" are a AA speaking group living in se asia originally.

why doesnt that research paper say the origins of "thai" i laugh everytime i say that }are a austroasiatic speaking group or wait they learned how to speak a tai language way before all the real "tai" came down from china or what?

talk about garbage logic

It's Cham legend tale that you took it as Khmer. You took everything from Cham and think they are Khmer origin, same thing happened that you took 19th century Siamese/Thai culture and Khmer think it's Khmer.

Soma must have been Tamil to the Cham.

[chadwarden]

It's Cham legend tale that you took it as Khmer. You took everything from Cham and think they are Khmer origin, same thing happened that you took 19th century Siamese/Thai culture and Khmer think it's Khmer.

Soma must have been Tamil to the Cham.

wow man you 2 anything to discredit anything with a previous khmer attachment right? trying to wipe a race off every history book just like a true nazi. the "thai" people the perfect mutts of southeast asia who are able to claim every lineage and at the same time are able to discredit anyone who questions them namely the khmer. one point you claim tai speakers were leading funan one point you claim "thai" origins discovered you claim to be descendants of the "siam" people originally in the land of "thai" land. the siam were tai speakers ? or they still spoke an AA language? when did they begin speaking a "TAI" language? why didnt the funan leaders being Tai teach everyone in the region how to speak this proto "tai" you speak of?

and when did the cham write history ? you accept cham history and whats the reason for this? you accept chinese history but twist it to lean your own ways all the time so im sure you did the same with this cham history of a tamil soma

I am very suprised you "thai" havent been claiming things from Africa too since of course all the asians that came out of africa and indian on their way to asia must have been SIAM people. its not that far fetched by the way you guys stretch $hit to fit your stories all the time. perhaps even the chinese han people are Siam. you guys could predict ancient chinese language shifts from H-KH so maybe you are their ancestor? those great han visitors to funan couldnt even get the leaders of the funan people race correct but made sure to document the lowly workers right? this is the siam logic the "thai" logic we have come to love and know.

Long live the "THAI" people we share every lineage and have been indigenous everywhere from africa to india to southeast asia and china that makes us the firsts to do everyhting

[KhmerBoi]

It's Cham legend tale that you took it as Khmer. You took everything from Cham and think they are Khmer origin, same thing happened that you took 19th century Siamese/Thai culture and Khmer think it's Khmer.

Soma must have been Tamil to the Cham.

Really? Hilarious!!!! You don't know what Tamil mean in Khmer for sure!!! ^^

[Jin4life]

wow man you 2 anything to discredit anything with a previous khmer attachment right? trying to wipe a race off every history book just like a true nazi. the "thai" people the perfect mutts of southeast asia who are able to claim every lineage and at the same time are able to discredit anyone who questions them namely the khmer. one point you claim tai speakers were leading funan one point you claim "thai" origins discovered you claim to be descendants of the "siam" people originally in the land of "thai" land. the siam were tai speakers ? or they still spoke an AA language? when did they begin speaking a "TAI" language? why didnt the funan leaders being Tai teach everyone in the region how to speak this proto "tai" you speak of?

and when did the cham write history ? you accept cham history and whats the reason for this? you accept chinese history but twist it to lean your own ways all the time so im sure you did the same with this cham history of a tamil soma

I am very suprised you "thai" havent been claiming things from Africa too since of course all the asians that came out of africa and indian on their way to asia must have been SIAM people. its not that far fetched by the way you guys stretch $hit to fit your stories all the time. perhaps even the chinese han people are Siam. you guys could predict ancient chinese language shifts from H-KH so maybe you are their ancestor? those great han visitors to funan couldnt even get the leaders of the funan people race correct but made sure to document the lowly workers right? this is the siam logic the "thai" logic we have come to love and know.

Long live the "THAI" people we share every lineage and have been indigenous everywhere from africa to india to southeast asia and china that makes us the firsts to do everyhting

Funny $hit right there!

[LoveIsAllAround]

wow man you 2 anything to discredit anything with a previous khmer attachment right? trying to wipe a race off every history book just like a true nazi. the "thai" people the perfect mutts of southeast asia who are able to claim every lineage and at the same time are able to discredit anyone who questions them namely the khmer. one point you claim tai speakers were leading funan one point you claim "thai" origins discovered you claim to be descendants of the "siam" people originally in the land of "thai" land. the siam were tai speakers ? or they still spoke an AA language? when did they begin speaking a "TAI" language? why didnt the funan leaders being Tai teach everyone in the region how to speak this proto "tai" you speak of?

Again, you are too serious to fix your race theory with languages. Your Khmer kings were mixed Viet and French. But they are not mutt but real Khmer race from you genious theory. LOL

and when did the cham write history ? you accept cham history and whats the reason for this? you accept chinese history but twist it to lean your own ways all the time so im sure you did the same with this cham history of a tamil soma

It's exactly same with Cham legend. According to SEAhistory, Khmer got culture through Cham, this khmer legend must be Cham origin.

I am very suprised you "thai" havent been claiming things from Africa too since of course all the asians that came out of africa and indian on their way to asia must have been SIAM people. its not that far fetched by the way you guys stretch $hit to fit your stories all the time. perhaps even the chinese han people are Siam. you guys could predict ancient chinese language shifts from H-KH so maybe you are their ancestor? those great han visitors to funan couldnt even get the leaders of the funan people race correct but made sure to document the lowly workers right? this is the siam logic the "thai" logic we have come to love and know.

Long live the "THAI" people we share every lineage and have been indigenous everywhere from africa to india to southeast asia and china that makes us the firsts to do everyhting

Siamese are multi-ethnics, we speak Austro-Tai language. It's you who think we are pure Tai race, and you are pure Khmer race. We would claim anything that are and belonged to Siamese/Syamese which are those Dvaravati, Sri Bodhi (Early Sri Vijaya), Lavo, Ayutthaya, and Bangkok. You can claim african heritage, nobody say you can't. LOL

[LoveIsAllAround]

what are you talking about the base 5 counting system is the same for most of the mon khmer speakers.

Really? care to explain?

[chadwarden]

Again, you are too serious to fix your race theory with languages. Your Khmer kings were mixed Viet and French. But they are not mutt but real Khmer race from you genious theory. LOL


It's exactly same with Cham legend. According to SEAhistory, Khmer got culture through Cham, this khmer legend must be Cham origin.


Siamese are multi-ethnics, we speak Austro-Tai language. It's you who think we are pure Tai race, and you are pure Khmer race. We would claim anything that are and belonged to Siamese/Syamese which are those Dvaravati, Sri Bodhi (Early Sri Vijaya), Lavo, Ayutthaya, and Bangkok. You can claim african heritage, nobody say you can't. LOL

lol @ khmer kings mixed french the current king is 1/4 french yea hes mixed but hes not claiming that he is bringing whatever french kings culture to cambodia is he? just because he is mixed doesnt mean he can claim french empire and be an extension of france culture and history.
According to the history of THAILANDs version of SEAsiaHistory the khmer copied culture from the cham. When have the cham ever made the claim khmer have copied their culture?i guess now THAI speaks in CHams behalf and its true?

The foundation of the Cham dynasty at Indrapura in 875 AD. was followed just two years later by the foundation at Roluos in 877 of the Khmer empire by King Indravarman I, who united two previously independent regions of Cambodia.

how is khmer getting culture through cham if khmer what you guys are saying doesnt really exist and its predecesor funan is led by tai speaking people?


Siamese does not exist anymore where is this siam language where are the inscriptions of a siam people and language. why are they not represented in "THAI" history today? but somehow you are able to pull from thin air by changing a later H to KH that the leaders of Funan are tai? and how is "siam" any type of race or people when you yourself said they might be or probably are mon people. so that means your root people basically just ripped off mon. when the "tai " came or according to you they were arealdy there in funan their culture is basically a mix up of tai and indianized traditions through mon (wait i cant say khmer culture because they dont exist ).
So to sum Thailand is a mutt nation with Siam stealing their cultural basis from mon or being mon themselve and the Tai element ripping off mon indianizied culture as well. Why dont you guys regroup with your fellow mon relatives in Thailand and treat them better then? i hear they get treated pretty $hitty. how could SIAM THAI do this to their cultural basis and ancestors? have you no respect?

[Leeporter]

Err...Chad, I don't know what you are trying to accomplish with your photoshop map.

But we have a batter straight forward evidence to show you that the theory that Siam history in SEA began in 13rd century is wrong.

Read it again and try to memorize it..

"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."

[Leeporter]

And Chad, you don't need to be too rush.

We are now rewinding back from 2012 to 670 and I've the proof that Siam was there in SEA under the name Srivijaya.

I have plenty of time to prove the link between the rulers of Srivijaya and the rulers of Funan.

And I hope that you will still be here when I reach to that point.

[Leeporter]

Hey Chad, you know what.

In order to disprove this.

"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."

You have to prove that Srivijaya ambassadors lied to Chinese Emperor that Srivijaya was called "Siam-Lavo"

[chadwarden]

Really? care to explain?

yes there
1

១

មួយ

muəj

muŏy

muay

Before a classifier, /muəj/ is reduced to /mə/ in regular speech.[7]



2

២

ពីរ

piː (pɨl)

pir

bīr

Also /pir/



3

៣

បី

ɓəj

bei

pī




4

៤

បួន

ɓuən

buŏn

puan




5

៥

ប្រាំ

pram

prăm

prâṃ



mue one (un) (Nyaheun) Fer1998:C:712
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. mue one (Mnong [Eastern]) Blo1976:C:Sid2000~2257
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

muj, mujʔ one (Cua) Mai1981:C:556
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

muoj one (Stieng [Bulo]) Hau1991:C:Sid2000~2258
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. muuj one (Brao) Huf1971:C:3-1-15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

muɔi one (Stieng [Biat]) Sho2006:C:1495-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. muəi one (Stieng) Sho2006:C:1495-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

muəj one (Chrau) Sho2006:C:1495-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

muːj one (Cheng) Fer1969:C:Sid2003~3761
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

muːj one (Jeh [Yeh]) The2001:C:jeh-556
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

muːj one (Laven [Jru']) Jac2002:C:965
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


mùaj one (Nyah Kur) Huf1971:C:2-1-6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mṳaj one (Nyah Kur [Central]) Dif1984:C:N253-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mùəj rùət all at once, all at one time (Nyah Kur [Southern]) The1984:C:2400-3
Nyah kur who are mon remnants

mùəj one (Nyah Kur [Huai Khrai]) The1984:C:2401-6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mùəj one (Nyah Kur [Klang]) The1984:C:2401-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mùəj one (Nyah Kur [Southern]) The1984:C:2401-3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mùəj one (Nyah Kur [Tha Pong]) The1984:C:2401-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

two

baar two (Khmu) Huf1971:C:5-2-7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baar two (Brao) Huf1971:C:5-2-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baar two (Stieng) Huf1971:C:5-2-15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bar two (Sre [Koho]) Boc1953:C:Sid2000~314
bar two (Sre) Sho2006:C:1562-7

baːr two (Brao [Laveh]) Huf1971:C:Sid2003~603
baːr two (Cheng) Jacxxxx:C:Sid2003~601
baːr two (Halang) Sho2006:C:1562-10
baːr two (Mnong [Central]) Blo1966:C:Sid2000~309
baːr two (Sapuan) Jac1999:C:15

three
pɔeˀ ပိ Three. (noun) (Mon) Sho1962:C:7099
piʔ pi(') three (Old Mon) Sho2006:C:98-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. piˀ pi¹, pi' three (Old Mon) Sho1971:C:230.18.1
pɛʔ three (Mlabri) Ris1995:C:1016
peʔ three (numeral) (Khmu [Cuang]) Suw2002:C:3795
paːj pay number three (Mnong [Rölöm]) Blo2005:C:4318
pa̰j three (Sedang) Smi2000:C:2688
pee three (Brao) Huf1971:C:7-3-13
pee three (Stieng) Huf1971:C:7-3-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pɛ three (Laven [Houeikong]) Tho1978d:C:Sid2003~1592
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
peːj three (Jeh) Sho2006:C:98-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

four
pon four (Mlabri)
puən four (in spirit ceremony) (numeral) (Khmu [Cuang])
pan four (Nyah Kur) Huf1971:C:9-4-5
pɔn ပန် Four. (noun) (Mon) Sho1962:C:7310
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
puan four (Bahnar) Sho2006:C:1166-17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Brao [Laveh]) Huf1971:C:Sid2003~4322
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Brao [Laveh]) Jacxxxx:C:Sid2003~4321
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Brao) Huf1971:C:8-4-13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Halang) Sho2006:C:1166-19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Jeh) Sho2006:C:1166-18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Laven [Jru']) Jac2002:C:1063
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Laven) Huf1971:C:8-4-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Laven) Huf1971:C:Sid2003~4314
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Nyaheun) Fer1998:C:Sid2003~4317
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Oi) Jacxxxx:C:Sid2003~4319
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Sapuan) Jac1999:C:394
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Sapuan) Jac1999:C:Sid2003~4318
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Sre [Koho]) Boc1953:C:Sid2000~2295
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Sre) Sho2006:C:1166-16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan four (Stieng) Huf1971:C:8-4-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puan puan four (Sre [Koho]) Dou1950:C:2114
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. puon four (Chrau) Tho1961:C:Sid2000~2293
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

puon four (Maa) Gou1929:C:Sid2000~2294
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

puon four (Mnong [Eastern]) Blo1976:C:Sid2000~2291
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X puon four (Stieng [Bulo]) Hau1991:C:Sid2000~2292
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

puɔn four (Stieng [Biat]) Sho2006:C:1166-15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

puən four (Cheng) Fer1969:C:Sid2003~4320
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

puən four (Chrau) Sho2006:C:1166-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

puən four (Jeh [Yeh]) The2001:C:jeh-688
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

puən four (Laven [Houeikong]) Tho1978d:C:Sid2003~4315
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

=. puən four (Laven [Juk]) The2001:C:Sid2003~4313
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= puən four (Tarieng [Kasseng]) The2001:C:kgc-688
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= puən four (Tarieng) The2001:C:tdf-688
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- puən puan four (Halang) Coo1976:C:2910
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-pṵn four (Sedang) Smi2000:C:1139
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- pwan four (Mnong [Central]) Blo1966:C:Sid2000~2290


5 five
padam five (Alak) The2001:C:alk-618
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. padam five (Jeh [Yeh]) The2001:C:jeh-618
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. padam five (Tarieng) The2001:C:tdf-618
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. → derivSho2006:R:1363.A padam five (Jeh) Sho2006:C:1363-9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. parta̤m five (Tampuan [C]) Cro2004:C:1253-1C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pata̤m five (Tampuan [N]) Cro2004:C:1253-2N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pata̤m five (Tampuan [S]) Cro2004:C:1253-1S
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. paɗap five (Cua) Mai1981:C:618
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram five (Chrau) Sho2006:C:1363-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram five (Chrau) Tho1961:C:Sid2000~622
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram five (Maa) Gou1929:C:Sid2000~623
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram five (Mnong [Central]) Blo1966:C:Sid2000~619
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram five (Mnong [Eastern]) Blo1976:C:Sid2000~620
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram five (Sre [Koho]) Boc1953:C:Sid2000~624
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram five (Sre) Sho2006:C:1363-3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram five (Stieng [Biat]) Sho2006:C:1363-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram five (Stieng [Bulo]) Hau1991:C:Sid2000~621
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram five (Stieng) Huf1971:C:12-5-13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram pram five (Sre [Koho]) Dou1950:C:2091
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pram prăm five (Mnong [Rölöm]) Blo2005:C:4544
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pətam five (Tampuan) Huf1971:C:12-5-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pəta̰m five (Sedang) Smi2000:C:1079
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pəɗam pơđăm five (Bahnar [Golar]) Ban1979:C:747-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pəɗam pơđăm five (Bahnar [Kontum]) Ban1979:C:747-3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pəɗam pơđăm five (Bahnar [Pleiku]) Ban1979:C:747


pasɑɲ five (Mon) Huf1971:C:14-5-3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XHide this item (close and reopen the branch to show it again)SSave this item (and notes) to a file. pəsɔn မသုန် Five. (noun) (Mon) Sho1962:C:7916
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[chadwarden]

Err...Chad, I don't know what you are trying to accomplish with your photoshop map.

But we have a batter straight forward evidence to show you that the theory that Siam history in SEA began in 13rd century is wrong.

Read it again and try to memorize it..

"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."

lol photoshop map? nah i roll with ms paint if anything. lol

but anyway nope thats not a photoshopped map by any means. the races of ancient china are well documented in history. the Tai people are considered under YUE 越 they werent called 濮 like the mon khmers.

Since you guys just love using and twisting chinese history so much (but somehow complain about jek?)

孟高棉語民族的起源及其與古代濮人的關系Origin of the Mon-Khmer-Speaking Groups and Their Relationship with Ancient Pu
本文認為,孟高棉語民族的發源地在中國南方地區,特別是中國的西南地區.這些民族與中國古籍中記載的濮人有著密切的淵源關系.但是,應當說清楚的一點是,當中國史籍有了關于濮人的記載的時候,他們中的一部分,甚至是一大部分早已經遷到了中南半島去了.今天孟高棉語民族中只有分布在偏北地區的群體即所謂的北方孟高棉語諸民族才是從中國古書上后來提到的濮人群體中直接演化而來的.


高棉人(Khmer)一词，就是从K＋me演变而来的，其过程是k＋me—Kme—Khnle—Khmer，但在对早期高棉人的称呼完全有可能只简称为me(音蔑)，一是因为古代高棉人社会中有相当长一段时间，妇女的地位都比较高，这是其社会发展的一个阶段性的特点，二是在高棉语中，k只用来作词前缀，起强调作用。 　　
The process is k + me-Kme-Khnle-Khmer, but in the early Khmer call may only be referred to for me (sound contempt), because the ancient Khmer society for a long period of time, the status of womenare high, its social development, a stage, the second is in Khmer, k is only used to Authors prefix, since the emphasis.

This paper argues that the birthplace of the Mon-Khmer ethnic groups in southern China, especially the southwest region of China. Those recorded in the nation and the Chinese ancient Pu people have close relations of origin. However, it should be clear is that, when Chinathe history books have when Pu records, some of them, or even an already moved to the Indochina Peninsula. today only in the northerly regions of the Mon-Khmer ethnic groups, the so-called northern Mengvarious ethnic groups in the Khmer language is directly evolved from the later mentioned in ancient Chinese texts Pu groups.

LOL @ more THAI idiots according to leeporter http://www.thailandsworld.com/ch/thailand-...funan/index.cfm

扶南王国 (Kingdom of Funan)

早在公元一世纪初的中国古典文献中就有关于扶南王国的描述。根据那时的记载，国王是一位名叫范蔓 (Fan Man) 的将军，他采用印度“国王”的华盖，实行印度的管理模式和宗教信仰。扶南王国一直与印度和中国保持着良好的关系，统治时间长达 500 余年。

扶南王国 (Funan) 的都城及其主要城市位于今柬埔寨境内的三隆森遗址 (Samrong Sen)、吴哥博垒村遗址 (Angkor Borei)、帕侬遗址 (Ba Phnom) 和 Sophas 遗址以及今越南境内的奥克·艾奥遗址 (Oc Eo)。由于现今已找不到关于扶南王国疆域的书面记录，我们只好通过考察考古地点的分布、艺术作品和建筑的风格、连接当时扶南王国各聚居区的道路和运河等土木工程遗迹以及采用碳测定技术来更多地了解当时的情况。

奥克·艾奥遗址 (Oc Eo) 是古代从意大利罗马到中国贸易之路上重要的国际港口城市（路线为罗马 - 阿拉伯 - 印度次大陆 - 东南亚 - 中国），通过这个国际贸易中枢，扶南人吸收了印度商人带来的新思想，开始采用印度人的字母表、萨卡人 (Saka) 的历法、印度教及其后来的佛教。大约公元 480 年，阇耶跋摩一世 (King Jayavarman 1) 在帕侬 (Ba Phnom) 修建了新的都城，但是，在与北方新成立的真腊王国 (Kingdom of Chenla) 交战后便放弃了。公元 514 年，扶南又在吴哥博垒村 (Angkor Borei) 建立新的都城。但是，我们不清楚扶南王国的疆土到底有多大。扶南另外的重要政治中心有 Sophas 和三隆森 (Samrong Sen)。

Funan Kingdom (Kingdom of Funan)

Back in the early first century AD, the Chinese classical literature there on the description of the Funan Kingdom. Time records, the king is a Mingjiao Fan Man (Fan Man) General, India's "king" of the canopy, the implementation of the management model and religion in India. Funan Kingdom has been working with India and China have maintained good relations, rule lasted 500 years.

The capital of Funan Kingdom (Funan) and its major cities in today the Cambodia Longsen sites Samrong Sen, Wu the Gebo base village ruins at Angkor Borei, phanom sites (Ba Phnom) and Sophas sites, and now Vietnam Oak Iowa sites (Oc Eo). With today can not find a written record on the boundaries of the Kingdom of Funan, we had to study the distribution of archaeological sites, works of art and architectural style, connecting the various neighborhoods of the Kingdom of Funan roads and canals, and other civil engineering sites and the use of carbon dating technology to learn more about the situation at that time.

Oak Iowa site of Oc Eo ancient important international port city of Rome, Italy to trade on the road (route Rome - Arab - Indian subcontinent - Southeast Asia - China), through the international trade hub, to help Penan absorbed Indian traders brought new ideas, began to use the alphabet of the Indian Saka (Saka) calendar, Hinduism and later Buddhism. Around AD 480, she ye Bamo I, (King,, Jayavarman 1) built in Phanom of Ba Phnom, a new capital city, but the engagement in the newly established with the Northern Chenla Kingdom (Kingdom of Chenla) gave up after. AD 514, supporting the South to build the new capital of Wu Gebo base village at Angkor Borei. However, we do not know of the Funan Kingdom territory in the end how. Funan the other important political center Sophas and three of Longsen (Samrong Sen,).

在今巴南（Banam）附近，有湄公河西北流东入海。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。there you go right there


robam krapei peuk sra to celebrate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmeD2Om5yfc

[Leeporter]

OK, SEAhistory, this is from your own link:


Śrīvijaya―towards Chaiya - Renewed 05 Jan 2011
Takashi Suzuki
http://www7.plala.or.jp/seareview/newpage6Sri2011Chaiya.html

There are so many misunderstandings and confusion on the early stage history of Southeast Asia. This situation has not been improved so much during recent one hundred years. In this paper what I try to discuss is on the history of the trade between the East and West in the Śrīvijaya times at the same time I would like to correct the location of capital of Shih-li-fo-shi from Palembang to Chaiya. The Palembang Hypothesis presented by G. Coedès and has been supported by most historians is not rational from many aspects and it is proved apparent mistake. I-Ching and the “Xin (New) Tang-Shu ” wrote that Shih-li-fo-shi was located in the northern hemisphere, in other words in the Malay Peninsula. The history of Southeast Asia has been distorted by many wrong hypotheses. The most serious error is the ‘Palembang Hypothesis’.

However the historians who have asserted that the capital of Shih-li-fo-shi located at Chaiya are very few. Dr. Quaritch Wales and Dr. R.C. Majumdar are rare exceptions. In Thailand, there may be more, for instance Prince Mon Chao Chand Chirayu Rajani and Dr. Piriya Krairiksh who have English publications. But it is not easy for us, common readers to access their books.

The characteristics of my paper are mostly re-appraisal of the Chinese textual evidence from the viewpoint of an economist and economic historian on the region. At the same time, I tried to fix the location of the important states recorded in the Chinese annals. Without accurate identification of the major states, the history of Southeast Asia cannot be discussed and clarified.

Shih-li-fo-shi in the Tang times was well known as Śrivijaya. San-fo-chi which appeared in 904 at the last stage of the Tang Dynasty (618~907) was acknowledged by the Tang officials as Śrivijaya. And in the Song times, it was recognized as San-fo-chi, which according to Chau-Ju-ka, started sending embassies to China since 904.

Between Shih-li-fo-shi and San-fo-chi , there was ‘new Kha-ling (Śailendra). They were all Śrivijaya. Śrivijaya consists of more than fourteen city-states most of them were ‘port states’ which more or less were taking part in international trade. The champion states of them were, in Shih-li-fo-shi times Chaiya, in Kha-ling times central Java and in San-fo-chi times Jambi and Kedah.Through the three stages of the history of Śrīvijaya, all of the leading kings were probably Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

The rulers of Funan, after kicked out from Cambodia, fled to their vassal state, namely Pan-pan. At the middle of the seventh century, they established a new state called Shih-li-fo-shi. Before making Shih-li-fo-shi, they merged other states in the Malay Peninsula. At the end of 670 A.D. only the name of Shih-li-fo-shi remained in the middle of the Peninsula, which was recorded in Chinese annals as tributary country. Before that Chi-tu , Tan-tan and Pan-pan or Ban-ban disappeared. Shih-li-fo-shi opened its window to the Strait of Malacca, after merged Kedah, which probably had been the capital of Chi-tu. It was necessary for Shih-li-fo-shi to control the Malacca Strait to purchase the western commodities coming across the Bay of Bengal. In the middle of the seventh century, the presence of the western countries, Persia and Arab, increased in the Tang court. This means comparative decrease of Shih-li-fo-shi’s status in the Tang court.
--


Now, read slowly line by line, don't skip and don't blink

I am not sure from which evidences Suzuki claimed that all of the leading kings of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the rulers of Funan were kicked out from (today) Cambodia to form Srivijaya. But it aligns to what I knew.

He pointed out that Srivijaya in the Chinese record consisted of 3 periods: Shih-li-fo-shi, Kha-ling and San-fo-shi, with center of power in different places throughout Malay penninsular and Central Java.

We will come back to talk about the center of Srivijaya later to see where it was in each period.

But for now, if what Suzuki said is true that kings of the 3 periods of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who fled from Funan in Cambodia to Chaiya (Pan Pan) to form Srivijaya.

And from the following record by the Chinese, we know that in its last period, Srivijaya was changed to "Sian-Lor" or Siam-Lavo.

"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."


With simple math, we can conclude that the rulers of Siam-Lavo were also Funan’s royal descendants who retreated from Funan in Cambodia back to Chaiya.

The last period of Srivijaya lasted to 1178 before it disappeared from the Chinese record.

And around 60 years later, we had the story of Kun Pha Muang (KPM) of Sukhothai who went to Yasodharapura to claim his throne as Indravarman III.

And his brother-in-law, Kun Bang Klang Hao, became the king of Sukhothai.

No more Srivijaya, only Siam then.

SEAhistory and Chad, if I can find where Suzuki got it that the king of Srivijaya were Funan's royal descendant,

you are CHECKED and MATED!







This post has been edited by Leeporter: Feb 17 2012, 01:33 AM

[chadwarden]

OK, SEAhistory, this is from your own link:


Śrīvijaya―towards Chaiya - Renewed 05 Jan 2011
Takashi Suzuki
http://www7.plala.or.jp/seareview/newpage6Sri2011Chaiya.html

There are so many misunderstandings and confusion on the early stage history of Southeast Asia. This situation has not been improved so much during recent one hundred years. In this paper what I try to discuss is on the history of the trade between the East and West in the Śrīvijaya times at the same time I would like to correct the location of capital of Shih-li-fo-shi from Palembang to Chaiya. The Palembang Hypothesis presented by G. Coedès and has been supported by most historians is not rational from many aspects and it is proved apparent mistake. I-Ching and the “Xin (New) Tang-Shu ” wrote that Shih-li-fo-shi was located in the northern hemisphere, in other words in the Malay Peninsula. The history of Southeast Asia has been distorted by many wrong hypotheses. The most serious error is the ‘Palembang Hypothesis’.

However the historians who have asserted that the capital of Shih-li-fo-shi located at Chaiya are very few. Dr. Quaritch Wales and Dr. R.C. Majumdar are rare exceptions. In Thailand, there may be more, for instance Prince Mon Chao Chand Chirayu Rajani and Dr. Piriya Krairiksh who have English publications. But it is not easy for us, common readers to access their books.

The characteristics of my paper are mostly re-appraisal of the Chinese textual evidence from the viewpoint of an economist and economic historian on the region. At the same time, I tried to fix the location of the important states recorded in the Chinese annals. Without accurate identification of the major states, the history of Southeast Asia cannot be discussed and clarified.

Shih-li-fo-shi in the Tang times was well known as Śrivijaya. San-fo-chi which appeared in 904 at the last stage of the Tang Dynasty (618~907) was acknowledged by the Tang officials as Śrivijaya. And in the Song times, it was recognized as San-fo-chi, which according to Chau-Ju-ka, started sending embassies to China since 904.

Between Shih-li-fo-shi and San-fo-chi , there was ‘new Kha-ling (Śailendra). They were all Śrivijaya. Śrivijaya consists of more than fourteen city-states most of them were ‘port states’ which more or less were taking part in international trade. The champion states of them were, in Shih-li-fo-shi times Chaiya, in Kha-ling times central Java and in San-fo-chi times Jambi and Kedah.Through the three stages of the history of Śrīvijaya, all of the leading kings were probably Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

The rulers of Funan, after kicked out from Cambodia, fled to their vassal state, namely Pan-pan. At the middle of the seventh century, they established a new state called Shih-li-fo-shi. Before making Shih-li-fo-shi, they merged other states in the Malay Peninsula. At the end of 670 A.D. only the name of Shih-li-fo-shi remained in the middle of the Peninsula, which was recorded in Chinese annals as tributary country. Before that Chi-tu , Tan-tan and Pan-pan or Ban-ban disappeared. Shih-li-fo-shi opened its window to the Strait of Malacca, after merged Kedah, which probably had been the capital of Chi-tu. It was necessary for Shih-li-fo-shi to control the Malacca Strait to purchase the western commodities coming across the Bay of Bengal. In the middle of the seventh century, the presence of the western countries, Persia and Arab, increased in the Tang court. This means comparative decrease of Shih-li-fo-shi’s status in the Tang court.
--

I am not sure from which evidences Suzuki claimed that all of the leading kings of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the rulers of Funan were kicked out from (today) Cambodia to form Srivijaya. But it aligns to what I knew.

He pointed out that Srivijaya in the Chinese record consisted of 3 periods: Shih-li-fo-shi, Kha-ling and San-fo-shi, with center of power in different places throughout Malay penninsular and Central Java.

We will come back to talk about the center of Srivijaya later to see where it was in each period.

But for now, if what Suzuki said is true that kings of the 3 periods of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who fled from Funan in Cambodia to Chaiya (Pan Pan) to form Srivijaya.

And from the following record by the Chinese, we know that in its last period, Srivijaya was changed to "Sian-Lor" or Siam-Lavo.

"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."


With simple math, we can conclude that the rulers of Siam-Lavo were also Funan’s royal descendants who retreated from Funan in Cambodia back to Chaiya.

The last period of Srivijaya lasted to 1178 before it disappeared from the Chinese record.

And around 60 years later, we had the story of Kun Pha Muang (KPM) of Sukhothai who went to Yasodharapura to claim his throne as Indravarman III.

And his brother-in-law, Kun Bang Klang Hao, became the king of Sukhothai.

No more Srivijaya, only Siam then.

SEAhistory and Chad, if I can find where Suzuki got it that the king of Srivijaya were Funan's royal descendant,

you are CHECKED and MATED!

lol anyway since you danced away from the chinese now your at a japanese guy now?
you are still wrong because siam is not tai this early nobody has recorded this at all. you are tying in tai speakers as leaders of funan which was never recorded by the chinese now you are saying. if anything siam is an austroasiatic speaking group probably mon or close to mon like your buddy all love said.

where is the history that these "siam" knew tai languages when the real tai came from southern china in 1200 1300s? nobody has ever recorded or said this. so they learned tai and were tai but are really a mon people or a mon offshoot? when is the exact date that these dark mon relative Siam people become Tai cultured and speakers? I guess the siam start calling places they been and their kings in tai language names? if the siam are offshoots from mon like all love says then the mon now are a Tai peoples? LOLS you cant keep claiming 2 diferent people as yours. thats what makes this $hit so hilarious u keep on confusing yourselves. you gotta pick 1 of 2. the siam people are a mon khmer dark race speaking an AA language or somehow the tai race ends up in southeast asia completely off track from all their relatives becomes leaders of funan teaches the Siam and makes them a Tai peoples. are you listening to how stupid this sounds?

you "THAI"try too hard to lump $hit that doesnt even make sense together. this is what comes from confusingyour lineages and trying too hard to become a "race" that you arent. making up things from 2 diferent and distinct ethnic groups. and then squashing other peoples theories of their empires. yea that makes perfect sense. thats why you guys found the need to make up a word "THAI' to blanket term everyone and claim everyone elses histories liek the tai and this supposed "siam" mon khmer peoples

This post has been edited by chadwarden: Feb 17 2012, 01:40 AM

[Leeporter]

Before Chad make my post going deep into the space, let me repost it here again.

Hey Love, I may not be on the internet this weekend, so please repost this and make sure it's in the last page where every audience can read. It's where these Khmer retarded were checkmated and don't let them run away from the corner, ok?


Śrīvijaya―towards Chaiya - Renewed 05 Jan 2011
Takashi Suzuki
http://www7.plala.or.jp/seareview/newpage6Sri2011Chaiya.html

There are so many misunderstandings and confusion on the early stage history of Southeast Asia. This situation has not been improved so much during recent one hundred years. In this paper what I try to discuss is on the history of the trade between the East and West in the Śrīvijaya times at the same time I would like to correct the location of capital of Shih-li-fo-shi from Palembang to Chaiya. The Palembang Hypothesis presented by G. Coedès and has been supported by most historians is not rational from many aspects and it is proved apparent mistake. I-Ching and the “Xin (New) Tang-Shu ” wrote that Shih-li-fo-shi was located in the northern hemisphere, in other words in the Malay Peninsula. The history of Southeast Asia has been distorted by many wrong hypotheses. The most serious error is the ‘Palembang Hypothesis’.

However the historians who have asserted that the capital of Shih-li-fo-shi located at Chaiya are very few. Dr. Quaritch Wales and Dr. R.C. Majumdar are rare exceptions. In Thailand, there may be more, for instance Prince Mon Chao Chand Chirayu Rajani and Dr. Piriya Krairiksh who have English publications. But it is not easy for us, common readers to access their books.

The characteristics of my paper are mostly re-appraisal of the Chinese textual evidence from the viewpoint of an economist and economic historian on the region. At the same time, I tried to fix the location of the important states recorded in the Chinese annals. Without accurate identification of the major states, the history of Southeast Asia cannot be discussed and clarified.

Shih-li-fo-shi in the Tang times was well known as Śrivijaya. San-fo-chi which appeared in 904 at the last stage of the Tang Dynasty (618~907) was acknowledged by the Tang officials as Śrivijaya. And in the Song times, it was recognized as San-fo-chi, which according to Chau-Ju-ka, started sending embassies to China since 904.

Between Shih-li-fo-shi and San-fo-chi , there was ‘new Kha-ling (Śailendra). They were all Śrivijaya. Śrivijaya consists of more than fourteen city-states most of them were ‘port states’ which more or less were taking part in international trade. The champion states of them were, in Shih-li-fo-shi times Chaiya, in Kha-ling times central Java and in San-fo-chi times Jambi and Kedah.Through the three stages of the history of Śrīvijaya, all of the leading kings were probably Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

The rulers of Funan, after kicked out from Cambodia, fled to their vassal state, namely Pan-pan. At the middle of the seventh century, they established a new state called Shih-li-fo-shi. Before making Shih-li-fo-shi, they merged other states in the Malay Peninsula. At the end of 670 A.D. only the name of Shih-li-fo-shi remained in the middle of the Peninsula, which was recorded in Chinese annals as tributary country. Before that Chi-tu , Tan-tan and Pan-pan or Ban-ban disappeared. Shih-li-fo-shi opened its window to the Strait of Malacca, after merged Kedah, which probably had been the capital of Chi-tu. It was necessary for Shih-li-fo-shi to control the Malacca Strait to purchase the western commodities coming across the Bay of Bengal. In the middle of the seventh century, the presence of the western countries, Persia and Arab, increased in the Tang court. This means comparative decrease of Shih-li-fo-shi’s status in the Tang court.
--


Now, read slowly line by line, don't skip and don't blink

I am not sure from which evidences Suzuki claimed that all of the leading kings of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the rulers of Funan were kicked out from (today) Cambodia to form Srivijaya. But it aligns to what I knew.

He pointed out that Srivijaya in the Chinese record consisted of 3 periods: Shih-li-fo-shi, Kha-ling and San-fo-shi, with center of power in different places throughout Malay penninsular and Central Java.

We will come back to talk about the center of Srivijaya later to see where it was in each period.

But for now, if what Suzuki said is true that kings of the 3 periods of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who fled from Funan in Cambodia to Chaiya (Pan Pan) to form Srivijaya.

And from the following record by the Chinese, we know that in its last period, Srivijaya was changed to "Sian-Lor" or Siam-Lavo.

"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."


With simple math, we can conclude that the rulers of Siam-Lavo were also Funan’s royal descendants who retreated from Funan in Cambodia back to Chaiya.

The last period of Srivijaya lasted to 1178 before it disappeared from the Chinese record.

And around 60 years later, we had the story of Kun Pha Muang (KPM) of Sukhothai who went to Yasodharapura to claim his throne as Indravarman III.

And his brother-in-law, Kun Bang Klang Hao, became the king of Sukhothai.

No more Srivijaya, only Siam then.

SEAhistory and Chad, if I can find where Suzuki got it that the king of Srivijaya were Funan's royal descendant,

you are CHECKED and MATED!







This post has been edited by Leeporter: Feb 17 2012, 03:26 AM

[chadwarden]

ha ha ha .....
I won't say anything to your post, I will just repost what I said again here.

Śrīvijaya―towards Chaiya - Renewed 05 Jan 2011
Takashi Suzuki
http://www7.plala.or.jp/seareview/newpage6Sri2011Chaiya.html

There are so many misunderstandings and confusion on the early stage history of Southeast Asia. This situation has not been improved so much during recent one hundred years. In this paper what I try to discuss is on the history of the trade between the East and West in the Śrīvijaya times at the same time I would like to correct the location of capital of Shih-li-fo-shi from Palembang to Chaiya. The Palembang Hypothesis presented by G. Coedès and has been supported by most historians is not rational from many aspects and it is proved apparent mistake. I-Ching and the “Xin (New) Tang-Shu ” wrote that Shih-li-fo-shi was located in the northern hemisphere, in other words in the Malay Peninsula. The history of Southeast Asia has been distorted by many wrong hypotheses. The most serious error is the ‘Palembang Hypothesis’.

However the historians who have asserted that the capital of Shih-li-fo-shi located at Chaiya are very few. Dr. Quaritch Wales and Dr. R.C. Majumdar are rare exceptions. In Thailand, there may be more, for instance Prince Mon Chao Chand Chirayu Rajani and Dr. Piriya Krairiksh who have English publications. But it is not easy for us, common readers to access their books.

The characteristics of my paper are mostly re-appraisal of the Chinese textual evidence from the viewpoint of an economist and economic historian on the region. At the same time, I tried to fix the location of the important states recorded in the Chinese annals. Without accurate identification of the major states, the history of Southeast Asia cannot be discussed and clarified.

Shih-li-fo-shi in the Tang times was well known as Śrivijaya. San-fo-chi which appeared in 904 at the last stage of the Tang Dynasty (618~907) was acknowledged by the Tang officials as Śrivijaya. And in the Song times, it was recognized as San-fo-chi, which according to Chau-Ju-ka, started sending embassies to China since 904.

Between Shih-li-fo-shi and San-fo-chi , there was ‘new Kha-ling (Śailendra). They were all Śrivijaya. Śrivijaya consists of more than fourteen city-states most of them were ‘port states’ which more or less were taking part in international trade. The champion states of them were, in Shih-li-fo-shi times Chaiya, in Kha-ling times central Java and in San-fo-chi times Jambi and Kedah.Through the three stages of the history of Śrīvijaya, all of the leading kings were probably Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

The rulers of Funan, after kicked out from Cambodia, fled to their vassal state, namely Pan-pan. At the middle of the seventh century, they established a new state called Shih-li-fo-shi. Before making Shih-li-fo-shi, they merged other states in the Malay Peninsula. At the end of 670 A.D. only the name of Shih-li-fo-shi remained in the middle of the Peninsula, which was recorded in Chinese annals as tributary country. Before that Chi-tu , Tan-tan and Pan-pan or Ban-ban disappeared. Shih-li-fo-shi opened its window to the Strait of Malacca, after merged Kedah, which probably had been the capital of Chi-tu. It was necessary for Shih-li-fo-shi to control the Malacca Strait to purchase the western commodities coming across the Bay of Bengal. In the middle of the seventh century, the presence of the western countries, Persia and Arab, increased in the Tang court. This means comparative decrease of Shih-li-fo-shi’s status in the Tang court.
--


Now, read slowly line by line, don't skip and don't blink

I am not sure from which evidences Suzuki claimed that all of the leading kings of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the rulers of Funan were kicked out from (today) Cambodia to form Srivijaya. But it aligns to what I knew.

He pointed out that Srivijaya in the Chinese record consisted of 3 periods: Shih-li-fo-shi, Kha-ling and San-fo-shi, with center of power in different places throughout Malay penninsular and Central Java.

We will come back to talk about the center of Srivijaya later to see where it was in each period.

But for now, if what Suzuki said is true that kings of the 3 periods of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who fled from Funan in Cambodia to Chaiya (Pan Pan) to form Srivijaya.

And from the following record by the Chinese, we know that in its last period, Srivijaya was changed to "Sian-Lor" or Siam-Lavo.

"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."


With simple math, we can conclude that the rulers of Siam-Lavo were also Funan’s royal descendants who retreated from Funan in Cambodia back to Chaiya.

The last period of Srivijaya lasted to 1178 before it disappeared from the Chinese record.

And around 60 years later, we had the story of Kun Pha Muang (KPM) of Sukhothai who went to Yasodharapura to claim his throne as Indravarman III.

And his brother-in-law, Kun Bang Klang Hao, became the king of Sukhothai.

No more Srivijaya, only Siam then.

SEAhistory and Chad, if I can find where Suzuki got it that the king of Srivijaya were Funan's royal descendant,

you are CHECKED and MATED!

Siamese does not exist anymore where is this siam language where are the inscriptions of a siam people and language. why are they not represented in "THAI" history today? but somehow you are able to pull from thin air by changing a later H to KH that the leaders of Funan are tai? and how is "siam" any type of race or people when you yourself said they might be or probably are mon people. so that means your root people basically just ripped off mon. when the "tai " came or according to you they were arealdy there in funan their culture is basically a mix up of tai and indianized traditions through mon (wait i cant say khmer culture because they dont exist ).
So to sum Thailand is a mutt nation with Siam stealing their cultural basis from mon or being mon themselve and the Tai element ripping off mon indianizied culture as well. Why dont you guys regroup with your fellow mon relatives in Thailand and treat them better then? i hear they get treated pretty $hitty. how could SIAM THAI do this to their cultural basis and ancestors? have you no respect?

[Leeporter]

Siamese does not exist anymore where is this siam language where are the inscriptions of a siam people and language. why are they not represented in "THAI" history today? but somehow you are able to pull from thin air by changing a later H to KH that the leaders of Funan are tai? and how is "siam" any type of race or people when you yourself said they might be or probably are mon people. so that means your root people basically just ripped off mon. when the "tai " came or according to you they were arealdy there in funan their culture is basically a mix up of tai and indianized traditions through mon (wait i cant say khmer culture because they dont exist ).
So to sum Thailand is a mutt nation with Siam stealing their cultural basis from mon or being mon themselve and the Tai element ripping off mon indianizied culture as well. Why dont you guys regroup with your fellow mon relatives in Thailand and treat them better then? i hear they get treated pretty $hitty. how could SIAM THAI do this to their cultural basis and ancestors? have you no respect?

ha ha ha .....
Again, I will just repost what I said here until it get into your head.

Śrīvijaya―towards Chaiya - Renewed 05 Jan 2011
Takashi Suzuki
http://www7.plala.or.jp/seareview/newpage6Sri2011Chaiya.html

There are so many misunderstandings and confusion on the early stage history of Southeast Asia. This situation has not been improved so much during recent one hundred years. In this paper what I try to discuss is on the history of the trade between the East and West in the Śrīvijaya times at the same time I would like to correct the location of capital of Shih-li-fo-shi from Palembang to Chaiya. The Palembang Hypothesis presented by G. Coedès and has been supported by most historians is not rational from many aspects and it is proved apparent mistake. I-Ching and the “Xin (New) Tang-Shu ” wrote that Shih-li-fo-shi was located in the northern hemisphere, in other words in the Malay Peninsula. The history of Southeast Asia has been distorted by many wrong hypotheses. The most serious error is the ‘Palembang Hypothesis’.

However the historians who have asserted that the capital of Shih-li-fo-shi located at Chaiya are very few. Dr. Quaritch Wales and Dr. R.C. Majumdar are rare exceptions. In Thailand, there may be more, for instance Prince Mon Chao Chand Chirayu Rajani and Dr. Piriya Krairiksh who have English publications. But it is not easy for us, common readers to access their books.

The characteristics of my paper are mostly re-appraisal of the Chinese textual evidence from the viewpoint of an economist and economic historian on the region. At the same time, I tried to fix the location of the important states recorded in the Chinese annals. Without accurate identification of the major states, the history of Southeast Asia cannot be discussed and clarified.

Shih-li-fo-shi in the Tang times was well known as Śrivijaya. San-fo-chi which appeared in 904 at the last stage of the Tang Dynasty (618~907) was acknowledged by the Tang officials as Śrivijaya. And in the Song times, it was recognized as San-fo-chi, which according to Chau-Ju-ka, started sending embassies to China since 904.

Between Shih-li-fo-shi and San-fo-chi , there was ‘new Kha-ling (Śailendra). They were all Śrivijaya. Śrivijaya consists of more than fourteen city-states most of them were ‘port states’ which more or less were taking part in international trade. The champion states of them were, in Shih-li-fo-shi times Chaiya, in Kha-ling times central Java and in San-fo-chi times Jambi and Kedah.Through the three stages of the history of Śrīvijaya, all of the leading kings were probably Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

The rulers of Funan, after kicked out from Cambodia, fled to their vassal state, namely Pan-pan. At the middle of the seventh century, they established a new state called Shih-li-fo-shi. Before making Shih-li-fo-shi, they merged other states in the Malay Peninsula. At the end of 670 A.D. only the name of Shih-li-fo-shi remained in the middle of the Peninsula, which was recorded in Chinese annals as tributary country. Before that Chi-tu , Tan-tan and Pan-pan or Ban-ban disappeared. Shih-li-fo-shi opened its window to the Strait of Malacca, after merged Kedah, which probably had been the capital of Chi-tu. It was necessary for Shih-li-fo-shi to control the Malacca Strait to purchase the western commodities coming across the Bay of Bengal. In the middle of the seventh century, the presence of the western countries, Persia and Arab, increased in the Tang court. This means comparative decrease of Shih-li-fo-shi’s status in the Tang court.
--


Now, read slowly line by line, don't skip and don't blink

I am not sure from which evidences Suzuki claimed that all of the leading kings of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the rulers of Funan were kicked out from (today) Cambodia to form Srivijaya. But it aligns to what I knew.

He pointed out that Srivijaya in the Chinese record consisted of 3 periods: Shih-li-fo-shi, Kha-ling and San-fo-shi, with center of power in different places throughout Malay penninsular and Central Java.

We will come back to talk about the center of Srivijaya later to see where it was in each period.

But for now, if what Suzuki said is true that kings of the 3 periods of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who fled from Funan in Cambodia to Chaiya (Pan Pan) to form Srivijaya.

And from the following record by the Chinese, we know that in its last period, Srivijaya was changed to "Sian-Lor" or Siam-Lavo.

"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."


With simple math, we can conclude that the rulers of Siam-Lavo were also Funan’s royal descendants who retreated from Funan in Cambodia back to Chaiya.

The last period of Srivijaya lasted to 1178 before it disappeared from the Chinese record.

And around 60 years later, we had the story of Kun Pha Muang (KPM) of Sukhothai who went to Yasodharapura to claim his throne as Indravarman III.

And his brother-in-law, Kun Bang Klang Hao, became the king of Sukhothai.

No more Srivijaya, only Siam then.

SEAhistory and Chad, if I can find where Suzuki got it that the king of Srivijaya were Funan's royal descendant,

you are CHECKED and MATED!







This post has been edited by Leeporter: Feb 17 2012, 01:49 AM

[Leeporter]

Chad, what you did is like blowing to the mountain trying to make it collapse.

Too bad, the mountain is too solid, you won't hurt it.

[chadwarden]

ha ha ha .....
Again, I will just repost what I said here until it get into your head.

Śrīvijaya―towards Chaiya - Renewed 05 Jan 2011
Takashi Suzuki
http://www7.plala.or.jp/seareview/newpage6Sri2011Chaiya.html

There are so many misunderstandings and confusion on the early stage history of Southeast Asia. This situation has not been improved so much during recent one hundred years. In this paper what I try to discuss is on the history of the trade between the East and West in the Śrīvijaya times at the same time I would like to correct the location of capital of Shih-li-fo-shi from Palembang to Chaiya. The Palembang Hypothesis presented by G. Coedès and has been supported by most historians is not rational from many aspects and it is proved apparent mistake. I-Ching and the “Xin (New) Tang-Shu ” wrote that Shih-li-fo-shi was located in the northern hemisphere, in other words in the Malay Peninsula. The history of Southeast Asia has been distorted by many wrong hypotheses. The most serious error is the ‘Palembang Hypothesis’.

However the historians who have asserted that the capital of Shih-li-fo-shi located at Chaiya are very few. Dr. Quaritch Wales and Dr. R.C. Majumdar are rare exceptions. In Thailand, there may be more, for instance Prince Mon Chao Chand Chirayu Rajani and Dr. Piriya Krairiksh who have English publications. But it is not easy for us, common readers to access their books.

The characteristics of my paper are mostly re-appraisal of the Chinese textual evidence from the viewpoint of an economist and economic historian on the region. At the same time, I tried to fix the location of the important states recorded in the Chinese annals. Without accurate identification of the major states, the history of Southeast Asia cannot be discussed and clarified.

Shih-li-fo-shi in the Tang times was well known as Śrivijaya. San-fo-chi which appeared in 904 at the last stage of the Tang Dynasty (618~907) was acknowledged by the Tang officials as Śrivijaya. And in the Song times, it was recognized as San-fo-chi, which according to Chau-Ju-ka, started sending embassies to China since 904.

Between Shih-li-fo-shi and San-fo-chi , there was ‘new Kha-ling (Śailendra). They were all Śrivijaya. Śrivijaya consists of more than fourteen city-states most of them were ‘port states’ which more or less were taking part in international trade. The champion states of them were, in Shih-li-fo-shi times Chaiya, in Kha-ling times central Java and in San-fo-chi times Jambi and Kedah.Through the three stages of the history of Śrīvijaya, all of the leading kings were probably Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

The rulers of Funan, after kicked out from Cambodia, fled to their vassal state, namely Pan-pan. At the middle of the seventh century, they established a new state called Shih-li-fo-shi. Before making Shih-li-fo-shi, they merged other states in the Malay Peninsula. At the end of 670 A.D. only the name of Shih-li-fo-shi remained in the middle of the Peninsula, which was recorded in Chinese annals as tributary country. Before that Chi-tu , Tan-tan and Pan-pan or Ban-ban disappeared. Shih-li-fo-shi opened its window to the Strait of Malacca, after merged Kedah, which probably had been the capital of Chi-tu. It was necessary for Shih-li-fo-shi to control the Malacca Strait to purchase the western commodities coming across the Bay of Bengal. In the middle of the seventh century, the presence of the western countries, Persia and Arab, increased in the Tang court. This means comparative decrease of Shih-li-fo-shi’s status in the Tang court.
--


Now, read slowly line by line, don't skip and don't blink

I am not sure from which evidences Suzuki claimed that all of the leading kings of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the rulers of Funan were kicked out from (today) Cambodia to form Srivijaya. But it aligns to what I knew.

He pointed out that Srivijaya in the Chinese record consisted of 3 periods: Shih-li-fo-shi, Kha-ling and San-fo-shi, with center of power in different places throughout Malay penninsular and Central Java.

We will come back to talk about the center of Srivijaya later to see where it was in each period.

But for now, if what Suzuki said is true that kings of the 3 periods of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who fled from Funan in Cambodia to Chaiya (Pan Pan) to form Srivijaya.

And from the following record by the Chinese, we know that in its last period, Srivijaya was changed to "Sian-Lor" or Siam-Lavo.

"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."


With simple math, we can conclude that the rulers of Siam-Lavo were also Funan’s royal descendants who retreated from Funan in Cambodia back to Chaiya.

The last period of Srivijaya lasted to 1178 before it disappeared from the Chinese record.

And around 60 years later, we had the story of Kun Pha Muang (KPM) of Sukhothai who went to Yasodharapura to claim his throne as Indravarman III.

And his brother-in-law, Kun Bang Klang Hao, became the king of Sukhothai.

No more Srivijaya, only Siam then.

SEAhistory and Chad, if I can find where Suzuki got it that the king of Srivijaya were Funan's royal descendant,

you are CHECKED and MATED!

yea i read it why cant you answer my basic questions? running from simple questions by reposting your little theory makes you winning the argument?

Siamese does not exist anymore where is this siam language where are the inscriptions of a siam people and language. why are they not represented in "THAI" history today? but somehow you are able to pull from thin air by changing a later H to KH that the leaders of Funan are tai? and how is "siam" any type of race or people when you yourself said they might be or probably are mon people. so that means your root people basically just ripped off mon. when the "tai " came or according to you they were arealdy there in funan their culture is basically a mix up of tai and indianized traditions through mon (wait i cant say khmer culture because they dont exist ).
So to sum Thailand is a mutt nation with Siam stealing their cultural basis from mon or being mon themselve and the Tai element ripping off mon indianizied culture as well. Why dont you guys regroup with your fellow mon relatives in Thailand and treat them better then? i hear they get treated pretty $hitty. how could SIAM THAI do this to their cultural basis and ancestors? have you no respect?

SIAM=/ TAI you idiot. You cant have it both ways these are two diferent peoples. SIAM = hypothetically a mon khmer speaking people who are native to southeast asia possibly related to mon. these people were never TAI and never practiced a TAI culture until the arrival of TAI in the 1200s .


By Sao Dr. Dhammasami
Chaingsen, the earliest thai kingdom, was contemporary to Dvaravati (6-11th A.D), the Mon principality within the Khmer Empire. The Sinhalese tradition of Buddhism, known as lankavamsa, came to Chiangsen first via Sukhothai and then Ayuthaya. Sukhothai (1219-1350 A.D) first adopted Ceylonese Theravada buddhism in 1276 from Kakhon Sridhammarat, where monks of Ceylon began propagating the Dhamma a decade or so earlier, together with the local monks who had been educated in Ceylon. This Ceylonese sect was invited to Sukhothai (Sukhodaya) by the king who had heard of their good practice and thorough knowledge of the Tipitaka. King Ram khamheng Inscrption (dated 1276) thus say: “King Ram Khamheng gave donations to the Supreme Patriarch, to every senior monks and to wise monks learned in the Three Baskets – of all whom are greater than any previous teachers of old in the city. Every one of these monks came from Nakonsridhammaraj.”16 Jinakalamali, composed in Pali in 1516 A.D, relates the important missions of the monk Sumana, who had visited Martaban, Ramannadesa, where he had learnt Sinhalese Buddhism, which he later introduced to the newly emergent kingdom of sukhodaya.

oh gee another article written by a fellow khon thai . why are your people so stupid lee porter? why do they write professional articles including khmer if these people dont exist to you?



More Thai morons like you no wonder you are such a troll

Prince Damrong wrote the history of Thailand as an explicitly nationalistic (and racialistic) project, creating the myth that Thai people originated in Mongolia and that they migrated via a kingdom in Yunnan. The myth presumes that the Thais were the rulers and inhabitants of the “Nan-Chao” kingdom (i.e., 南Ú¯ = Nanzhao); this was a real kingdom in Yunnan, but the idea that it was populated by Thai people is fiction, that has never had any evidence to support it. It is almost needless to say that there has never been any evidence that Mongolia was inhabited by Thais –in fact, it is fair to say that all evidence (linguistic and archaeological) indicates the contrary.



Prince Damrong invented this theory, specifying that the Thai people were driven out of Yunnan in the year 143 B.C.; this pseudo-historical date was apparently dreamed up without any evidence whatsoever (i.e., there is not now and never has been a shred of archaeological evidence to support this).

Inconveniently, I would note, this still insn’t early enough for the Thai people to migrate down to the coast and greet the supposed missionaries sent by the Emperor Ashoka. This is an obvious anachronism that is too often overlooked: even if we could accept Damrong’s version of history, it would be impossible for the Thais to have received Buddhism during the reign of Ashoka in India.

This is not news, but it remains generally unknown, whereas the myth of Suvaṇṇabhūmi is ubiquitous. Many Thai authors have already written critiques of Prince Damrong’s history, including Nidhi Eoseewong (who is probably the most famous and respected Thai historian of the last 50 years). For a good article on the history of writing history in Thailand, see: Charmavit Kasetsiri, 1979, “Thai Historiography from Ancient Times to the Modern Period”, in: Perceptions of the Past in South East Asia, the Asian Studies Association of Australia. More recently, Suriya Ratanakul (of Mahidol University, Thailand) has published critiques of Thai origin theories from a linguistic perspective. Many Thai scholars have contributed reasonable perspectives on these historical issues to the International Conference of Thai Studies; however, these critiques are generally shared amongst scholars and specialists –they do not become propaganda, nor can they have much influence with the masses.

§6.

Damrong’s “Suvaṇṇabhūmi” theory began with the idea that Thai people left China (moving from North to South) and conquered a large part of Southeast Asia. The political advantage of Damrong’s version of history was that it justified Thailand starting a war to conquer Shan State (ruled by Burma), and, possibly, the (re-)conquest of their (fictional) homeland in Yunnan, further north. Damrong’s most famous book on history is simply titled “Thai Fight Burma”, first published in 1917. Most of his theories are anti-Burmese and anti-Chinese, with no interest in Cambodia whatsoever (indeed, Cambodia is hardly ever mentioned).

[Leeporter]

yea i read it why cant you answer my basic questions? running from simple questions by reposting your little theory makes you winning the argument?

Siamese does not exist anymore where is this siam language where are the inscriptions of a siam people and language. why are they not represented in "THAI" history today? but somehow you are able to pull from thin air by changing a later H to KH that the leaders of Funan are tai? and how is "siam" any type of race or people when you yourself said they might be or probably are mon people. so that means your root people basically just ripped off mon. when the "tai " came or according to you they were arealdy there in funan their culture is basically a mix up of tai and indianized traditions through mon (wait i cant say khmer culture because they dont exist ).
So to sum Thailand is a mutt nation with Siam stealing their cultural basis from mon or being mon themselve and the Tai element ripping off mon indianizied culture as well. Why dont you guys regroup with your fellow mon relatives in Thailand and treat them better then? i hear they get treated pretty $hitty. how could SIAM THAI do this to their cultural basis and ancestors? have you no respect?

SIAM=/ TAI you idiot. You cant have it both ways these are two diferent peoples. SIAM = hypothetically a mon khmer speaking people who are native to southeast asia possibly related to mon. these people were never TAI and never practiced a TAI culture until the arrival of TAI in the 1200s .


By Sao Dr. Dhammasami
Chaingsen, the earliest thai kingdom, was contemporary to Dvaravati (6-11th A.D), the Mon principality within the Khmer Empire. The Sinhalese tradition of Buddhism, known as lankavamsa, came to Chiangsen first via Sukhothai and then Ayuthaya. Sukhothai (1219-1350 A.D) first adopted Ceylonese Theravada buddhism in 1276 from Kakhon Sridhammarat, where monks of Ceylon began propagating the Dhamma a decade or so earlier, together with the local monks who had been educated in Ceylon. This Ceylonese sect was invited to Sukhothai (Sukhodaya) by the king who had heard of their good practice and thorough knowledge of the Tipitaka. King Ram khamheng Inscrption (dated 1276) thus say: “King Ram Khamheng gave donations to the Supreme Patriarch, to every senior monks and to wise monks learned in the Three Baskets – of all whom are greater than any previous teachers of old in the city. Every one of these monks came from Nakonsridhammaraj.”16 Jinakalamali, composed in Pali in 1516 A.D, relates the important missions of the monk Sumana, who had visited Martaban, Ramannadesa, where he had learnt Sinhalese Buddhism, which he later introduced to the newly emergent kingdom of sukhodaya.

oh gee another article written by a fellow khon thai . why are your people so stupid lee porter? why do they write professional articles including khmer if these people dont exist to you?



More Thai morons like you no wonder you are such a troll

Prince Damrong wrote the history of Thailand as an explicitly nationalistic (and racialistic) project, creating the myth that Thai people originated in Mongolia and that they migrated via a kingdom in Yunnan. The myth presumes that the Thais were the rulers and inhabitants of the “Nan-Chao” kingdom (i.e., 南Ú¯ = Nanzhao); this was a real kingdom in Yunnan, but the idea that it was populated by Thai people is fiction, that has never had any evidence to support it. It is almost needless to say that there has never been any evidence that Mongolia was inhabited by Thais –in fact, it is fair to say that all evidence (linguistic and archaeological) indicates the contrary.



Prince Damrong invented this theory, specifying that the Thai people were driven out of Yunnan in the year 143 B.C.; this pseudo-historical date was apparently dreamed up without any evidence whatsoever (i.e., there is not now and never has been a shred of archaeological evidence to support this).

Inconveniently, I would note, this still insn’t early enough for the Thai people to migrate down to the coast and greet the supposed missionaries sent by the Emperor Ashoka. This is an obvious anachronism that is too often overlooked: even if we could accept Damrong’s version of history, it would be impossible for the Thais to have received Buddhism during the reign of Ashoka in India.

This is not news, but it remains generally unknown, whereas the myth of Suvaṇṇabhūmi is ubiquitous. Many Thai authors have already written critiques of Prince Damrong’s history, including Nidhi Eoseewong (who is probably the most famous and respected Thai historian of the last 50 years). For a good article on the history of writing history in Thailand, see: Charmavit Kasetsiri, 1979, “Thai Historiography from Ancient Times to the Modern Period”, in: Perceptions of the Past in South East Asia, the Asian Studies Association of Australia. More recently, Suriya Ratanakul (of Mahidol University, Thailand) has published critiques of Thai origin theories from a linguistic perspective. Many Thai scholars have contributed reasonable perspectives on these historical issues to the International Conference of Thai Studies; however, these critiques are generally shared amongst scholars and specialists –they do not become propaganda, nor can they have much influence with the masses.

§6.

Damrong’s “Suvaṇṇabhūmi” theory began with the idea that Thai people left China (moving from North to South) and conquered a large part of Southeast Asia. The political advantage of Damrong’s version of history was that it justified Thailand starting a war to conquer Shan State (ruled by Burma), and, possibly, the (re-)conquest of their (fictional) homeland in Yunnan, further north. Damrong’s most famous book on history is simply titled “Thai Fight Burma”, first published in 1917. Most of his theories are anti-Burmese and anti-Chinese, with no interest in Cambodia whatsoever (indeed, Cambodia is hardly ever mentioned).

ha ha ha .....
Winning the argument or not, it's not you to judge, the audience of this thread will be the judge.

Again, I will just repost what I said here. Because it's a straight forward proof that Funan, Srivijaya and Siam were the same things. And you have to blow harder if you want to make it collapse.

Śrīvijaya―towards Chaiya - Renewed 05 Jan 2011
Takashi Suzuki
http://www7.plala.or.jp/seareview/newpage6Sri2011Chaiya.html

There are so many misunderstandings and confusion on the early stage history of Southeast Asia. This situation has not been improved so much during recent one hundred years. In this paper what I try to discuss is on the history of the trade between the East and West in the Śrīvijaya times at the same time I would like to correct the location of capital of Shih-li-fo-shi from Palembang to Chaiya. The Palembang Hypothesis presented by G. Coedès and has been supported by most historians is not rational from many aspects and it is proved apparent mistake. I-Ching and the “Xin (New) Tang-Shu ” wrote that Shih-li-fo-shi was located in the northern hemisphere, in other words in the Malay Peninsula. The history of Southeast Asia has been distorted by many wrong hypotheses. The most serious error is the ‘Palembang Hypothesis’.

However the historians who have asserted that the capital of Shih-li-fo-shi located at Chaiya are very few. Dr. Quaritch Wales and Dr. R.C. Majumdar are rare exceptions. In Thailand, there may be more, for instance Prince Mon Chao Chand Chirayu Rajani and Dr. Piriya Krairiksh who have English publications. But it is not easy for us, common readers to access their books.

The characteristics of my paper are mostly re-appraisal of the Chinese textual evidence from the viewpoint of an economist and economic historian on the region. At the same time, I tried to fix the location of the important states recorded in the Chinese annals. Without accurate identification of the major states, the history of Southeast Asia cannot be discussed and clarified.

Shih-li-fo-shi in the Tang times was well known as Śrivijaya. San-fo-chi which appeared in 904 at the last stage of the Tang Dynasty (618~907) was acknowledged by the Tang officials as Śrivijaya. And in the Song times, it was recognized as San-fo-chi, which according to Chau-Ju-ka, started sending embassies to China since 904.

Between Shih-li-fo-shi and San-fo-chi , there was ‘new Kha-ling (Śailendra). They were all Śrivijaya. Śrivijaya consists of more than fourteen city-states most of them were ‘port states’ which more or less were taking part in international trade. The champion states of them were, in Shih-li-fo-shi times Chaiya, in Kha-ling times central Java and in San-fo-chi times Jambi and Kedah.Through the three stages of the history of Śrīvijaya, all of the leading kings were probably Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

The rulers of Funan, after kicked out from Cambodia, fled to their vassal state, namely Pan-pan. At the middle of the seventh century, they established a new state called Shih-li-fo-shi. Before making Shih-li-fo-shi, they merged other states in the Malay Peninsula. At the end of 670 A.D. only the name of Shih-li-fo-shi remained in the middle of the Peninsula, which was recorded in Chinese annals as tributary country. Before that Chi-tu , Tan-tan and Pan-pan or Ban-ban disappeared. Shih-li-fo-shi opened its window to the Strait of Malacca, after merged Kedah, which probably had been the capital of Chi-tu. It was necessary for Shih-li-fo-shi to control the Malacca Strait to purchase the western commodities coming across the Bay of Bengal. In the middle of the seventh century, the presence of the western countries, Persia and Arab, increased in the Tang court. This means comparative decrease of Shih-li-fo-shi’s status in the Tang court.
--


Now, read slowly line by line, don't skip and don't blink

I am not sure from which evidences Suzuki claimed that all of the leading kings of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who were devotees of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the rulers of Funan were kicked out from (today) Cambodia to form Srivijaya. But it aligns to what I knew.

He pointed out that Srivijaya in the Chinese record consisted of 3 periods: Shih-li-fo-shi, Kha-ling and San-fo-shi, with center of power in different places throughout Malay penninsular and Central Java.

We will come back to talk about the center of Srivijaya later to see where it was in each period.

But for now, if what Suzuki said is true that kings of the 3 periods of Srivijaya were Funan’s royal descendants who fled from Funan in Cambodia to Chaiya (Pan Pan) to form Srivijaya.

And from the following record by the Chinese, we know that in its last period, Srivijaya was changed to "Sian-Lor" or Siam-Lavo.

"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."


With simple math, we can conclude that the rulers of Siam-Lavo were also Funan’s royal descendants who retreated from Funan in Cambodia back to Chaiya.

The last period of Srivijaya lasted to 1178 before it disappeared from the Chinese record.

And around 60 years later, we had the story of Kun Pha Muang (KPM) of Sukhothai who went to Yasodharapura to claim his throne as Indravarman III.

And his brother-in-law, Kun Bang Klang Hao, became the king of Sukhothai.

No more Srivijaya, only Siam then.

SEAhistory and Chad, if I can find where Suzuki got it that the king of Srivijaya were Funan's royal descendant,

you are CHECKED and MATED!