AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

127 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Theory on Angkor, Who were the last Varman kings?
SEAhistory
post Dec 16 2011, 01:12 PM
Post #1


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 3-November 11




After visiting Angkor Wat I have thouroughly studied the history of Angkor Wat. And I've come up with some new theorys that might interest you. Anyone feel free to react and I would like to know all evidence you have to hold against my theory. And please, keep it scientifically and not nationalistically or whatever..

My theory: The last varman kings were theravada buddhists.

Little is known about the history of the last varman kings. The last inscription was in 1327 when Jayavarman IX became the first king. No statues, temples, inscriptions were made from that time. And the first new king of Cambodia that was documented was in 1370 by the Chinese.

My theory begins with Indravarman III (1296 - 1308). Indravarman III, according to the inscriptions made about him, was a Samré (caste slave) soldier that became a general. He married the king's (jayavarman VIII) daughter and with the help of a Brahman priest, he became the next new king under the name Indravarman III.

The link that he was a Samré is very interesting. This can mean that he was of a slave caste, but could also mean he was a negrito (also called Samré). The negritos are still called Samré and this can be inheritaded from the Angkorean period. Which one it is, I am not sure, but one thing that is certain is that he had no royal blood, but still became the next king with the help of a Brahman priest. This Brahman priest holified him and was abviously the brain behind this coupe. According to Zou Daguan the daughter stole the sword and the general became the new king and had the crown prince locked up and cut off his toes and fingers (a rite that enables someone to become a successor). Indravarman III later on married the daughter of this priest, and it was the same priest that made Indrajayavarman the new king. According to another inscription, Indravarman III abdicated in 1308 and went up the hills. Many historians believe him to become a monk then. The first thing that looks strange to me is the fact that Indravarman III married the Brahmans wife (while he allready had a wife, and he was a theravada buddhist). Was his wife against the coup and was she murdered after? Or did she die, or did Indravarman III had more than one wife? He say he abdicated and went to the forest. Many say to become a buddhist monk. But I believe he went to unify the people to gather a strong and powerful army!

All we know from the inscriptions is that the country was happy with the new king as the old king was too old and stubborn to keep the country safe (an inscription state that a powerful new king has risen). I believe that the priest had organised the coup in his country to unify all the people with the thread from surrounding nations like Ah Siem and Vietnam. So in order to safe the country he gave the power to a king that was beloved and a fierce warrior and general. It is also not sure whether Jayavarman VIII was in favour of his son in law or not, but I assume not, because he was a devoted Shivaïst.
What is known about the successors of Indravarman III (Indrajayavarman and Jayavarman IX) from inscriptions is that they were relatives of Indravarman III. And this strikes me odd. Because if it were relatives with royal bloodline, it must have been family through his wife, and are these considered relatives? And if they were relatives of his wife, would they have allowed him to be the next king? I don't think so. I believe the next Varman kings to be relatives of Indravarman III and also theravada buddhists. This explains why no inscriptions in Sanskrit were made (except the one in 1327 by a Hindu priest that worked for the royal family, and also stated that the new king had torn out the city of his enemy), and also no temples/statues etc. Also, there is evidence that the Siamese try to propagate Cambodia in favour of Theravada Buddhism and against Hinduism. The Brahman priest knew that by crowning a new buddhist king, the people would not rise up against the Shivaist controllers in favour of the Siamese. The last inscription can indicate that it was a time of war, and probably there were invasions all of the time, but the Cambodian army fought fierceful and the people had unified themselves under the new kings so they had big armies. As Hinduism and buddhism lived hand in hand in the country for many years, it was not surprising that that the hindu religion declined more and more and that buddhism became the state religion (and the kings new religion). The hinduist probably became more of a sect with the brahman priests as advisors, counselors, etc. So Jayavarman VIII was the last hindu/solar and lunar descended king and what follows were Indravarman III and his two relatives (buddhists). Allthough they were known by their varman name it is far more likely that they were known by another Khmer name, and that the varman suffix became only relevant for the hinduists. Jayavarman VII was also a buddhist and his son a theravada buddhist, so it is appearant that they could live hand in hand together.

Around 1350 the Siamese conquered Angkor but left it because they had not had enough manpower to occupy the country. They had killed the Varman king and relatives but left the country to a Siamese to rule as a vassal. This explains why there were no documented kings of Cambodia by China till 1370. The Siamese wanted to rule as a Theravada "brother" but the Cambodians rose up against the Thai and conquered back their city around 1370. The new kings then send a lot of embassies to China, probably to ask for protection against the Siamese.

What is also interesting is that according to the chronicles of Laos Fa Ngum spent ten years (1341 - 1351) at angkor and brought back to him an army of 10,000 Khmer soldiers and the Cambodian kings daughter as a wife. According to the chronicles the country was still powerful, and the kings daughter was a theravada buddhist! Also, the army he brought back to conquer his country indicates that the Cambodians were assembling their armies and maybe tried to regain control by letting Fa Ngum take over his country. The Cambodians, however, did not manage to hold the Siamese army back and lost. Thtas why Fa Ngum had nothing more to do with Angkor and pursued his own agenda. His Khmer wife died of plague (maybe killed by the Siamese?), and his new wife was Siamese!

By killing the elitist the varman title was not relevant anymore and disappeared, just like the Sanskrit language. By taking many prisoners also, the Siamese wanted to gain the knowledge of the Khmers and also they saw them as strong people to have in their kingdom (according to Thai documents). In 1431 the Thai took revenge on the coup of 1370 and captured 100,000 Khmers and ravaged and looted the city. Andt this invasion was the last strike to kill off the Angkorean culture. What remained were Khmers without tutors and leaders, that were oppressed by Siamese and Vietnamese. The Siamese oppressed the theravada buddhism and the vietnamese mahayana bhuddism. As theravada bhuddism was already strong, the remaining people with another religion must have changed religions. Bhuddist monecaries also became the center points for learning and ciommunity. The modern Khmer language is also a simplified version of old Khmer with influence of a lot of Thai, Vietnamese, Lao words. There is no sign of an extra "jungle"language derrived from the Khmer people instead of "Khom"people, lol..

I think the current day Cambodians are a mix of the descendants of Angkor (with paternal Indian ancestry/Mon-Khmer), mixed with the uneducated hilltribe/jungle/farmer people (Mon-Khmer people). This is also shown in their DNA (haplo P* on paternal side). It is not strange that in 600 years a language and culture completely changes and that the current day Cambodians dont know about Angkor anymore without documentation. And now consider the same thing, but with oppresion of three different nations and a civil war that took out ten procent of the people! It is foolish to say that there were Khom and Khamen (Khmer). The Cham had a very similar history and noone calls them the "Chom"and the Cham. The Cham were also Indianised Hinduists that lost their culture and (sacred) language. Now they are all muslim, but I do not hear anyone saying that the current day Cham are not descended of kingdom of Champa. They also had a native language and holy language: Sanskrit. Their written language began around the same time. The Cham were sufficient in using their own language instead of Sanskrit in sacred texts at one point, but the Khmers kept Sanskrit as holy language. The sankrit inscriptions from the Khmer are also very textual, like they were taught from a book. This also means that their native language was most appearantly Old Khmer. And also the animistic influence of Mon-Khmer tribes is obvious in the temples and ruins of Angkor.

The word Khamen was introduced when a Thai king received lessons from the French about ettiquette that the Thai king didnt feel the relevance to call the Cambodians Khom (high regarded word). He saw them as filthy jungle people and introduced the word Khamen, not understanding that his people had made the uneducated the way they were. Also, there is no documentation of any proof that the rulers were of another ethnicity. Not by Zou Daguan (though he describes the different people) nor by the Chinese (the Chinese damn sure knew who the Indians were, why not referring to them (kings) as Indians?). Because they were the same race of their people. All the people with their own language and culture stayed together (as you had Mon territory, Mon-Khmer territory and Cham territorie, etc.). The Mon-Khmer people lived in the kingdom, because the kingdom was Mon-Khmer territory! The inscription of Jayavarman II also describes the king to go back to the land of his ancestors from Java. If he saw himself as an Indian, why not go to India?

Many Thai people also refer to the Chronicles of Cambodia. With the melon farmer killing the king. This story is complete bull$hit! If this was really the case, China would have had documentation about this (they diddnt have documentation about a new king till 1370). And if it was a slave revolt, it would mean that the whole kingdom collapsed, but there is no sign of this anywhere. On the contrary, there is many evidence that thecountry was still flourishing through the fourteenth century and still had powerful armies (which means good leadership)! If this story really happened it must have been about Indravarman III. Took the kings wife, was a commoner and usurped the throne. This could also mean that the brother from the story was actually Indrajayavarman! This story was also told before and can therefore not hold any importance of truth.

What is also interesting is that many historians believe that the Thais still have documentation about this period, but refuse to make them public and keep them secret. This could mean: 1) They did something so shameful they dont want anyone to know, 2) It gives the Khmer so much credit, that it would harm their postion regarding border/temple dispute.

The last thing to say is that the caste system in Angkor was not the same as from India. It may have existed through the earliest period of Indian colonization, but there is many evidence the caste system was not built on ethnics or was oviously there. The Angkoreans who descended from the highest caste probably remained high castes, but there were many other ways to climb the ladder. 1) to become a tmple builder (there are inscriptions praising the labourers for building the temples etcetera and holding them in high regard, it is also very likely that the building of evreything was a matter of corvee instead of slavery), 2) to become a good soldier/general (just like Indravarman III), 3) to become a buddhist monk (according to Zou Daguan some monks were very high regarded and had many gold, 4) to become a Apsara dancer (beautiful women were brought to the royal court according to Zou Daguan), so this indicates that the caste system was not so relevant in Angkor, and no sign of differnt Ethnic ruling another ethnicity. Also the pictures of the Varman kings do not look Indian but Khmer!







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AndroidBingBinG
post Dec 16 2011, 02:25 PM
Post #2


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 6-December 11




I completely agree with you're finding. It's true to way the Thai people today are so lost and confused about their own history. It was because of their own people who blinded their own for believing them. This in fact will crumble Thai history for a very long time and also Thai will loss face among its neighbors and people who in the past highly thought of them. That is why Thai history seem to not fit so well with its neighbors.

Also the Thais are doing the same thing with the Lao history and its heritage as to the Khmer today. They are using history with politic to clean out every bit of our identity and heritage to the world first.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nhoona
post Dec 16 2011, 07:20 PM
Post #3


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,751
Joined: 17-August 06




Lao and Khmer,

Please dont blam others, the world know you killed your own people not others.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weareallone
post Dec 16 2011, 09:21 PM
Post #4


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 5-August 11




thanks for the write up, some interesting pints there. however, I believed the Khom theory was already debunked. you should post this as a retort to LEEPORTER. I believe he is the author of the last varman kings.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/cambodia/...8U8VQ8CIAB5/p10


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Dec 16 2011, 10:04 PM
Post #5


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,953
Joined: 30-July 11
From: PHNOM PENH




QUOTE (Nhoona @ Dec 17 2011, 07:20 AM) *
Lao and Khmer,

Please dont blam others, the world know you killed your own people not others.

If so why the world help Khmer to establish the ECCC for looking for the truth about who killed the Khmer? Because they know who behide this!!! You should back to school and learn how to think more deeply!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AndroidBingBinG
post Dec 16 2011, 10:39 PM
Post #6


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 6-December 11




I think Lao and Khmer should share our knowledge about the Thai people and their mentality for the future political and history terminology for our grand kids. Thai has always been under dog against both country and people. Just because Thailand develop ahead of us. They think they can fabricate their history and ours to the world that they are telling the truth. But we both know they are lying just to save face to the world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Dec 16 2011, 10:51 PM
Post #7


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,953
Joined: 30-July 11
From: PHNOM PENH




QUOTE (AndroidBingBinG @ Dec 17 2011, 10:39 AM) *
I think Lao and Khmer should share our knowledge about the Thai people and their mentality for the future political and history terminology for our grand kids. Thai has always been under dog against both country and people. Just because Thailand develop ahead of us. They think they can fabricate their history and ours to the world that they are telling the truth. But we both know they are lying just to save face to the world.

I still remeber that the Lao government come to visit Cambodia for the Cambodia-Thai border distute.

You great idea highly appreciated.. this should be our culture and history share to protect our indentity again our join enemy. ^^

This post has been edited by KhmerBoi: Dec 16 2011, 10:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AndroidBingBinG
post Dec 16 2011, 10:59 PM
Post #8


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 6-December 11




QUOTE (KhmerBoi @ Dec 16 2011, 11:51 PM) *
I still remeber that the Lao government come to visit Cambodia for the Cambodia-Thai border distute.

You great idea highly appreciated.. this should be our culture and history share to protect our indentity again our join enemy. ^^


Don't forget the Burmese. I'm sure they will join us for our quest to protect our identity and history from these Thai manipulator. beerchug.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Dec 16 2011, 11:03 PM
Post #9


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,953
Joined: 30-July 11
From: PHNOM PENH




lol I think Malaysian would love to join too! ^^ and let the Vietnames consider them self but i believe they will see that it a great opportunity for them! ^^ and Singarpore will just club their hand together with Indonesia!! ^^

This post has been edited by KhmerBoi: Dec 16 2011, 11:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AndroidBingBinG
post Dec 16 2011, 11:07 PM
Post #10


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 6-December 11




QUOTE (KhmerBoi @ Dec 17 2011, 12:03 AM) *
lol I think Malaysian would love to join too! ^^ and let the Vietnames consider them self but i believe they will see that it a great opportunity for them! ^^ and Singarpore will just club their hand together with Indonesia!! ^^

embarassedlaugh.gif Yes the Malaysian and their Muslim brother and sister being shot in the head like crazy from those Thai Junta Elite. Also they are being discriminated just like their own Isaan Thai people from the North East Thailand or Red shirt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PeaceMan
post Dec 17 2011, 07:43 AM
Post #11


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,328
Joined: 3-June 07




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 16 2011, 01:12 PM) *
After visiting Angkor Wat I have thouroughly studied the history of Angkor Wat. And I've come up with some new theorys that might interest you. Anyone feel free to react and I would like to know all evidence you have to hold against my theory. And please, keep it scientifically and not nationalistically or whatever..

My theory: The last varman kings were theravada buddhists.

Little is known about the history of the last varman kings. The last inscription was in 1327 when Jayavarman IX became the first king. No statues, temples, inscriptions were made from that time. And the first new king of Cambodia that was documented was in 1370 by the Chinese.

My theory begins with Indravarman III (1296 - 1308). Indravarman III, according to the inscriptions made about him, was a Samré (caste slave) soldier that became a general. He married the king's (jayavarman VIII) daughter and with the help of a Brahman priest, he became the next new king under the name Indravarman III.

The link that he was a Samré is very interesting. This can mean that he was of a slave caste, but could also mean he was a negrito (also called Samré). The negritos are still called Samré and this can be inheritaded from the Angkorean period. Which one it is, I am not sure, but one thing that is certain is that he had no royal blood, but still became the next king with the help of a Brahman priest. This Brahman priest holified him and was abviously the brain behind this coupe. According to Zou Daguan the daughter stole the sword and the general became the new king and had the crown prince locked up and cut off his toes and fingers (a rite that enables someone to become a successor). Indravarman III later on married the daughter of this priest, and it was the same priest that made Indrajayavarman the new king. According to another inscription, Indravarman III abdicated in 1308 and went up the hills. Many historians believe him to become a monk then. The first thing that looks strange to me is the fact that Indravarman III married the Brahmans wife (while he allready had a wife, and he was a theravada buddhist). Was his wife against the coup and was she murdered after? Or did she die, or did Indravarman III had more than one wife? He say he abdicated and went to the forest. Many say to become a buddhist monk. But I believe he went to unify the people to gather a strong and powerful army!

All we know from the inscriptions is that the country was happy with the new king as the old king was too old and stubborn to keep the country safe (an inscription state that a powerful new king has risen). I believe that the priest had organised the coup in his country to unify all the people with the thread from surrounding nations like Ah Siem and Vietnam. So in order to safe the country he gave the power to a king that was beloved and a fierce warrior and general. It is also not sure whether Jayavarman VIII was in favour of his son in law or not, but I assume not, because he was a devoted Shivaïst.
What is known about the successors of Indravarman III (Indrajayavarman and Jayavarman IX) from inscriptions is that they were relatives of Indravarman III. And this strikes me odd. Because if it were relatives with royal bloodline, it must have been family through his wife, and are these considered relatives? And if they were relatives of his wife, would they have allowed him to be the next king? I don't think so. I believe the next Varman kings to be relatives of Indravarman III and also theravada buddhists. This explains why no inscriptions in Sanskrit were made (except the one in 1327 by a Hindu priest that worked for the royal family, and also stated that the new king had torn out the city of his enemy), and also no temples/statues etc. Also, there is evidence that the Siamese try to propagate Cambodia in favour of Theravada Buddhism and against Hinduism. The Brahman priest knew that by crowning a new buddhist king, the people would not rise up against the Shivaist controllers in favour of the Siamese. The last inscription can indicate that it was a time of war, and probably there were invasions all of the time, but the Cambodian army fought fierceful and the people had unified themselves under the new kings so they had big armies. As Hinduism and buddhism lived hand in hand in the country for many years, it was not surprising that that the hindu religion declined more and more and that buddhism became the state religion (and the kings new religion). The hinduist probably became more of a sect with the brahman priests as advisors, counselors, etc. So Jayavarman VIII was the last hindu/solar and lunar descended king and what follows were Indravarman III and his two relatives (buddhists). Allthough they were known by their varman name it is far more likely that they were known by another Khmer name, and that the varman suffix became only relevant for the hinduists. Jayavarman VII was also a buddhist and his son a theravada buddhist, so it is appearant that they could live hand in hand together.

Around 1350 the Siamese conquered Angkor but left it because they had not had enough manpower to occupy the country. They had killed the Varman king and relatives but left the country to a Siamese to rule as a vassal. This explains why there were no documented kings of Cambodia by China till 1370. The Siamese wanted to rule as a Theravada "brother" but the Cambodians rose up against the Thai and conquered back their city around 1370. The new kings then send a lot of embassies to China, probably to ask for protection against the Siamese.

What is also interesting is that according to the chronicles of Laos Fa Ngum spent ten years (1341 - 1351) at angkor and brought back to him an army of 10,000 Khmer soldiers and the Cambodian kings daughter as a wife. According to the chronicles the country was still powerful, and the kings daughter was a theravada buddhist! Also, the army he brought back to conquer his country indicates that the Cambodians were assembling their armies and maybe tried to regain control by letting Fa Ngum take over his country. The Cambodians, however, did not manage to hold the Siamese army back and lost. Thtas why Fa Ngum had nothing more to do with Angkor and pursued his own agenda. His Khmer wife died of plague (maybe killed by the Siamese?), and his new wife was Siamese!

By killing the elitist the varman title was not relevant anymore and disappeared, just like the Sanskrit language. By taking many prisoners also, the Siamese wanted to gain the knowledge of the Khmers and also they saw them as strong people to have in their kingdom (according to Thai documents). In 1431 the Thai took revenge on the coup of 1370 and captured 100,000 Khmers and ravaged and looted the city. Andt this invasion was the last strike to kill off the Angkorean culture. What remained were Khmers without tutors and leaders, that were oppressed by Siamese and Vietnamese. The Siamese oppressed the theravada buddhism and the vietnamese mahayana bhuddism. As theravada bhuddism was already strong, the remaining people with another religion must have changed religions. Bhuddist monecaries also became the center points for learning and ciommunity. The modern Khmer language is also a simplified version of old Khmer with influence of a lot of Thai, Vietnamese, Lao words. There is no sign of an extra "jungle"language derrived from the Khmer people instead of "Khom"people, lol..

I think the current day Cambodians are a mix of the descendants of Angkor (with paternal Indian ancestry/Mon-Khmer), mixed with the uneducated hilltribe/jungle/farmer people (Mon-Khmer people). This is also shown in their DNA (haplo P* on paternal side). It is not strange that in 600 years a language and culture completely changes and that the current day Cambodians dont know about Angkor anymore without documentation. And now consider the same thing, but with oppresion of three different nations and a civil war that took out ten procent of the people! It is foolish to say that there were Khom and Khamen (Khmer). The Cham had a very similar history and noone calls them the "Chom"and the Cham. The Cham were also Indianised Hinduists that lost their culture and (sacred) language. Now they are all muslim, but I do not hear anyone saying that the current day Cham are not descended of kingdom of Champa. They also had a native language and holy language: Sanskrit. Their written language began around the same time. The Cham were sufficient in using their own language instead of Sanskrit in sacred texts at one point, but the Khmers kept Sanskrit as holy language. The sankrit inscriptions from the Khmer are also very textual, like they were taught from a book. This also means that their native language was most appearantly Old Khmer. And also the animistic influence of Mon-Khmer tribes is obvious in the temples and ruins of Angkor.

The word Khamen was introduced when a Thai king received lessons from the French about ettiquette that the Thai king didnt feel the relevance to call the Cambodians Khom (high regarded word). He saw them as filthy jungle people and introduced the word Khamen, not understanding that his people had made the uneducated the way they were. Also, there is no documentation of any proof that the rulers were of another ethnicity. Not by Zou Daguan (though he describes the different people) nor by the Chinese (the Chinese damn sure knew who the Indians were, why not referring to them (kings) as Indians?). Because they were the same race of their people. All the people with their own language and culture stayed together (as you had Mon territory, Mon-Khmer territory and Cham territorie, etc.). The Mon-Khmer people lived in the kingdom, because the kingdom was Mon-Khmer territory! The inscription of Jayavarman II also describes the king to go back to the land of his ancestors from Java. If he saw himself as an Indian, why not go to India?

Many Thai people also refer to the Chronicles of Cambodia. With the melon farmer killing the king. This story is complete bull$hit! If this was really the case, China would have had documentation about this (they diddnt have documentation about a new king till 1370). And if it was a slave revolt, it would mean that the whole kingdom collapsed, but there is no sign of this anywhere. On the contrary, there is many evidence that thecountry was still flourishing through the fourteenth century and still had powerful armies (which means good leadership)! If this story really happened it must have been about Indravarman III. Took the kings wife, was a commoner and usurped the throne. This could also mean that the brother from the story was actually Indrajayavarman! This story was also told before and can therefore not hold any importance of truth.

What is also interesting is that many historians believe that the Thais still have documentation about this period, but refuse to make them public and keep them secret. This could mean: 1) They did something so shameful they dont want anyone to know, 2) It gives the Khmer so much credit, that it would harm their postion regarding border/temple dispute.

The last thing to say is that the caste system in Angkor was not the same as from India. It may have existed through the earliest period of Indian colonization, but there is many evidence the caste system was not built on ethnics or was oviously there. The Angkoreans who descended from the highest caste probably remained high castes, but there were many other ways to climb the ladder. 1) to become a tmple builder (there are inscriptions praising the labourers for building the temples etcetera and holding them in high regard, it is also very likely that the building of evreything was a matter of corvee instead of slavery), 2) to become a good soldier/general (just like Indravarman III), 3) to become a buddhist monk (according to Zou Daguan some monks were very high regarded and had many gold, 4) to become a Apsara dancer (beautiful women were brought to the royal court according to Zou Daguan), so this indicates that the caste system was not so relevant in Angkor, and no sign of differnt Ethnic ruling another ethnicity. Also the pictures of the Varman kings do not look Indian but Khmer!



1)Is there any record of a normal man or slave as temple builder, or only the royalty and Bhramin priest??? Since the person must be very powerful & rich enuff to accomplished that type of constructions.

2)How does Zou Daguan described the appearance of Indravaraman III??? Some historians suspected that he's of other ethnic due to his very white complexion...Some thought of Theravada King Sri Indratitya and his Khmer princess of Sukhothai after they left the kindom for his friend to ruled...

4)As for Bhraman's believe... Apsaras are angels, which mean if you could become an Apsara of the temple or royal court ,very much likely you're already upgraded from normal people...which also mean the person could only became the King's concubine, but not a King, am I correct?

Just some questions & another point of view & assumptions....

This post has been edited by PeaceMan: Dec 17 2011, 07:48 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AndroidBingBinG
post Dec 17 2011, 07:15 PM
Post #12


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 6-December 11




You have to remember that these caste system is still in used today in India. Without the powerful Javanese and the Indian prince from India their would never be a Khmer today. Also without the Khmer or the Mon, their would never be a Siamese. Javanese people are the native people of SEA who can be trace along with the aboriginal people before India explorer came about into SEA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SEAhistory
post Dec 18 2011, 06:49 PM
Post #13


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 3-November 11




[quote name='PeaceMan' date='Dec 17 2011, 08:43 AM' post='4963460']
1)Is there any record of a normal man or slave as temple builder, or only the royalty and Bhramin priest??? Since the person must be very powerful & rich enuff to accomplished that type of constructions.

According to George Coedes:

"Caste was never adopted in Khmer society: the notion of varna was used to grade folk at the royal court, but membership was allocated by the king. The king:

seems to have combined the secular, military role of a Kshatriya with the religious functions and ideology of a Brahmin (p.134).
The virtue of being able to pick and choose which parts of Indian culture and civilisation one found useful: the monarchs being the dominant pickers and choosers.

As for the peasant farmers (about 80% of the population in most agrarian societies), such rice farmers were:

subject to regular corvee labour and to occasional military service, and obligated to provide goods and services to the religious foundations, to landlords, to the mandarin bureaucracy, and to the king. Many of these laboured on the estates of large landholders, while others were attached to specific temples; and some were dedicated to providing the palace with certain types of products. Some of these sound like serfs, but little is known about serfdom in ancient Cambodia (p.134).
Where wealth comes from control of labour rather than (plentiful) land, some form of bondage is likely: if they were forbidden to leave without permission, then they were serfs. Either way, it seems likely that labour service was how land rent was paid.

Which leads to the issue of khnum “usually translated as ‘slave’”. In the C19th, outright slaves were of two sorts:

1) debt slaves, a theoretically temporary category, and 2) slaves for life, who were far less numerous, and who were either those who had been sold by their parents during childhood, or aboriginal Mon-Khmer tribesmen captured in the eastern highlands (these were treated abominably by the Khmer majority). The Classic inscriptions describe three kinds of slaves: 1) slaves legally acquired, 2) slaves who are inherited, and 3) religious slaves (p.134).
. Chinese chronicler Zhou Daguan says of the full slaves:

If young and strong, slaves may be worth a hundred pieces of cloth: when old and feeble, they can be had for thirty or forty pieces (p.134).
This being a barter economy based ultimately on control of labour. Indeed, it seems likely that khnum actually described “obligated provider of labour”:

The reality is that while khnum could never be aristocratic or bureaucrats (no individual khnum ever belonged to the varna), the term covered a wide spectrum of society from peasant commoners to the most abject tribal chattels living in degradation on the ground floor with the animals (p.135).
The ultimate font of authority was the raj (Sanskrit) or stach (Old Khmer). He was executive ruler, chief judge and law-giver. He had to rule through agents, who had their own kin and other networks: a clear limitation on his power, a limitation that varied with the “vigour” and circumstances of particular monarchs. There are few surviving portraits of monarchs, who lived in the centre of thousands of servitors. A teenage prince would have a Vrah Guru, a Brahmin teacher entrusted with his instruction according to the classic Indian texts (Pp135ff).

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SEAhistory
post Dec 18 2011, 07:08 PM
Post #14


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 3-November 11




2)How does Zou Daguan described the appearance of Indravaraman III??? Some historians suspected that he's of other ethnic due to his very white complexion...Some thought of Theravada King Sri Indratitya and his Khmer princess of Sukhothai after they left the kindom for his friend to ruled...

Yeah Ive heard of this theory and it is very plausible. But there are a number of things that contradict this.

1. Indravarman III was referred to in incriptions as a Samré. Also they mention him being a soldier and later a general.
2. There is no mentioning of this from anyone or anything. If Indravarman III was indeed of another ethnic, you would expect this to come up in the descriptions of Zou Daguan or in the inscriptions of Angkor.

Now, the white complexion. This could indeed indicate another ethnicity, but there is also a Indian cultural custom of painting the skin white (with powder) by high officials. According to Zou Daguan he had a very white complexion, but does not mention this in regard of his skin or ethnicity.

Also, there is a inscription made from Indravarman III in Pali and also Old Khmer. This could indicate that his native language was Khmer and his holy language Pali.

When a varman king was of another ethnicity (as were the case with referrence to Cham, Tamil, India, etc.) you would expect there to be a referration about Indravarman III as well, more so because his time was better documented than before.

The only theory about Indra III being Siamese is because of the buddhist religion and the timeline that was about similar. There is further no evidence whatsoever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SEAhistory
post Dec 18 2011, 07:24 PM
Post #15


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 3-November 11




4)As for Bhraman's believe... Apsaras are angels, which mean if you could become an Apsara of the temple or royal court ,very much likely you're already upgraded from normal people...which also mean the person could only became the King's concubine, but not a King, am I correct?

According to Zou Daguan, beautiful women were send to the court to serve the monarch. But what function would they rather do than Apsara? The Apsara were a vast group in the royal court and what is also interesting is that the sculptures (more than 1700) look very different from eachother (in terms of facial structure, clothes, etc.), and can therefore be more likely portrets of actual women whom were there. Also, this could indicate a different ethnical background, which further indicates that also women who were not Angkorean could become Apsaras. As they were high regarded, it could mean that chosen women got an important function and therefor became a important individual with more privileges. But how the Apsaras were chosen is not clear from any evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PeaceMan
post Dec 18 2011, 07:39 PM
Post #16


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,328
Joined: 3-June 07




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 18 2011, 07:08 PM) *
2)How does Zou Daguan described the appearance of Indravaraman III??? Some historians suspected that he's of other ethnic due to his very white complexion...Some thought of Theravada King Sri Indratitya and his Khmer princess of Sukhothai after they left the kindom for his friend to ruled...

Yeah Ive heard of this theory and it is very plausible. But there are a number of things that contradict this.

1. Indravarman III was referred to in incriptions as a Samré. Also they mention him being a soldier and later a general.
2. There is no mentioning of this from anyone or anything. If Indravarman III was indeed of another ethnic, you would expect this to come up in the descriptions of Zou Daguan or in the inscriptions of Angkor.

Now, the white complexion. This could indeed indicate another ethnicity, but there is also a Indian cultural custom of painting the skin white (with powder) by high officials. According to Zou Daguan he had a very white complexion, but does not mention this in regard of his skin or ethnicity.

Also, there is a inscription made from Indravarman III in Pali and also Old Khmer. This could indicate that his native language was Khmer and his holy language Pali.

When a varman king was of another ethnicity (as were the case with referrence to Cham, Tamil, India, etc.) you would expect there to be a referration about Indravarman III as well, more so because his time was better documented than before.

The only theory about Indra III being Siamese is because of the buddhist religion and the timeline that was about similar. There is further no evidence whatsoever.


But ofcoz he didn't said the king was some other ethnic, all he does was a veraciously recorded what he observed...also he recorded the slave of very dark skin with curly hair and ect...

So in your opinion...when Zou Daguan recorded him as white , he decided not to mention that he was covered in paint nor the painting custom?...that's interesting...

Anyhow...About Indravarman was a son in law from Sukhnothai kingdom with the help from his Khmer wife to ruled over Khmer and use Khmer language to communicate, that is just some assumption... nothing much...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AndroidBingBinG
post Dec 18 2011, 07:55 PM
Post #17


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 6-December 11




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 18 2011, 07:08 PM) *
2)How does Zou Daguan described the appearance of Indravaraman III??? Some historians suspected that he's of other ethnic due to his very white complexion...Some thought of Theravada King Sri Indratitya and his Khmer princess of Sukhothai after they left the kindom for his friend to ruled...

Yeah Ive heard of this theory and it is very plausible. But there are a number of things that contradict this.

1. Indravarman III was referred to in incriptions as a Samré. Also they mention him being a soldier and later a general.
2. There is no mentioning of this from anyone or anything. If Indravarman III was indeed of another ethnic, you would expect this to come up in the descriptions of Zou Daguan or in the inscriptions of Angkor.

Now, the white complexion. This could indeed indicate another ethnicity, but there is also a Indian cultural custom of painting the skin white (with powder) by high officials. According to Zou Daguan he had a very white complexion, but does not mention this in regard of his skin or ethnicity.

Also, there is a inscription made from Indravarman III in Pali and also Old Khmer. This could indicate that his native language was Khmer and his holy language Pali.

When a varman king was of another ethnicity (as were the case with referrence to Cham, Tamil, India, etc.) you would expect there to be a referration about Indravarman III as well, more so because his time was better documented than before.

The only theory about Indra III being Siamese is because of the buddhist religion and the timeline that was about similar. There is further no evidence whatsoever.


It doesn't matter how you put the Siamese into their time line. They still arrived from the Khmer/Mon first. All other history was either before or after that has shown in history that the Siamese never existed until the two Khmer and Mon kingdom establish it self. Without these two ethnic kingdom. Their would never be Thailand or Siamese today. And plus they would never discovered who was the Tai people were since Thai today do not recognized what Tai really mean like most Tai minority who were never assimilated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Dec 18 2011, 08:18 PM
Post #18


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,953
Joined: 30-July 11
From: PHNOM PENH




QUOTE (AndroidBingBinG @ Dec 18 2011, 07:15 AM) *
You have to remember that these caste system is still in used today in India. Without the powerful Javanese and the Indian prince from India their would never be a Khmer today. Also without the Khmer or the Mon, their would never be a Siamese. Javanese people are the native people of SEA who can be trace along with the aboriginal people before India explorer came about into SEA.


Nope, Javanese not a native people in SEA mainland specifically Cambodia, the Indian already know and trad with us, some scholar believe that Mahayana Buddhism have already existed before Javanese Brahmanism come... We actually establish our Kingdom and our queen was name Neang Neak according to Chinese call her Lievyee, and Soma according to Inscription. Please be aware of our unique which power is give to the woman not a man, it is really opposite from the Indian and Chinese.

All the crown king of Funan-Chenla-Angkor must from at least the mother side not father. According to inscription and Zhu Daguan, the power is give to the woman in the family she have right to make all the decisions even without asking the her husband..... the evidence that existen in our lagnuage is all main power and something very important espeacailly in leadership we always add the word Mee meaning mother, for example: MeTeub (Commander) MeDei (thumb) MeePhum (Village Chief) Mee (Boss), Meekar (Manager)...... So even without Javanese who come on the 1st century there is still another Indian who name Kaundinya come in the 3th century. ^^
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Dec 18 2011, 08:50 PM
Post #19


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,953
Joined: 30-July 11
From: PHNOM PENH




Even though the king Indravaraman got the white skin he still can be Samre.. Because when I visit Rattanakiri at the Tompoun Aboriginal village some of them have the white skin as well. and they are not mix. ^^
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AndroidBingBinG
post Dec 18 2011, 09:38 PM
Post #20


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 6-December 11




QUOTE (KhmerBoi @ Dec 18 2011, 08:50 PM) *
Even though the king Indravaraman got the white skin he still can be Samre.. Because when I visit Rattanakiri at the Tompoun Aboriginal village some of them have the white skin as well. and they are not mix. ^^

Actually I am talking about the earlier Khmer civilization. Without the Javanese or the Indian in SEA. Their wouldn't be no Khmer or other civilization who created writing and culture.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

127 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th November 2014 - 12:21 AM