More proof that the Rulers of Angkor were Syam Options

[Suriin1234]

aha funny thing is your ppl look like monkeys too

[SabaiSabai]

aha funny thing is your ppl look like monkeys too

that pretty much covers the entire species really lol

Hairless monkies.

But anyway. Back on topic. As we can see that there is actually a record of Khmers being moved into the Angkor region during the 9th century. We now just have to confirm whether Chenla culture and kings were actually Khmer

Any Khmers wan't to share some proof or evidence or anything suggesting that they were Khmer?

[KhmerBoi]

that pretty much covers the entire species really lol

Hairless monkies.

But anyway. Back on topic. As we can see that there is actually a record of Khmers being moved into the Angkor region during the 9th century. We now just have to confirm whether Chenla culture and kings were actually Khmer

Any Khmers wan't to share some proof or evidence or anything suggesting that they were Khmer?

Khmer were its people that why they need to move them to the new capital then what??

Like Burmes government make a new capital city and move all the official to that city leave Yungon stay quite!! ^^ understand simple fact??

[Leeporter]

Khmer were its people that why they need to move them to the new capital then what??

Like Burmes government make a new capital city and move all the official to that city leave Yungon stay quite!! ^^ understand simple fact??

KhmerBoi, in those days it didn't work like that.

When a city was built, they populated the city with any race, most of the time, the city was populated with people from the defeated cities.

Like when Ayudhdya was built, they moved Lao, Khmer, Tai, Mon etc. to populate the city.

The more population, the stronger the city was.

Just because the city of Yasodharapura was populated with Khmers as majority group of people, it doesn't mean that it was built by Khmer.

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 11 2012, 08:48 PM

[KhmerBoi]

KhmerBoi, in those days it didn't work like that.

When a city was built, they populated the city with any race, most of the time, the city was populated with people from the defeated cities.

Like when Ayudhdya was built, they moved Lao, Khmer, Tai, Mon etc. to populate the city.

The more population, the stronger the city was.

Just because the city of Yasodharapura was populated with Khmers as majority group of people, it doesn't mean that it was built by Khmer.

but at least we also know that those people speak Khmer.. You can read where Zhu Da Guan decrypt about language we spoke and the number he say Mauy, Pii, Pei, Pourn, Pram, Pram-Mauy... Dob. see that is Khmer!!! Or you say it was Khorm?? ^^

[Leeporter]

but at least we also know that those people speak Khmer.. You can read where Zhu Da Guan decrypt about language we spoke and the number he say Mauy, Pii, Pei, Pourn, Pram, Pram-Mauy... Dob. see that is Khmer!!! Or you say it was Khorm?? ^^

Of course, the temple was built in the city where majority were Khmer, so they had to write both in Sanskrit and Khmer to communicate with local people.

But it doesn't prove that the temples were built by Khmers.

For example, this script was found in Nakorn Sri Dhammarach, southern Thailand.
It was written in Thai langauge with Khom alphabets.



Just because it was written in Khmer, using Khom alphabets, it doesn't mean that Khmer built the temple!

Actually, we have shown that Pra Viharn and Nakorn Wat were built by king from Lopburi and Nakorn Sridhamaracha,

When the French took over Cambodia, they had to write both in French and Khmer to communicate to your people, didn't they?

But, I never seen you guys claim what the French built in Cambodia as Khmers. ???

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 11 2012, 09:18 PM

[SabaiSabai]

SabaiSabai,

I don't really understand your evidence for saying Angkor was built by "Syam" people.

From the opening post, I suppose that the basis for this argument was that the ruler of Chenla had a surname that sounds like Syam and furthermore Syam La sounds close to Chenla?

I would say it's not very convincing, especially the connection between the words "Syam La" and "Chenla"



Siam used to be known as "Xiêm La" in Vietnamese.

Chenla is "Chân Lạp".

They don't sound similar at all. Any similarity in romanized mandarin would be coincidence.

Chân Lạp =/= Xiêm La


In any case, I would tell you that Champa and Syamla sound more similar. Historically Vietnamese called Cham people "Chiêm" and Thai people "Xiêm". They're similar, right? Same tone, same rhyme. But they were definitely not the same people.





I made another topic for this
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=329390

I hope you can list the evidence from all these topics point by point there. It will be easier for me to grasp.

I have actually thought about this point before. However, what I have found regarding the chinese pronunciation of Foreign names is that it changes even if it was the same word.

for example Kaundhinya 1 was known as Hun Tien. Kaundhinya was known as Chiao chen ju. There are also other variations of the Varman title which is not consistent.

As for the Vietnamese version. Can you be certain when your people began using the name Xiem? or when the word first appeared in history.

Now the link I have for that is the Po Nagar inscription in Champa. They list all the peoples that were slaves to be given to the temple. In it, it lists all the peoples of the SEA region. Bagan, Syam, Lav, Kvir. Using Bagan as the furthest point and Kvir (Virapura) as the closest point, we can tell that Lav and Syam were the regions in between. These regions were Lao and Thailand. Why is there no mention of Khmers?????? Anyway, so the Syam are identified as being in that region in 1050AD. This goes against the belief that the Tai people are the Syam since Tai mass migration did not happen till 200 years later.

Now we know Tai and Syam are not the same people. Which means the Syamese were already in the Area.

Now I have crossed referenced this with the Archaelogical finds from the Isan region , namely Sri Thep, Sima and Muang Fa daed. These powerful states sprang to life during the 6th century (the same period as chenla culture began to spread) In this region they practiced both religions, and used all 4 of the major languages. This is also the area from which Bhavavarman and Isanavarman is said to have come from.

So if this region isn't Chenla. Im a monkies uncle

The line of kings connected to Chenla goes beyond 1050AD. The chinese always called the area Chenla (they never used Angkor)The Chams call it Syam. The Chinese call it Chenla. People in that time and of that region were named after the kingdom they come from (ie Raman of Ramanadesa. Kvir of Virapura) it may just be Syam of Syambhupura (Chenla) remember, Chenla had existed as far back as Funan times (as a vassal), but only gained much power during the 6th century.

[Kdaw_Tmaw]

There were no Siem before 1000AD. It was only Khmer and Mon in northwestern territories. Khmer adopted influences from both India and Mon people at the same time. How do you think Indian influence also got to Champa? Both Mon, Khmer and Cham, which existed long before Siem where ever mention anywhere, all adopted Indian culture at the same time. Meanwhile, inscriptions in Angkor depicts Siem's existence during the reign of Suryavarman II around 1113-1150.

SaibaiSabai, you mention in your findings that Siam came into existence around 1050AD? This coincide with the date when Tai migration began moving into west of Mon-Khmer territory from Burmese expansion. This is what lead to the creation of Siem by way of Mon-Khmer influence on the local Tai migrants. However, Tai influence and dominance will begin to counter balance by huge numbers of settlers still coming in by the Mongol Invasion of China. Suryvarman II knew the threat so he gathered loyal Siem (Mon, Khmer, Tai) locals to help suppressed the Burmese expansion on the northwestern territory. He also tried to invade Annam on the northeastern territory so that he can control the flow of of China's southern population into Khmer territory. All the Khmer kings of Angkor tried to stop the migrations and settlers into Khmer territory. But Angkor finally fell when Siem changed side and merged with Tai Kingdoms to attacked Angkor to end Khmer rule.

It's simple as that. all you're doing is removing Khmer and replacing it with Siem to replace us with ranks. Also, Chams have known Khmer since both our existence. They do not call us "Syam". We have been known as the Kambuja, Kampuchea and Khmer to them. You are trying to twist facts again.

[Leeporter]

There were no Siem before 1000AD. It was only Khmer and Mon in northwestern territories. Khmer adopted influences from both India and Mon people at the same time. How do you think Indian influence also got to Champa? Both Mon, Khmer and Cham, which existed long before Siem where ever mention anywhere, all adopted Indian culture at the same time. Meanwhile, inscriptions in Angkor depicts Siem's existence during the reign of Suryavarman II around 1113-1150.

SaibaiSabai, you mention in your findings that Siam came into existence around 1050AD? This coincide with the date when Tai migration began moving into west of Mon-Khmer territory from Burmese expansion. This is what lead to the creation of Siem by way of Mon-Khmer influence on the local Tai migrants. However, Tai influence and dominance will begin to counter balance by huge numbers of settlers still coming in by the Mongol Invasion of China. Suryvarman II knew the threat so he gathered loyal Siem (Mon, Khmer, Tai) locals to help suppressed the Burmese expansion on the northwestern territory. He also tried to invade Annam on the northeastern territory so that he can control the flow of of China's southern population into Khmer territory. All the Khmer kings of Angkor tried to stop the migrations and settlers into Khmer territory. But Angkor finally fell when Siem changed side and merged with Tai Kingdoms to attacked Angkor to end Khmer rule.

It's simple as that. all you're doing is removing Khmer and replacing it with Siem to replace us with ranks. Also, Chams have known Khmer since both our existence. They do not call us "Syam". We have been known as the Kambuja, Kampuchea and Khmer to them. You are trying to twist facts again.

There was no Tai migration from China.

Tai people have been living here from the southernmost of Thailand to the north (southern China)

They tried to expand their territory to China in those days when China was still weak and fragile.

When China became stronger, they started to force Tai speaking people to retreat.

That's why you see a lot of Tai speaking people in southern China.

[Kdaw_Tmaw]

There was no Tai migration from China.

Tai people have been living here from the southernmost of Thailand to the north (southern China)

They tried to expand their territory to China in those days when China was still weak and fragile.

When China became stronger, they started to force Tai speaking people to retreat.

That's why you see a lot of Tai speaking people in southern China.

People will migrate anywhere. As long as there is land, then they will migrate even faster from north, south, east and west. Khmer can only go as far north because they are at the most southern part of the region. Khmer population cannot handle the more huge population coming from such a huge land in China.

[SabaiSabai]

There were no Siem before 1000AD. It was only Khmer and Mon in northwestern territories. Khmer adopted influences from both India and Mon people at the same time. How do you think Indian influence also got to Champa? Both Mon, Khmer and Cham, which existed long before Siem where ever mention anywhere, all adopted Indian culture at the same time. Meanwhile, inscriptions in Angkor depicts Siem's existence during the reign of Suryavarman II around 1113-1150.

SaibaiSabai, you mention in your findings that Siam came into existence around 1050AD? This coincide with the date when Tai migration began moving into west of Mon-Khmer territory from Burmese expansion. This is what lead to the creation of Siem by way of Mon-Khmer influence on the local Tai migrants. However, Tai influence and dominance will begin to counter balance by huge numbers of settlers still coming in by the Mongol Invasion of China. Suryvarman II knew the threat so he gathered loyal Siem (Mon, Khmer, Tai) locals to help suppressed the Burmese expansion on the northwestern territory. He also tried to invade Annam on the northeastern territory so that he can control the flow of of China's southern population into Khmer territory. All the Khmer kings of Angkor tried to stop the migrations and settlers into Khmer territory. But Angkor finally fell when Siem changed side and merged with Tai Kingdoms to attacked Angkor to end Khmer rule.

It's simple as that. all you're doing is removing Khmer and replacing it with Siem to replace us with ranks. Also, Chams have known Khmer since both our existence. They do not call us "Syam". We have been known as the Kambuja, Kampuchea and Khmer to them. You are trying to twist facts again.

All I have to say to that is, where is your evidence to back up you claim? there is only 1...yes 1 mention of the word Khmer in existence in ancient history. And this was carved in the 12th century.

Prior to that, there is no people in SEA that have identified themselves as Khmer. if there is, I would love to see proof. If there isn't then it is just simply you assuming that Kambujas people were khmer . From what I see, whenever the rulers referenced the country and themselves, they would use the name Kambujas. When other people referenced the country and its rulers they used Kambujas. When did Khmer become interchangable with Kambujas? can you find me the evidence? or is this just fantasy again?

If Chams have known of Khmer existence since the beginning, why is there no mention of Khmer? going by actual real life inscription and the date of the inscription was made. The word Syam appears at least 100 years before the first appearance of the word Khmer.

So far you have not been able to back up any of your claims with evidence or proper sources

Po Nagar inscription only names Bagan (western Mon) Syam (Eastern Mon) Lav (Lava) Kvir (Virapura Cham) in its list of peoples. with the proximity of Sruk Khmer.. one would expect there to be a mention of a Khmer people. Actuall one would expect there to be a mention of a Khmer people in any of the other kingdoms in the 1000 years from the 1st century AD till the inscription in the 12th century. Since you claim Khmers have always ruled the area, do you have a explanation as to why there is no record of a Khmer people?

Lets say we remove the name of Syam or Khmer from these people. I have explained to you, using archaelogical evidence as to why they should be known as Syam. Can you provide me with some evidence to back up why they should be known as Khmer?

[SabaiSabai]

People will migrate anywhere. As long as there is land, then they will migrate even faster from north, south, east and west. Khmer can only go as far north because they are at the most southern part of the region. Khmer population cannot handle the more huge population coming from such a huge land in China.

And looking at the geographical locations of the Khmer people, they didn't go as far north past the Dangrek mountains at all . So much for the theory of mass colonisation of SEA by the "Khmer" empire.

[PeaceMan]

I have actually thought about this point before. However, what I have found regarding the chinese pronunciation of Foreign names is that it changes even if it was the same word.

for example Kaundhinya 1 was known as Hun Tien. Kaundhinya was known as Chiao chen ju. There are also other variations of the Varman title which is not consistent.

As for the Vietnamese version. Can you be certain when your people began using the name Xiem? or when the word first appeared in history.

Now the link I have for that is the Po Nagar inscription in Champa. They list all the peoples that were slaves to be given to the temple. In it, it lists all the peoples of the SEA region. Bagan, Syam, Lav, Kvir. Using Bagan as the furthest point and Kvir (Virapura) as the closest point, we can tell that Lav and Syam were the regions in between. These regions were Lao and Thailand. Why is there no mention of Khmers?????? Anyway, so the Syam are identified as being in that region in 1050AD. This goes against the belief that the Tai people are the Syam since Tai mass migration did not happen till 200 years later.

Now we know Tai and Syam are not the same people. Which means the Syamese were already in the Area.

Now I have crossed referenced this with the Archaelogical finds from the Isan region , namely Sri Thep, Sima and Muang Fa daed. These powerful states sprang to life during the 6th century (the same period as chenla culture began to spread) In this region they practiced both religions, and used all 4 of the major languages. This is also the area from which Bhavavarman and Isanavarman is said to have come from.

So if this region isn't Chenla. Im a monkies uncle

The line of kings connected to Chenla goes beyond 1050AD. The chinese always called the area Chenla (they never used Angkor)The Chams call it Syam. The Chinese call it Chenla. People in that time and of that region were named after the kingdom they come from (ie Raman of Ramanadesa. Kvir of Virapura) it may just be Syam of Syambhupura (Chenla) remember, Chenla had existed as far back as Funan times (as a vassal), but only gained much power during the 6th century.

May I cut and paste what my Kru wrote about our Siamese/Thai's ancestors...



The people who inhabited this land that we call the Golden Peninsula came from two ancient races:

1. The Syamese people,who were the original inhabitants, of darker complexion and most likely to come from Southern India as they used the Palava alphabet. They established the kingdoms of Dvaravati, Srivija and Khom.

2.The Tai people , who were of yellow skin and came from Southern China, they were the Shan(or Ngyo) and Tai Lao who established the Kingdom of Cheangsean and Sukhothai, a land renowned for its excellence in two-handed swords fighting.

After the integration of the two races

Three alphabets were developed in the Golden Peninsula, namely Khom-Tai, Khom-Khmer and King Ramkamheang's Tai which evolved to become the Thai alphabet as we know it today.

The culture and art of this people was an amalgam of Indian and Chinese, called Indo-Chinese in western terminology.




Just some "opinion and perspective" from one of my kru...with all my respect...I agreed and disagreed with some of his...

My believe... the roots of Siamese/Thai came from:

1) the original inhabitant of Suwanabhumi.
2)Southern India
3)Southern China

The amalgamation of the three created the distinctive "Siamese of Sri Ayuttya"...

This post has been edited by PeaceMan: Jan 11 2012, 11:39 PM

[SabaiSabai]

May I cut and paste what my Kru wrote about our Siamese/Thai's ancestors...



The people who inhabited this land that we call the Golden Peninsula came from two ancient races:

1. The Syamese people,who were the original inhabitants, of darker complexion and most likely to come from Southern India as they used the Palava alphabet. They established the kingdoms of Dvaravati, Srivija and Khom.

2.The Tai people , who were of yellow skin and came from Southern China, they were the Shan(or Ngyo) and Tai Lao who established the Kingdom of Cheangsean and Sukhothai, a land renowned for its excellence in two-handed swords fighting.

After the integration of the two races

Three alphabets were developed in the Golden Peninsula, namely Khom-Tai, Khom-Khmer and King Ramkamheang's Tai which evolved to become the Thai alphabet as we know it today.

The culture and art of this people was an amalgam of Indian and Chinese, called Indo-Chinese in western terminology.




Just some "opinion and perspective" from one of my kru...with all my respect...I agreed and disagreed with some of his...

My believe... the roots of Siamese/Thai came from:

1) the original inhabitant of Suwanabhumi.
2)Southern India
3)Southern China

The amalgamation of the three created the distinctive "Siamese of Sri Ayuttya"...

Thats pretty much what I've come up with too lol

[PeaceMan]

Thats pretty much what I've come up with too lol

his book published about 8 years ago...but no one care to read...

[SabaiSabai]

his book published about 8 years ago...but no one care to read...

Got a link? or how to get the book? but most importantly....is it in english?

[PeaceMan]

Got a link? or how to get the book? but most importantly....is it in english?

the name of the book is มวยเมืองสยาม Siamese Boxing... the book is in both Thai and English

Too bad... there're only 1,500 copies and never re-edit...

[SabaiSabai]

the name of the book is มวยเมืองสยาม Siamese Boxing... the book is in both Thai and English

Too bad... there're only 1,500 copies and never re-edit...

Muay Mueng siam..... wow two of my favourite subjects in one lol whats the authors name?

[PeaceMan]

Muay Mueng siam..... wow two of my favourite subjects in one lol whats the authors name?

Just sent you the info. in your mail box.

[Leeporter]

There is a book written by Sujit Wongthes "The Thai were here in Usakhanae"

This is what he concluded about Thai and Siam.

http://www.sujitwongthes.com/wp-content/up.../2010/03/21.pdf

http://www.sujitwongthes.com/wp-content/up.../2010/03/22.pdf

You can read the whole book free here:

Thai Were Here

PS> There are many theories about where the Tai are from. Some say they migrated from China less than 1,000 years ago, some say they were here since at least 3,000 years ago.

I am in the later case, I believe that they were here since at least 5,000 years ago, but they moved around, trying to expand their territory and clashed with China in the north and retreated.



This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 12 2012, 02:13 AM