Relation between Siam and Chenla and further to Angkor, My reponse Options

[XigonCongchua]

I left for a few days and the other topic got so hijacked already. It's sad that I have to make another topic to respond.

Ok, let me put this out first. I'm not here to make a judgement on whether Angkor was built by the Khmer or the Siamese. I'm here to understand the nature of what happened. Remember that history is too complex to be interpreted in one way, and if you do, you're carrying out an agenda. In a way, all history writers have agendas since they all impose a single view on what happened. What I try to do is to understand things without judging it.



So back to the topic. Let me go point by point.


1. Some members suggested that Chenla and Syam were the same.
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...t=0&start=0

...
Chenla = Syam La
...
1. The area that is Chenla territory was Syam country. Chenla is Syambhupura.
...
Chenla was Syam country. Khmers were taken and put into Syam land

I'm not sure how one could solidly connect Chenla to Syam and say they were the same thing. What I saw so far are merely superficial similarities between the romanization of the words Syam La, Chen La and Sambhupura.

Syam La and Chen La may be a little similar if you "look" (not listen) at the words in roman letters but they're not really the same.

Syam La is Xiêm La in Vietnamese

Chen La is Chân Lạp in Vietnamese
(Note that both Mandarin e and Vietnamese â are pronounced like "io" in nation. Not like e in dedicate or a in father).

Modern mandarin lost all -p endings, so similarities the two "La" are merely coincidence. One is supposed to be La and the other is supposed to be Lạp.

But if this is not enough to prove that Syam La and Chen La were two different countries (and SabaiSabai asked me when Vietnamese started calling Thailand "Xiêm La") let me show you the quote from the Annals of Đại Việt (Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư 大越史記全書)

Book IV (page 238 in the complete annals), Reign of King Lý Anh Tông

"Year of Kỷ Tị [1149]. Spring. February [Second month of Lunar calendar in this sense],
...
Commerce ships of three countries Trảo Oa, Lộ Lạc, Xiêm La entered Hải Đông, asked for permission to stay and conduct trading activities..."

Trảo Oa above is Java
Lộ Lạc (also called Lộ Hạc, La Hồi) was supposedly a country in Northern Thailand nowadays. Judging from the name, it could be Lawa or Lavo that you've been talking about. Just my speculation.
Xiêm La was also in the proximity of Thailand and that was how Vietnamese referred to Thailand until the 20th century. Even in modern Vietnamese language today, there are still remnants of this. For example, there's breed of chicken from Thailand originally and it's called "gà xiêm". There are also vịt xiêm (Xiem duck), hồng xiêm (Xiêm Persimmon, known in English as Sapodilla), dừa xiêm (Xiêm coconut). These names remind people that their origin was in Siam before being imported to and cultivated in Vietnam.

Vietnamese annals also wrote that Xiêm La was originally two states "Xiêm" (Siam) and "Lộ Hạc/La Hồi" (Lavo?). Later Lộ Hạc grow strong and absord Xiêm and became "Xiêm La". So Xiêm La mentioned here during the Lý dynasty (1009-1225) here was just "Siam" (the word La was added in by historians in later edits after it was merged with Lavo)

Now let's continue with the excerpts of Annals of Đại Việt (Book IV)

Year Canh Ngọ [1150]
...
September, Chân Lạp [Chenla] army plundered Nghệ An
...
Year Ất Hợi [1155]
...
November, Chiêm Thành [Champa] came pay tributes
...
Year Kỹ Mão [1159]
...
Summer, May [5th month of lunar calendar], Ngưu Hồng and Ai Lao rebelled. [The king] ordered Tô Hiến Thành bring an army to pacify. Captured many people, horses, elephants, pearls and precious valuables. [The king] appointed Tô Hiến Thành as Lieutenant
...
Year Giáp Thân [1164]
...
March, Chiêm Tành [Champa] came pay tributes
...
Year Bính Tuất [1166]
...
March, a Chiêm Thành envoy stopped by Ô Lý and plundered people...
...
Year Đinh Hợi [1167]
...
July, [the king] ordered Lieutenant Tô Hiến Thành bring an army to fight Chiêm Thành
...
October, Chiêm Thành sent an envoy to Đại Việt, offering pearls and valuables to make peace.
...
Year Đinh Dậu [1177]
...
March, Chiêm Thành plundered Nghệ An

Year Nhân Dần [1182]
...
Xiêm La country paid tributes
...
Year Quý Mão [1183]
...
January, Appointed Ngô Lý Tướng as army general to fight Ai Lao.
...
Year Giáp Thìn [1184]
...
March, Chiêm Thành came pay tributes
Merchants from Xiêm La and Tam Phật Tề [Palembang] entered Vân Đồn port and offered precious valuables to ask for permission to stay and do tradings.

^^ It's obvious that Xiêm La (Syam La), Chân Lạp (Chenla), Chiêm Thành (Champa) and Ai Lao were all different countries, and they most likely all existed at about the same time. That's why you could see all their names mentioned in Đại Việt's foreign relation within less than 50 years.

If you want the characters, I can give you
Xiêm La (Syam La) is 暹羅
Chân Lạp (Chen La) is 真臘
Chiêm Thành (Champa) is 占城

So you can't say Syam La and Chen la are two different names for the same state

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.

2. Some people argue that the king who "built" Angkor Wat, Suriyavarman II, was from Southern Thailand, so Angkor Wat is Thai/Siam

Ask you self or go google who built Nakorn Wat (the French call Angkor Wat)?
Answer: Suriyavarman II

Now go google where Suriyavarman II was from?
Answer: Lopburi, Thailand.

Ask you self or go google who built Pra Viharn (Khmers call Preah Vihear)?
Answer: Suriyavarman I

Two things to address here:

I. It's invalid to use modern political boundaries to make a judgement on ethnicity of a person in the ancient time. Borders are not fixed and ethnicity of inhabitants change over time. I don't think I need to mention that Cambodia used to be much bigger than it is today before being invaded by the Thai and Vietnamese. While you can't argue whether Suriyavarmant II was Khmer, you can't prove that he was Thai or Siamese ethnically either.

II. It's common for people to say Suriyavarman II "built" Angkor Wat but that statement isn't very accurate. It's more accurate to say "Angkor Wat was built under the reign of Suriyavarman II" or "Suriyavarman II ordered the construction of Angkor Wat". Did Suriyavarman II literally built the temple himself? I hope none of you thinks so. I also doubt whether he designed it. In other words, the king ordered the construction, the architects designed it, the mandarins planned out transportation of materials and stuff, the workers do the physical work in building it. In other words, Angkor Wat was a product of cooperated works of a society, a community, it's not the work of any single person. Hence it's absurd to say whether Angkor Wat is Khmer or Thai/Siamese based on the ethnicity of one person.





3."There was no such thing as Khmer Empire until the French came to Indochina and took Vietnam, then Cambodia then Laos."

Perhaps the terminology of "Khmer Empire" didn't exist. But it's very likely that there existed a Khmer-based "state" that covered much of mainland Southeast Asia. I'm talking about Chenla of course.

From the quotes above you could tell that Chenla was able to "plunder" Nghệ An of Đại Việt, not just once but several times. There were also times when Chenla and Champa allied with each other to attack Đại Việt. This tells you that Chenla stretched much further North than the current boundary of Cambodia. If not they wouldn't be able to attack Đai Việt and Champa wouldn't be interested in allying with them.

This is Nghệ An for your reference to see how far north it is


So some thing like this map may make sense

[fivers]

very interesting thread Xigon thx

(although it sounds very complicated to me, I read it 3 times and I'm still figuring out who is 'supposed' to be who and why.. lol)

[XigonCongchua]

Hi fivers

I didn't think you'd be interested in Southeast Asian history and find yourself here.

But I appreciate your time and effort to read and understand it.


To help you understand a bit:

- Chenla/Chân Lạp: an ancient kingdom in Southeast Asian, commonly believed to be a Khmer Kingdom. But some members here dispute that it was rather a "Siamese" kingdom. This was where Angkor Wat was built.
- Siam/Syam La/Xiêm La: Old name of Thailand, though its people and its territory weren't the same as modern Thailand today.
- Champa/Chiêm Thành: A kingdom in Central Vietnam. It was conquered by Vietnamese.
- Đại Việt: Old name of Vietnam, but back then it consisted of Northern Vietnam only.


What's going on is that some members argue that Chenla and Siam were two names for the same kingdom, and that Khmer people are not descendants of Chenla but they were originally Cham people from the Mekong Delta (Southern Vietnam). What I'm saying is that they're all different.

[fivers]

ah I see now.. thx for re-explaining (gosh I feel dumb now..), yes I'm interested in the topic as I have a special bonding with Thailand and its surrounding neighbours, I wanna live there later on <3

[SabaiSabai]

Fantastic!

So now we can cross out Chenla is Syamla thanks xigon.

And also thanks for confirming that there was a Syamla in existance in the Area at that time. Though now we just have to identify which group existed in Thailand in that period. Dvaravati or Lavo? And also another interesting point, who were the Xiemla mentioned as the Tai still had not mass migrated into SEA yet

Dvaravati = Mon
Lavo = Mon
Kingdoms of the Mun river = Mon <--- Chenla

Now we know that Chenla does not translate as Syamla, but still doesn't change that it is still a Monic society. Khmer population does not go that far into Thailand. There was no record of mass migration either.

We can see that The territory of Ancient Chenla were not Khmer. Thus ultimately, the only thing that changes from my theory is the origin of the name

The population of SEA did no wander. When there is a massive migration it would be recorded. Khmers were moved into the Dangrek area in the 9th century. Chenla already prospered before their arrival. (Sdok kok thom)

So then this brings it back to Chenla = Sima? lol Geographic location is accurate

This post has been edited by SabaiSabai: Jan 12 2012, 07:00 PM

[XigonCongchua]

In my very humble speculation Xiêm La (Syam La) was Lavo.


I added in a part about the formation of the name "Xiêm La". Not sure whether you read it.

According to the Annals of Đại Việt (not sure if it's true), originally there were two states in the area. One was called "Xiêm" (Siam) and the other was called Lộ Hạc/La Hồi (Lavo in my speculation). Later, Lavo grew strong and absorbed Siam. That region is then known as "Xiêm La" (Xiêm from Siam and La from La Hồi/Lavo).

So Syam La was basically Lavo absorbing Siam.

The Xiêm La mentioned in the quotes above was supposed to be "Xiêm" only, because at that time Lavo still existed as a separate entity (known as Lộ Hạc or La Hồi to Vietnamese).

However, it's written as Xiêm La in the quote above because later historians confused the original Xiêm with the later Xiêm La, to them Xiêm and Xiêm La were interchangeable.

Lavo was a Mon state as I know, which would make Syam La a Mon state too, but there likely were other ethnicities there, like Wa, Tai, Khmer. I'm not sure whether it has nothing to do with Lao.


Also in my humble belief, there's a strong connection between Lavo and Dvaravati because Xuanzang, famous monk of the Tang dynasty (See Journey to the West), refer to Lavo in his journal as Tou-lo-po-ti (Dvaravati)


Chenla is Khmer for me because it well included the Mekong delta (Southern Vietnam) and present-day Cambodia and the people there are Khmer. If you say they were Mon then where did the Khmer come from? You can't say from the Cham.

[Buddhalove]

it has nothing to do with Lao.

[SabaiSabai]

In my very humble speculation Xiêm La (Syam La) was Lavo.


I added in a part about the formation of the name "Xiêm La". Not sure whether you read it.

According to the Annals of Đại Việt (not sure if it's true), originally there were two states in the area. One was called "Xiêm" (Siam) and the other was called Lộ Hạc/La Hồi (Lavo in my speculation). Later, Lavo grew strong and absorbed Siam. That region is then known as "Xiêm La" (Xiêm from Siam and La from La Hồi/Lavo).

So Syam La was basically Lavo absorbing Siam.

The Xiêm La mentioned in the quotes above was supposed to be "Xiêm" only, because at that time Lavo still existed as a separate entity (known as Lộ Hạc or La Hồi to Vietnamese).

However, it's written as Xiêm La in the quote above because later historians confused the original Xiêm with the later Xiêm La.

Lavo was a Mon state as I know, which would make Syam La a Mon state too, but there likely were other ethnicities there, like Wa, Tai, Khmer. I'm not sure whether it has nothing to do with Lao.


Also in my humble belief, there's a strong connection between Lavo and Dvaravati because Xuanzang, famous monk of the Tang dynasty (See Journey to the West), refer to Lavo in his journal as Tou-lo-po-ti (Dvaravati)

Which would then make Suryavarman II Syamese as he was from Lavo (Phimai to be exact) The Syamese (Mon) built Angkor Wat.

The shift in geographic locations of the ethnic groups were recorded in the chronicles of each nation.
Northern Thailand (Chiang Saen/Lanna) occupied the far north having pushed the Khom (Mon) further south.
The Khmer ethnic group populated the lower mekong delta region until they were moved into the Battambang lower Dangrek area by Jayavarman II (Sdok kok thom inscription)
The Area of Laos was populated by Khmuic (they do not identify themselves as Khmer) people and Lawa (Mon) Northern Laos is Hmong mien and Tai territory.

Suvarnabhaumi is Mon country Mon is the origin of SEA culture.

[PeaceMan]

In my very humble speculation Xiêm La (Syam La) was Lavo.


I added in a part about the formation of the name "Xiêm La". Not sure whether you read it.

According to the Annals of Đại Việt (not sure if it's true), originally there were two states in the area. One was called "Xiêm" (Siam) and the other was called Lộ Hạc/La Hồi (Lavo in my speculation). Later, Lavo grew strong and absorbed Siam. That region is then known as "Xiêm La" (Xiêm from Siam and La from La Hồi/Lavo).

So Syam La was basically Lavo absorbing Siam.

The Xiêm La mentioned in the quotes above was supposed to be "Xiêm" only, because at that time Lavo still existed as a separate entity (known as Lộ Hạc or La Hồi to Vietnamese).

However, it's written as Xiêm La in the quote above because later historians confused the original Xiêm with the later Xiêm La, to them Xiêm and Xiêm La were interchangeable.

Lavo was a Mon state as I know, which would make Syam La a Mon state too, but there likely were other ethnicities there, like Wa, Tai, Khmer. I'm not sure whether it has nothing to do with Lao.


Also in my humble belief, there's a strong connection between Lavo and Dvaravati because Xuanzang, famous monk of the Tang dynasty (See Journey to the West), refer to Lavo in his journal as Tou-lo-po-ti (Dvaravati)


Chenla is Khmer for me because it well included the Mekong delta (Southern Vietnam) and present-day Cambodia and the people there are Khmer. If you say they were Mon then where did the Khmer come from? You can't say from the Cham.

That's exactly what I've been repeating since almost day 1 in here...sadly I couldn't present them as effective as the way you did...


As for Lavo... the Chinese called it "LorHu"...It was actually "Lawapura" the major state of "Dvaravati" the birth place of "JamDevi", the queen of "Haripunjaya"....

Chinese called "Suphanburi" as "Xien/Sien" and "Lavo" as "Lorhu"..."SienLorhu" for "Ayuttaya"(Krungthep "Dvaravati" Sri Ayuttaya)


Here is some info. about us Siamese/Thai

Please read this carefully for more info on... How we Siamese form our Siamese identity...


" intermarriage with the indigenous ruling elite must have been a particularly important mean by which such Tai princes rose gradually to power, the most important of these dynastic connections were formed between the indigenous rulers of the towns of the western fringe of the Chaophraya valley and the house form by Price Phrom. Out of that web of political and kinship relation, centered on the old towns of Suphanburi and Phetburi."

"There was no temporary break in the grand earlier traditions of the region, but rather a fundamental transformation. Elements of earlier tradition persisted, but they were recast in a new mold shaped partly by the circumstances of the era and partly by the charecter of Tai tradition."


"Earlier a major center of Dvaravati civilization and resumably with its own ruling house, Lopburi(Lavo;Lawapura) maintained independence as late as the first years of the eleventh century."

"Lopburi repeated attempts at independence reflect more than political factionalism or regionalism within the Angkorian empire. Lavo, after all, maintained a cultural and religious tradition as heir to Dvaravati and seem to have expressed a non-Khmer ethinic identity based on an earlier Mon-conciousness now tempered by self-conscious (Theravada)Buddhist. As far as Angkor was concerned, Lobburi(Lavo) seem to have represented Syam(i.e.,"Siam") whether as the center of , or more likely as the administration responsible for, that population."

David K. Wyatt




U = (Tai) cradle

Thong= (Austro-Asiantic) gold

UThong = (Austro-Tai) golden cradle


King UThong established "Krungthep Dvaravati Sri Ayuttaya"

Dvaravati = the ancient Theravadha kingdoms of ancient Suwannabhumi

Ayudhaya = the undefeatable city of Sri Rarm

Rarmatibhodi = the title name of King UThong...


Now you do the math...

[PeaceMan]

Sien/Siem/Syam/Siam are actually how they called people from "Suphan" which had strong tie with Lavo/lawapura/Lopburi...

King U-Thong's power base was actully in Lavo/Loburi....It's the sanctuary for Rarmasuan;his son, to seek refuge from his uncle,"Khun Luang Pngua" (ขุนหลวงพะงั่ว) ,his mother's older brother...

So "Siem/Siam" is most likely doesn't mean "black" as many assumed, but rather "gold" from the word "Suphan"...

[SabaiSabai]

That's exactly what I've been repeating since almost day 1 in here...sadly I couldn't present them as effective as the way you did...


As for Lavo... the Chinese called it "LorHu"...It was actually "Lawapura" the major state of "Dvaravati" the birth place of "JamDevi", the queen of "Haripunjaya"....

Chinese called "Suphanburi" as "Xien/Sien" and "Lavo" as "Lorhu"..."SienLorhu" for "Ayuttaya"(Krungthep "Dvaravati" Sri Ayuttaya)


Here is some info. about us Siamese/Thai

Ok, now that we have firmly established where the Syamla is (Suphanabhaumi) we look at the bas relief at Angkor regarding the "Syam kuk" we have historical art from the region from the founding of the city (9th century) does it match with the skirt wearing troops on the Angkor walls? I don't think so.

Suphanburi art is the same art and style of Dvaravati. These were not Jungle people so the Khmer and western interpretation of Syam kuk being jungle people is quite ridiculous

So Syam comes form the word Suphan. Sienla is Suphanla. Chenla minus the "la" will just be Chen... I wonder what kingdom of that era was named as Chen (or something similar o.O)

[PeaceMan]

Ok, now that we have firmly established where the Syamla is (Suphanabhaumi) we look at the bas relief at Angkor regarding the "Syam kuk" we have historical art from the region from the founding of the city (9th century) does it match with the skirt wearing troops on the Angkor walls? I don't think so.

Suphanburi art is the same art and style of Dvaravati. These were not Jungle people so the Khmer and western interpretation of Syam kuk being jungle people is quite ridiculous

So Syam comes form the word Suphan. Sienla is Suphanla. Chenla minus the "la" will just be Chen... I wonder what kingdom of that era was named as Chen (or something similar o.O)

I have to agree that the bas-relief as U mentioned doesn't seem to be the troops from Siam... Anyhow ever do any research on "KOK RIVER" and its relation to Lanna???

[SabaiSabai]

I have to agree that the bas-relief as U mentioned doesn't seem to be the troops from Siam... Anyhow ever do any research on "KOK RIVER" and its relation to Lanna???

I've read a paper that has suggested those tribesmen could be from the Kok river but I haven't really done anything on it yet. Maybe I should get digging 555

Well, I've just looked. Geographically it is pretty smack bang in Tai territory in that period. The power house of the region was Chiang Saen. But as I've mentioned before... Tai people have never worn that kind of clothing or used that type of weaponry. Perhaps these were any of the Hmong, Akha, Lahu, Lawa, Miao, Yao, Lisu, Karen, palong etc etc

The dress style certainly fits in with the Hill people. For example.

http://www.justfoodnow.com/wp-content/uplo...eople-getty.jpg

The the girl on the right of the picture. Does she looks like she has braids? just like the soldiers on the Syam kuk relief.

Seeing as Suphanburi is Syam/Siam why would the hill people be called Syam kuk? different people, different culture. No connection.

This post has been edited by SabaiSabai: Jan 12 2012, 11:17 PM

[PeaceMan]

I've read a paper that has suggested those tribesmen could be from the Kok river but I haven't really done anything on it yet. Maybe I should get digging 555

Well, I've just looked. Geographically it is pretty smack bang in Tai territory in that period. The power house of the region was Chiang Saen. But as I've mentioned before... Tai people have never worn that kind of clothing or used that type of weaponry. Perhaps these were any of the Hmong, Akha, Lahu, Lawa, Miao, Yao, Lisu, Karen, palong etc etc

The dress style certainly fits in with the Hill people. For example.

http://www.justfoodnow.com/wp-content/uplo...eople-getty.jpg

The the girl on the right of the picture. Does she looks like she has braids? just like the soldiers on the Syam kuk relief.

Seeing as Suphanburi is Syam/Siam why would the hill people be called Syam kuk? different people, different culture. No connection.

some believed they're another Tai speaker from the north around the region of Kok river...for differentiation, they put the word "Kok" after "Siem"....BUT...as you just said that still doesn't seem so convincing enuff about the costume and weaponary as of the Tai...

So dig on Detective!...Fight!fight!

[Suriin1234]

Mhmm so we got our culture from Mon ppl? Thang that sucks they lost there whole land and now a minority is some countries.

[SabaiSabai]

Mhmm so we got our culture from Mon ppl? Thang that sucks they lost there whole land and now a minority is some countries.

It is quite tragic I totally agree. They also seem to be the most quiet about it too lol Though it is the Buddhist way.. to live peacefully. No need for fame etc

We all owe the Mon so very much

[PeaceMan]

Mhmm so we got our culture from Mon ppl? Thang that sucks they lost there whole land and now a minority is some countries.

They didn't lost the land...we merged into "Siamese" the Austro-Tai people...

As you can obviously see the "Hongsa" ,as a symbol related to the king, is still being us in many occasion including the SuphanaHongsa royal Barge and etc.

The Mon people said where there is "Hongsa"(หงษ์) there is Mon spirit...

[SabaiSabai]

They didn't lost the land...we merged into "Siamese" the Austro-Tai people...

As you can obviously see the "Hongsa" ,as a symbol related to the king, is still being us in many occasion including the SuphanaHongsa royal Barge and etc.

The Mon people said where there is "Hongsa"(หงษ์) there is Mon spirit...

Well the kings of Thailand are descended from Mon line ^_- As well as a very large amount of mixtures in Thailand. Also Ratchaburi and Nakhon Pathom still has many. I think there was an area in Bangkok given to Mon entirely though I cant remember the name.

The Mon are still around. But not like in the glory days T_T I wouldve loved to see what Dvaravati was like at the zenith of its civilisation.

[PeaceMan]

to be frank I'm more proud of the term "Siam" as it show we are the true melting pot of Suwannabhumi...

[Suriin1234]

Somone should seriously write a theroy about this I wonder what the response would be, but seriously if this publish on khmer newspaper or happened to be on the news aha it's going to get crazy there.