Siam and Angkor? Options

[Leeporter]

I'm confuse , you guys claimed Khom People build Angkor now you claimed Siamese People build Angkor :/

Khom is just a name used to call a group of Siamese living around Lopburi (Lavo) and central Thailand.

The word Siamese is a vague term. It does not equal to the word 'Tai'.

Tai is just a subset of Siamese.

BTW, Suriyavaraman I was from Nakorn Sri Dhammarat in southern Thailand.

Was he Khmer?

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 11 2012, 07:29 AM

[Leeporter]

Oh, and if you want to see how the Apsara dance on the temple wall should look like, watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfn_19V0Un4...feature=related

It's Nora dance in southern Thailand.

It's "closer" to the dance you see on the temple's wall in Nakorn Wat.

Not the one created by Princess Buppha Devi to show to the French.

That one was copied from Bangkok (Rattanakosin) dance.


This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 11 2012, 10:14 AM

[Kdaw_Tmaw]

Suriyavarman II was the one who built Nakorn Wat and he was a Siamese from Lopburi.

How did you conclude that Khmers built it???

Khmer have conquered Dvaravati (Mon Kingdom, not Siem) since the mid 850AD. Even though it broke away from Khmer rule for a short period of time, it was still heavily under Khmer control. It's only obvious that the conquered land would be settled by the inhabitants of the conqueror. Suryavarman II is a Khmer King whose people originated from the lower Khmer land. He is Khmer as depicted on the wall of Angkor. If he is Siem as you claim he is, then there would be no Siem depicted on the wall of Angkor, and instead the whole depiction on Angkor would be just Siem. But it's not. He just had a few Siem that pledge loyalty to him and joined his troops. Even the Vietnamese mention that Khmer tried to attack Annam during Suryavarman II reign but failed. Now the Vietnamese sure know the difference between Khmer and Siem back then.

lol which Mon record is this?

Anyway, Suryavarman II came from Lava. This area is in southern Isan the power base of Ancient Chenla. This is the Area that the Chenla kings such as Bhavavarman, Citrasena and Isanavarman came from. This was not Khmer territory. Khmers were not in the Area this far north until Jayavarman II forced migrated the people of Vyadapura (lower mekong delta) to northern Cambodia. (Jayavarman II inscription, sdok kok thom)

Yasovarman I who is accredited for building Yasodharapura (Angkor) is connected with the Chenla (Syam) line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mon_people
http://www.eumon.org/history.php

Yasovarman I is a Khmer King who is also accredited for conquering Mon Kingdom. By doing so it established Ayuthhaya.
http://www.ayutthaya-history.com/Temples_Ruins_Ayodhya.html

[Leeporter]

Ofcourse, it's always enjoyable traveling in the south.
Millions of people around the world come to enjoy plenty of beautiful beaches in the south like Phuket, Krabi, Pang Nga, Trang, Samui every year.

Too bad this year we had a lot of rain and a flood on hiway near Chumpon on the east coast. So I have to use alternative route on the west coast instead.
That's why I could see many towns I never seen before like Kirirat, Tagola (Ta Gua Pa), and Phnom.

I just recently read a book talking about these towns being the center of Funan. So, it's quite exciting for me to drive through these towns.

The west coast and the east coast are seperated by a long range of mountains. To cross from the east coast to the west, you have to drive through a valley from Suratthani to Ta Gua Pa (Tagola)

And these towns are in this valley that link Tagola and Chaiya (Jaya) in Suratthani.

While driving through this valley, I can imagine why the Indians who landed at Tagola needed to go through this route to Surat Thani and then cross the gulf to Cambodia.

And why they called it Phnom or Funan.

This is the picture of the hi-way I was talking about.

I think the hi-way in red in the map above was the exact route the Inidan used to travel from the west coast to the east coast, because it's the only way to cross the mountain.

In the book I read, it says that the very first empire of Indians (around 1st - 2nd century) in Suvarnabhumi consisted of 3 states; namely Java Dhaveep, Nak (Naga) Fa, and Nak (Naga) Din.

These 3 states are mentioned in the record of Chinese.

The capital of the empire then was in Java Dhaveep, in a city called "Phnom" and the house of council of the empire was located at a city called "Ta Kun". It's called "Tha coucil of 3 states"

If you can read Thai, you can see the name of the districts called "Phnom" and "Ban Ta Kun" in the map I show above.

That's where the center of the first state and the center of the whole empire was.

In each state, there are many kingdoms in it.

1) Java Daveep consists of 4 kingdoms: Tian Son, West Java Daveep, Eat Java Daveep and and Hai Nan (yes, Hai Nan in China), the first 3 are in southern Thailand, the last one (Hai Nan) is near today China)



The capital of this state is "Phnom" in Suratthani.

2) Nak Fa consisted of 11 kingdoms, consisting of cities in central Thailand, eastern and some north cities for example, Petchburi, Ratchaburi, Kanjanaburi, Singhaburi, Chanburi,Prajinburi, Ayudhaya, Nakorn Sawam, Sri Dhep, Uttharadit, Pitsanulok etc, with Ratchaburi as the capital.

This "Nak Fa" state later expanded eastward and cover part of today Cambodia and Vietnam and became "Kam Langka", what we called "Khom"

3) Nak Din consisted of most of Isaan (north easthern Thailand), Laos, Vietnam and part of China. With Nakorn Phnom (Kotraboon) as the capital.

It's quite complicated, indeed, but it's an interesting read and it can help deleting the concept of today countries in your head.

This empire is what Chineses called "Funan", it covers a very large area from Maly Peninsular to Hai Nan and southern China.

PS> I think the history of Suvarnabhumi is quite complicated and it changed all the time. So, when we talk about history, we need to specify which period we are talking about. The one I was talking about now is during 1st-2nd century. And it's just a theory from a book, not a fact, ok?

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 11 2012, 09:30 AM

[Leeporter]

Hey, KhmerBoi.

I got a question, do you know how many "Khmer Speaking" People in this world?

What is the population size for Khmer speaking people?

I could find tons of information about Tai speaking people, but I couldn't find information about Khmer speaking people.

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 11 2012, 09:42 AM

[khmerpride]

Hey, KhmerBoi.

I got a question, do you know how many "Khmer Speaking" People in this world?

What is the population size for Khmer speaking people?

I could find tons of information about Tai speaking people, but I couldn't find information about Khmer speaking people.

Here is a Wiki Site about Khmer Speakers.
But this is in German^^
I would translate but my English is not so good as German.
But this Article is a bit older no update.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer-Sprache

This post has been edited by khmerpride: Jan 11 2012, 10:06 AM

[Leeporter]

Here is a Wiki Site about Khmer Speakers.
But this is in German^^
I would translate but my English is not so good as German.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer-Sprache

14 million people speaking Khmer, mainly in Cambodia and Vietnam?

[LoveIsAllAround]

YEs it was Khmer Empire that these people couldn't understand!! how can slave understand about their Master!!!! ^^

Inscription K1158 found in Nokor Reach (Former Khmer province, now in Thailand). This inscription used the word SRUK KHMER (Country of Khmer = Cambodia), so it means that Khmers ruled Angkor Empire. Thai Pro. Chirapat Prapandvidya at Silpakorn University, translated this inscription in English :" Indeed, the images of Vrah (God) Buddhalokesvara were installed by the High Official Srisatyavarman, who had supernatural power, in the past, on Abhayagiri, with the intention that Jaya may not attack SRUK KHMER (Country of Khmer = Cambodia). Later on, the nine images deteriorated . The venerable teacher by the name of Dharanindrapura has renovated the deteriorated images and reinstalled them once again. In this way, they became free from harm. Indeed, his pupil, Vrah Acaryya Dhanu, has installed these images in the year 988, (Saka 988 = AD 1066) which is in the reign of His Majesty King Udayadityavarmadeva (King Udayadityavarman II) . May he live long and remain powerful for the rest of his reign.

Khmer people always proud of their nation, brave.. other why we will become Thai and Viet but look at our Khmer in Vietnam they always fight for their freedom and Khmer in Thailand still practice Khmer culture and tradition when I was in Thailand Khmer Surin and Khmer Buriram told me that the Thai government just stop allow Khmer to learn our writing about 40 years a go that why these Khmer-Thai in this generation couldnt know how to write and read Khmer and some of them have been education to hate Khmer them self..

Thailand gov did that becos they was fear that Kherm Thai will be effected by your Khmer rouge, Khmer communists disease. LOL

I think it's very lucky that those Khmer Thai live in Thailand otherwise they must be refugee to Thai fellow or would be killed by your so-callled KHMER brother.

Sruk Khmer is what slaves call the land they lived, not the name of the country. It's not name created by rulers, Ruler's countriy name is Kamvujadesa.

[khmerpride]

14 million people speaking Khmer, mainly in Cambodia and Vietnam?

14 million native, 2 million second language speakers.
But mainly in Cambodia,Vietnam and Thailand.

oh here I found a better page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_language

more informations then the german page.


This post has been edited by khmerpride: Jan 11 2012, 10:40 AM

[khmerpride]

I'm not going to join your discussions I just want to share this link , maybe you "Historians" can
find something importent in this text.

Its about Thai Cambodian Art (Including Apsara dance , khmer empire etc)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/256756/thai-cambodian-art

[SabaiSabai]

I've read this paper before. It was written with the belief of mainstream Khmer history. Our research has already uncovered that the mainstream belief is false. The source material is false thus all that follow using the same source should be disregarded.

The art style, language and people originated from Chenla (Syam) Khmers adopted this culture when they were moved to Chenla territory by jayavarman II.

The proof is in the sdok kok thom inscription.

This post has been edited by SabaiSabai: Jan 11 2012, 12:44 PM

[SabaiSabai]

Khmer have conquered Dvaravati (Mon Kingdom, not Siem) since the mid 850AD. Even though it broke away from Khmer rule for a short period of time, it was still heavily under Khmer control. It's only obvious that the conquered land would be settled by the inhabitants of the conqueror. Suryavarman II is a Khmer King whose people originated from the lower Khmer land. He is Khmer as depicted on the wall of Angkor. If he is Siem as you claim he is, then there would be no Siem depicted on the wall of Angkor, and instead the whole depiction on Angkor would be just Siem. But it's not. He just had a few Siem that pledge loyalty to him and joined his troops. Even the Vietnamese mention that Khmer tried to attack Annam during Suryavarman II reign but failed. Now the Vietnamese sure know the difference between Khmer and Siem back then.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mon_people
http://www.eumon.org/history.php

Yasovarman I is a Khmer King who is also accredited for conquering Mon Kingdom. By doing so it established Ayuthhaya.
http://www.ayutthaya-history.com/Temples_Ruins_Ayodhya.html

Khmer did not conquer mon. The kings that expanded west where Chenla kings. Chenla conquered Khmer lands down south.
This is why there is no distinction between Chenla and Angkor by the Chinese. To them it was still the same people that ruled.

The inscription regarding the lineage of yasovarman has him claiming descent from Chenla. Like I keep saying Chenla was not a Khmer kingdom.

Another thing you make a wrong assumption about is the migration of people when kingdoms are conquered. People do not uproot and move to another city when they win. They were taken and moved as slaves when they lose. You are using the idea of colonisation when no such thing happened. However, on the case of Angkor to ayodhaya it is written as they uprooted and moved rather than captured.

As for yasovarman, how on earth you linked him with ayodhaya is beyond me lol the founder of ayodhaya was king U Thong. Suphanburi+ Lavo = ayodhaya.

850AD was still within the Chenla period. These kings were not Khmer

As for the Mon people you understand to be Mon are the western Mon known as Ramans of Ramanadesa. These are the Mons that inhabited the western side of central Thailand and Burma. Syam people were the eastern Mon if you like. It is just a easier example for you people to understand. Syam people were the eastern side of Thailand ie Issan region. From here they spread into Cambodia and then west into Dvaravati. This is the Hybrid group that practiced Hinduism and Buddhism and spoke a language similar to Khmer (As shown by the cave painting found in the Isan region near Sri Thep)

This post has been edited by SabaiSabai: Jan 11 2012, 05:40 PM

[SabaiSabai]

http://www.photostaud.com/img/fotogalerie/...emple-015.3.jpg

Now if we look at this image. This is also the Army of Angkor. Looks nothing like the soldiers wearing the elaborate shirts and and fancy weapons. Most likely, this was the "Khmer" part of the Army. The normal people/peasantry that was the majority of the population.

Now we need to ask another question. What makes the Khmers assume that the Siamese were savage jungle people? Answer, because of the missinterpretation of the Syam kuk scene.

Like I mentioned, these skirmishers were adjoined to the army and could have consisted of the tribes that lived int he territory. This is nothing new as even the armies of Rome consisted of many tribes and peoples from the empire.

Now why do we assume that the words "Ne Syam Kuk" (Here Syam people/group) only references that one portion of the scene? most likely it could mean the entire scene including the . Remember, at this time in history the Indian influence was very strong in these regions. The weapons, uniforms methods of warfare would have been brought over from India.

Like I mentioned before, the Tai people never wore clothes or used such weapons as those depicted as the skirmishers in the scene. Now heres food for thought. ZDG mentions that the local people did not know how to produce silk and were only able to produce course hemp material. Now if we look at the war scenes again. All the soldiers are wearing elaborate shirts and clothing. On some scenes they are even wearing three quarter length shirts. Do the locals have the knowledge to produce such garments?

http://www.molon.de/galleries/Cambodia/Ang...%20to%20war.jpg

More pictures of Khmer soldiers. What clothes are they wearing?


http://www.molon.de/galleries/Cambodia/Ang...%20to%20war.jpg

Another example

http://www.molon.de/galleries/Cambodia/Ang...%20to%20war.jpg

one showing the baggage train of the army. These are the common folk that form the civil duties of the army (cooks, cleaners, etc etc) As you can see they are wearing the loin cloth style clothing that was described by ZDG.

http://www.molon.de/galleries/Cambodia/Ang...%20to%20war.jpg

This image shows they are wearing the long elaborate shirts which I believe is a status symbol. The rich can afford to garb his soldiers with better equipment. However, how do we know they are still Khmer? we can see they are still wearing the loin cloths under the shirts.

[Leeporter]

I've read this paper before. It was written with the belief of mainstream Khmer history. Our research has already uncovered that the mainstream belief is false. The source material is false thus all that follow using the same source should be disregarded.

Absolutely true.

All the materials produced by mainstream historians are based on the same frame of concept created by the French colonists in the 18th century.

They are based on the same assumption that Khmer Empire existed and they "skipped" all evidences that contradict to this assumption.

They just throw away those evidences like it has nothing related to the history of Khmer.

That's why we are here to challenge them.

[Leeporter]

Wow! SabaiSabai, you are so detailed.
But look like your image link doesn't work.
Let me help reposting it.

Now if we look at this image. This is also the Army of Angkor. Looks nothing like the soldiers wearing the elaborate shirts and and fancy weapons. Most likely, this was the "Khmer" part of the Army. The normal people/peasantry that was the majority of the population.

Now we need to ask another question. What makes the Khmers assume that the Siamese were savage jungle people? Answer, because of the missinterpretation of the Syam kuk scene.

Like I mentioned, these skirmishers were adjoined to the army and could have consisted of the tribes that lived int he territory. This is nothing new as even the armies of Rome consisted of many tribes and peoples from the empire.

Now why do we assume that the words "Ne Syam Kuk" (Here Syam people/group) only references that one portion of the scene? most likely it could mean the entire scene including the . Remember, at this time in history the Indian influence was very strong in these regions. The weapons, uniforms methods of warfare would have been brought over from India.

Like I mentioned before, the Tai people never wore clothes or used such weapons as those depicted as the skirmishers in the scene. Now heres food for thought. ZDG mentions that the local people did not know how to produce silk and were only able to produce course hemp material. Now if we look at the war scenes again. All the soldiers are wearing elaborate shirts and clothing. On some scenes they are even wearing three quarter length shirts. Do the locals have the knowledge to produce such garments?



More pictures of Khmer soldiers. What clothes are they wearing?




Another example



one showing the baggage train of the army. These are the common folk that form the civil duties of the army (cooks, cleaners, etc etc) As you can see they are wearing the loin cloth style clothing that was described by ZDG.



This image shows they are wearing the long elaborate shirts which I believe is a status symbol. The rich can afford to garb his soldiers with better equipment. However, how do we know they are still Khmer? we can see they are still wearing the loin cloths under the shirts.

[Leeporter]

Look at the guy who ride horse.

Doesn't he look like a Chinese?

There was no horse in this area in those days. They only used elephants.

Horses were used by the Mongkol and China only, wasn't it?

[Buddhalove]

I've read this paper before. It was written with the belief of mainstream Khmer history. Our research has already uncovered that the mainstream belief is false. The source material is false thus all that follow using the same source should be disregarded.

The art style, language and people originated from Chenla (Syam) Khmers adopted this culture when they were moved to Chenla territory by jayavarman II.

The proof is in the sdok kok thom inscription.

when history was not on your side, you try to tell the world that it never exist. Pretty odd species.

[Leeporter]

I'm not going to join your discussions I just want to share this link , maybe you "Historians" can
find something importent in this text.

Its about Thai Cambodian Art (Including Apsara dance , khmer empire etc)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/256756/thai-cambodian-art

The reason I asked because you claimed that Khmers were the first group of people who lived in Suvarnabhumi and Tai or Siamese came later from China.

I've shown you earlier the clip of local people in Surat Thani, southern Thailand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BaseFeDvRw

Ask yourself these:

- do they look like people from China?
- do they speak Khmer or Tai?
- is it possible for these Tai speaking people to migrate from China?

[SabaiSabai]

Look at the guy who ride horse.

Doesn't he look like a Chinese?

There was no horse in this area in those days. They only used elephants.

Horses were used by the Mongkol and China only, wasn't it?

That is a Chinese soldier the Chinese also fought in that war. There are scenes with Chinese soldiers wearing scale armour and having top knots.

Funny how they used dress and appearance to distinguish what is Chinese but failed to do it with what is Tai lol its down right ridiculous when I think about it now. The evidence really is in the reliefs, just like the Khmers claim. However, the evidence is actually showing something different to what they say lol

[KhmerBoi]

14 million people speaking Khmer, mainly in Cambodia and Vietnam?

As far as I know there is 13.5 million in Cambodia, 7 million in Vietnam, 3 millions in Thailand, other 1 million abroad so there is about 25 million people who speak Khmer not included other Mon-Khmer.