AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

127 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 11 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Theory on Angkor, Who were the last Varman kings?
SabaiSabai
post Jan 7 2012, 01:40 PM
Post #161


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,807
Joined: 4-January 09




QUOTE (KM0000 @ Jan 7 2012, 11:37 AM) *
.
I thank you very much. We always need somebody on the spot, when we travel like that.
From 1963 to 1973, I lived in the Grey Building, which was located at the Island of Koh Pich, in Phnom Penh.


 I do not understand why, here, we question the existence of the Khmer Empire, because, for example, there is the map of the Khmer Empire, on Wikipedia :



Lol You base your understanding of it from a map "based" on the idea of a Khmer empire.

I can show you a map of the Mongol empire. Doesn't make everyone a Mongol. I can show you a map of Siam, doesn't make everyone siamese. I would love to believe in a Khmer empire but the fact that there is so much evidence which says it is just fiction prevents me.

I can show pictures of flying pigs, doesn't mean pigs can fly.

Just based on the definition of the word EMPIRE would have been enough to 100% say there was no EMPIRE. However, it is hard to remove 200 years of brainwashing.

Bonjour mon ami, bienvenue de la forum icon_smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KM0000
post Jan 7 2012, 04:28 PM
Post #162


Newbie
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 5-January 12
From: Paris. France




.
.
Excuse me, but I will answer to you tomorrow.  Here, it is 11:25 p.m. !

To Suriin1234: No, in fact I lived NEAR Koh Pich, in the Grey Building, and I think that the island of Koh Pich did not exist at that time ! I'll explain you all this, in a new topic, which I'll create tomorrow.

To SabaiSabai:  Thank you for your welcome. I see that you speak French well. That pleases me ! Regarding the history of Cambodia, I do not know too much... I do not have time at the moment. It must be very complicated. It would be necessary to look in all the archives. And if there are no writings of this period (for France, there are), then maybe there would be inscriptions on the stones of the temples of Angkor.

Until tomorrow!....
.
.

This post has been edited by KM0000: Jan 7 2012, 04:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Jan 7 2012, 08:24 PM
Post #163


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (KM0000 @ Jan 7 2012, 10:35 PM) *
.
.
Does a new, on this forum, have to make its introduction ? Is there a place for that?
.
.
.
For KhmerBoi :

I thank you for your welcome (ârkun ).
I do not know much about history, unfortunately.
Here, in France, they speak only about money , and the crisis. My head is very very tired. Anyway, in France, they speak about the crisis since 1985. Crisis, crisis, crisis, etc ...

I will leave for Cambodia to "wash my head," and then to live simply. And I will be able, then, to study the history.

I am on this Forum, to change me the ideas, while waiting for to leave for Cambodia. Because in France, we can't change the ideas, because they speak only about the crisis, and furthermore there is never sun.  It is a country of madmen. (Lol).

Well ! I leave you ! I am going to go to do my jogging.
.
.


Hehehheehe Take your time dear.. whatever if you gonna come to Cambodia no need to put your head on history it just full of crap... better left your life and enjoys you have have rest of your life!!! ^^ We enjoys of what we have and we just wanna make it better!!! ^^

Hehehheheh Enjoys!! But if you come to Cambodia just enjoys your life History is full of crap as well if we put our head in... ^^ The good think is we happy of what we have so far.. and make it better!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Jan 7 2012, 08:32 PM
Post #164


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Suriin1234 @ Jan 7 2012, 11:34 PM) *
I thought Koh Pich don't have ppl living there until now.


Lolzz that must be suprice you then!!! Koh Pich is fulfill with a lot of people I can't drive there on Friday-Sunday is was always stuck in one spot even though there are 5 bridges available for that tiny Island!! ^^
Before the Koh Pich City existed there is already people who live there and there is a pagoda on that Island.. According to my Dadii who is the Phnom Penh resident say that that area was the secret place of spirits.. many sacret thing happening to that erea.. especailly where it make the accidence two year a go on one of that Bridge.

Koh Pich is still under construction!!! and their future look just look like this below, and in future I will live there as well as my parent bought a Villa in the Elite Town on the Island.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.p...8385&page=4

This post has been edited by KhmerBoi: Jan 7 2012, 08:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoveIsAllAround
post Jan 9 2012, 10:09 AM
Post #165


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,366
Joined: 14-August 11




Khmer Empire = Monkey Empire 555+
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KM0000
post Jan 11 2012, 05:09 PM
Post #166


Newbie
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 5-January 12
From: Paris. France




.
.
To KhmerBoi,
To Suriin1234,
To SabaiSabai,
etc... 

Sorry. I was not there, because I was very busy, these last days.

I have a very important question:
how to do to put a photo, so that it is real size ? Because those I have already put, are reduced compared to the original size ! If I want to continue my explanations about Koh Pich, I have to put photos with a normal size.



QUOTE
KhmerBoi said: " Hehehheehe Take your time dear.. whatever if you gonna come to Cambodia no need to put your head on history it just full of crap... better left your life and enjoys you have have rest of your life!!! ^^ We enjoys of what we have and we just wanna make it better!!! ^^

Hehehheheh Enjoys!! But if you come to Cambodia just enjoys your life History is full of crap as well if we put our head in... ^^ The good think is we happy of what we have so far.. and make it better!!! "

.
I agree with you. I am exactly with your opinion. ( And it is the present which is important ).
Thank you for having said it. But, I consider that this idea, has to remain a secret, which should not get out of the limits of Cambodia. Anyway, thank you for having confirmed, of what I already thought.
You are really Khmer, you. You are optimistic, etc., etc. That's why I like very much the Khmers. I have excellent memories of the period 1963-1973 when I was in Cambodia, and where I was a child. The Cambodians: very nice, never problem. It's me, on the contrary that have regrets: for example, some gave me gifts, and I forgot to thank, and I had not thought to do myself a gift for them...  But I was 12 years or 14 years old only...
The Khmers offer a very good education for the children.
.
.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SEAhistory
post Jan 11 2012, 08:39 PM
Post #167


AF Fiend
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Jan 4 2012, 10:40 PM) *
[b]Youve already proven that Khmer people inhabited the land of the rulers of Angkor.

Rulers of Angkor Came from The line of Chenla. All can be linked back to Chenla which is NOT in Khmer territory. Khmer were in the area but were NOT the rulers. The evidence is quite clear. Some people just refuse to look at it and see it for what it is.

Khmers were the peasants/slaves of Angkor. Can you provide any evidence that they RULED Angkor?[/b]

There you are wrong. The Khmer people inhabited the land which was Chenla. Thats why everybody knows the rulers were Khmer. It's funny, first LeePorter claimed the rulers were Cham, then he couldn't disagree they were Austro-Asiatic and said they were Mon. But the Mon of Dvaravati had a very distinguished culture from Angkor. There is no link with them whatsoever, besides influence from being neighbours.
In a document I posted before the first rulers of Kampuchea could be traced back to India, so yeah the Indians created Kampuchea. But what you forget is that these Indians colonized what was Khmer territory and created Hindu tribes. Kaudinya is actually not a name but a title, and Naga is the name that was used for the animist tribes. The tribes that were originated by the Indians created a royal bloodline with the Mon-Khmer people and after the emigration of Indians stopped the Indian-Khmer rulers made their own culture, which resulted in Angkor Wat. After centurys there was no caste system no more and all the people belonged to the Kampuchean empire (except for the uncivillized animists that lived in the hills).


[b]Noone does that. Everyone lies on the information yet available from intensive studies.

No one does that? lol you've obviously no clue about Thai history. Its not hard to figure out when you cross reference time line with events and the geographical location of the people. Siamese are Tai people? Tai people did not appear in SEA until the 13th century. Po Nagar inscription already has the Syam people between Bagan and Lava in the 11th century. Siamese are Tai? I don't think so. [/b]

Yeah whatever, historians have more information available and it is ignorant and stupid to say they couldnt make those links. I know Siamese are not Thai and people dont have to call all the people one name.

[b][b]Yes their indentity existed already.. They were known as the weaved long haired jungle people.

This is just your assumption from the relief at Angkor. The style of dress and what you THINK is hair is actually the headdress. Their outfit is similar to that of the Miao or Hmong people with lots of silver embroidery and tassles. What you think is weaved long hair looks more like a head with long tassels. Once again, completely ignoring the other peoples of the region and just blatantly assuming they are jungle savages. A very uneducated assumption I might add. Your Anti Siamese attitude is very blatant.[/b]Yes youre right. Mon established territory in Burma and Central Thailand and Sukhotai, Lao people established Lava, Syam established Ayyuthya and Khmer created Kampuchea.

The records show that the people who created Kamvujadesa were Indian icon_smile.gif Chenla was created by the Eastern Mon (Syam) Western Mon created Ramanadesa (from where the name Mon comes from)[/b]Kaundinya was either indian or malayu. Founded a kingdom and named it after the line of people he descended from. Kambujas people are indian. Are Khmers Indian? I don't think so.

Indian yes, but the Naga term was used for the tribal people in general, like Kaudinya was a title for royal or sacred Indians. Khmers have Indian DNA. Look it up, their DNA consist of haplo P*. Where you think they got it from.


[b]A joke to you because you don't know better. There is only one country to contradict the information available, and thats Thailand. You think all the historians/investigators don't have the information you have? You think they would lie about the truth? Ill doers are ill deemers..

You are actually right on the nose. They don't have all the information. They only focus on certain sections and do not spread their research into other areas. When they decide to actually do this, they will find that the evidence contradicts what is widely BELIEVED to be true. 10,000,000 people speaking a lie does not make it the truth. This is why in the past 3 years things about the fake "Khmer empire" is starting to unravel lol You can cling onto your dream of a Khmer empire all you like. The truth will be out eventually lol[/b]

The truth is already out. Youre just brainwashed by your country like many times before, and can not believe you are being lied too. 10,000,000 people speaking a lie doesnt make it true, lol. You can hold on to your dream of a Siamese empire, but the truth is already out there.

Khmers are just whats left of the rebellion at Angkor. You people were servants and slaves. You can claim to be the creators and builders but it just isn't true lol just being there doesn't count as being the creators.

1. There was no Empire as it is not even classified as an Empire to begin with.
2. The ethnicity of the rulers of the "empire" was not Khmer.
3. The sources I have presented are from Scholars and archaeologists which contradicts each other. These are not Thai sources lol is Thai people the boogey man to you?

The fact of the matter is, there WAS not enough information about the subject when the original theories were done, and no one has ever tried to challenge it. The assumptions were just accepted. This doesn't make it true.

Khmer Empire? what a joke.


There is enough information, you just dont want to see it. There is no sign of another ethnicity ruling the KHmers, except Indian centurys ago. The statues of Jayavarman kings dont look Indian so that means the Indians intermarried with local people. The local people in the area were Khmers, the language is derrived from Khmers, there is no sign of another language used by another ethnicity. The Khmer influence at Ayuthhuya started when the Khmer empire fell, not before, the Mon had a very different cultrue from the Khmer, but still you say the Khmer were from Mon. The DNA resembles the history, the people of Isaan (closer to the source) speak a language more related to Angkor than the Cambodians. All this signs but still only boogie men want to speak a fairy tell. The original theory are the most reliable and scholars whom have studied the history for decades didnt find another theory. But still you say, you have more knowledge and know it better. It is so sad to see that great Thai people (I respect and adore Thai cultrue a lot) just dont wanna respect the facts. Why does Thailand dont want to show the real documents holding the real truth? Because it would cause them lose of face. Actually you are right about one thing: Angkor wat is a false pride for many Cambodian people, but that doesnt change the fact the Kampuchean empire was Khmer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SabaiSabai
post Jan 11 2012, 09:09 PM
Post #168


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,807
Joined: 4-January 09




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Jan 12 2012, 01:39 AM) *


There is enough information, you just dont want to see it. There is no sign of another ethnicity ruling the KHmers, except Indian centurys ago. The statues of Jayavarman kings dont look Indian so that means the Indians intermarried with local people. The local people in the area were Khmers, the language is derrived from Khmers, there is no sign of another language used by another ethnicity. The Khmer influence at Ayuthhuya started when the Khmer empire fell, not before, the Mon had a very different cultrue from the Khmer, but still you say the Khmer were from Mon. The DNA resembles the history, the people of Isaan (closer to the source) speak a language more related to Angkor than the Cambodians. All this signs but still only boogie men want to speak a fairy tell. The original theory are the most reliable and scholars whom have studied the history for decades didnt find another theory. But still you say, you have more knowledge and know it better. It is so sad to see that great Thai people (I respect and adore Thai cultrue a lot) just dont wanna respect the facts. Why does Thailand dont want to show the real documents holding the real truth? Because it would cause them lose of face. Actually you are right about one thing: Angkor wat is a false pride for many Cambodian people, but that doesnt change the fact the Kampuchean empire was Khmer.


errr wrong.

1. The Khmer people in the region were moved up into northern Cambodia by Jayavarman II. This mass migration was mentioned in the Sdok kok thom inscription.
2. More than one ethnic group can speak the same language. The syamese spoke syamese. Khmers spoke Khmer... which one came first?
3. Mon culture was not that much different. Both were indianised states. Both practiced Buddhism and Hinduism. Both used a similar language. Only difference? the Western Mons practiced Buddhism more than Hindusim. Eastern Mons (Syam) practiced Hinduism more than Buddhism. Khmers followed the practice of its rulers.
4. Ayuthaya influence only appeared when Angkor fell (there was no Khmer empire) why? because the capital was moved to Ayuthaya. But before that... Chenla was the origin of Angkor culture.
5. Chenla origins is in southern Isan. Closer to the source? I think so.
6. I never said Khmer people were from Mon. I said Chenla culture is from Mon. Have you even read any books about the Mun river kingdoms or how far Dvaravati influence actually reached into eastern Thailand and Cambodia? I don't think you have. I have more knowledge and know it better.

Kamvujadesa was not Khmer. If it was, there would be much reference to Khmer people. There is only one inscription written 200 years after Khmers were moved into the region. Don't believe? go read the inscription at sdok kok thom icon_smile.gif Jayavarman II sacked Vyadhapura and moved its people to northern Cambodia. The Chenla kings were the people that inhabit this region. They were not Khmer.

Being in the kingdom does not make it yours. Slaves did not make up the identity of the people. You can bury your head in mainstream history books all you like but I can provide you with evidence that contradicts them all icon_smile.gif Remember, I used to believe all this belonged to Khmers. The more I researched the more contradictions and false elements I found to tell me that it was not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Suriin1234
post Jan 11 2012, 09:27 PM
Post #169


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 300
Joined: 28-July 11




QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Jan 11 2012, 10:09 PM) *
errr wrong.

1. The Khmer people in the region were moved up into northern Cambodia by Jayavarman II. This mass migration was mentioned in the Sdok kok thom inscription.
2. More than one ethnic group can speak the same language. The syamese spoke syamese. Khmers spoke Khmer... which one came first?
3. Mon culture was not that much different. Both were indianised states. Both practiced Buddhism and Hinduism. Both used a similar language. Only difference? the Western Mons practiced Buddhism more than Hindusim. Eastern Mons (Syam) practiced Hinduism more than Buddhism. Khmers followed the practice of its rulers.
4. Ayuthaya influence only appeared when Angkor fell (there was no Khmer empire) why? because the capital was moved to Ayuthaya. But before that... Chenla was the origin of Angkor culture.
5. Chenla origins is in southern Isan. Closer to the source? I think so.
6. I never said Khmer people were from Mon. I said Chenla culture is from Mon. Have you even read any books about the Mun river kingdoms or how far Dvaravati influence actually reached into eastern Thailand and Cambodia? I don't think you have. I have more knowledge and know it better.

Kamvujadesa was not Khmer. If it was, there would be much reference to Khmer people. There is only one inscription written 200 years after Khmers were moved into the region. Don't believe? go read the inscription at sdok kok thom icon_smile.gif Jayavarman II sacked Vyadhapura and moved its people to northern Cambodia. The Chenla kings were the people that inhabit this region. They were not Khmer.

Being in the kingdom does not make it yours. Slaves did not make up the identity of the people. You can bury your head in mainstream history books all you like but I can provide you with evidence that contradicts them all icon_smile.gif Remember, I used to believe all this belonged to Khmers. The more I researched the more contradictions and false elements I found to tell me that it was not.


where was the tai slaves at I remember you post that khmer and tai was under mon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SabaiSabai
post Jan 11 2012, 10:42 PM
Post #170


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,807
Joined: 4-January 09




QUOTE (Suriin1234 @ Jan 12 2012, 02:27 AM) *
where was the tai slaves at I remember you post that khmer and tai was under mon.


Not a clue. I said it was a possibility. I haven't looked that much into it. What I have found is that the Tai were in northern Thailand since 6th century in Chiang Saen. The Tai powerbase was always in the north from as early as the 6th century up till the 16th century when it was finaly assimilated into Siam. (though there were times when it also fell into Burmese control)

The Mandala system of kingdoms and cities did not have the northern kingdoms as the primary kingdom in the early period. Only later did the power in the north grow enough to control their own vassals.

Though I think there may have been a mention of nakorn Ngeon yang having vassals, i'll look into it later.

Now we look at Sukhothai. It was a Lavo kingdom before it fell to the Tai. The Tais came into the region 6th century and gained independence in the 13th century. 700 years is a long time being ruled by the Mon icon_smile.gif

After the brief period where Lanna and Sukhothai had their independence, Ayuthaya (Siam) retook the territories/kingdoms that was under its power and one again called the land Siam.

From what I can see, the area was Dvaravati, Syam, Lavo, Kamvuja. Syam first took Kamvuja then invaded Dvaravati. Then the Tais gained independence. Then Syam and Lavo combined and regained control of the kingdoms that tried to break away from control of the middle kingdom.

Kamvuja and Lanna as well as Sukhothai had the same type of history. They rebelled and declared independence only to be smashed back into submission by the Siamese. All the kingdoms had their time as independent kingdoms, but ultimately it started off as their land. It ended up as their land.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Jan 12 2012, 06:25 AM
Post #171


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Jan 12 2012, 10:42 AM) *
Not a clue. I said it was a possibility. I haven't looked that much into it. What I have found is that the Tai were in northern Thailand since 6th century in Chiang Saen. The Tai powerbase was always in the north from as early as the 6th century up till the 16th century when it was finaly assimilated into Siam. (though there were times when it also fell into Burmese control)

The Mandala system of kingdoms and cities did not have the northern kingdoms as the primary kingdom in the early period. Only later did the power in the north grow enough to control their own vassals.

Though I think there may have been a mention of nakorn Ngeon yang having vassals, i'll look into it later.

Now we look at Sukhothai. It was a Lavo kingdom before it fell to the Tai. The Tais came into the region 6th century and gained independence in the 13th century. 700 years is a long time being ruled by the Mon icon_smile.gif

After the brief period where Lanna and Sukhothai had their independence, Ayuthaya (Siam) retook the territories/kingdoms that was under its power and one again called the land Siam.

From what I can see, the area was Dvaravati, Syam, Lavo, Kamvuja. Syam first took Kamvuja then invaded Dvaravati. Then the Tais gained independence. Then Syam and Lavo combined and regained control of the kingdoms that tried to break away from control of the middle kingdom.

Kamvuja and Lanna as well as Sukhothai had the same type of history. They rebelled and declared independence only to be smashed back into submission by the Siamese. All the kingdoms had their time as independent kingdoms, but ultimately it started off as their land. It ended up as their land.


That was Khmer-Java-Indian and here the evidence.. Cham people in Khmer New year!! ^^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30fk1aNfgok...feature=related

and here the groom becoming Preah thong in Khmer wedding!!

Khmer wedding costum by KhmerBoiken, on Flickr

I am Cambodian, I am proud of my parent heritage and they speak Khmer!!! ^^
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Jan 12 2012, 06:40 AM
Post #172


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (KM0000 @ Jan 12 2012, 05:09 AM) *
.
.
To KhmerBoi,
To Suriin1234,
To SabaiSabai,
etc... 

Sorry. I was not there, because I was very busy, these last days.

I have a very important question:
how to do to put a photo, so that it is real size ? Because those I have already put, are reduced compared to the original size ! If I want to continue my explanations about Koh Pich, I have to put photos with a normal size.




.
I agree with you. I am exactly with your opinion. ( And it is the present which is important ).
Thank you for having said it. But, I consider that this idea, has to remain a secret, which should not get out of the limits of Cambodia. Anyway, thank you for having confirmed, of what I already thought.
You are really Khmer, you. You are optimistic, etc., etc. That's why I like very much the Khmers. I have excellent memories of the period 1963-1973 when I was in Cambodia, and where I was a child. The Cambodians: very nice, never problem. It's me, on the contrary that have regrets: for example, some gave me gifts, and I forgot to thank, and I had not thought to do myself a gift for them...  But I was 12 years or 14 years old only...
The Khmers offer a very good education for the children.
.
.

Thank you, and you were right that Education during that time is very good. but not for now.. but I can see the new wave. As Cambodia being rebuild I can see that Cambodian kid are very smart!!!! and they are getting better education compare to the last 5 years.. I hope they keep continuing and spread throughout Cambodia.. More school have been build.. More teacher have been train We need quality right now!! I think right now Cambodia understand very well how important of education. For people who have ability they sent their kids to private school both local and international level.. and some of those was sent out and a lot more students got scholarship... I am hoping that those will be back and helping to develop Cambodia according to this globalization and together with other Asean!!! Come to Cambodia, I am sure your Cambodian friends will give you a great warm welcome!!! ^^
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SEAhistory
post Jan 12 2012, 03:30 PM
Post #173


AF Fiend
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Jan 11 2012, 10:09 PM) *
errr wrong.

1. The Khmer people in the region were moved up into northern Cambodia by Jayavarman II. This mass migration was mentioned in the Sdok kok thom inscription.
2. More than one ethnic group can speak the same language. The syamese spoke syamese. Khmers spoke Khmer... which one came first?
3. Mon culture was not that much different. Both were indianised states. Both practiced Buddhism and Hinduism. Both used a similar language. Only difference? the Western Mons practiced Buddhism more than Hindusim. Eastern Mons (Syam) practiced Hinduism more than Buddhism. Khmers followed the practice of its rulers.
4. Ayuthaya influence only appeared when Angkor fell (there was no Khmer empire) why? because the capital was moved to Ayuthaya. But before that... Chenla was the origin of Angkor culture.
5. Chenla origins is in southern Isan. Closer to the source? I think so.
6. I never said Khmer people were from Mon. I said Chenla culture is from Mon. Have you even read any books about the Mun river kingdoms or how far Dvaravati influence actually reached into eastern Thailand and Cambodia? I don't think you have. I have more knowledge and know it better.

Kamvujadesa was not Khmer. If it was, there would be much reference to Khmer people. There is only one inscription written 200 years after Khmers were moved into the region. Don't believe? go read the inscription at sdok kok thom icon_smile.gif Jayavarman II sacked Vyadhapura and moved its people to northern Cambodia. The Chenla kings were the people that inhabit this region. They were not Khmer.

Being in the kingdom does not make it yours. Slaves did not make up the identity of the people. You can bury your head in mainstream history books all you like but I can provide you with evidence that contradicts them all icon_smile.gif Remember, I used to believe all this belonged to Khmers. The more I researched the more contradictions and false elements I found to tell me that it was not.


Haha, you say that eastern Mon were responsible for Angkor, but Chenla rulers didnt came from eastern Mon. Funan and Chenla were different from eastern Mon and were Mon-Khmer. The whole area was inhabited by Mon KHmer people. The eastern Mon had their kingdom and the Western Mon had their territory. The rulers of Angkor didnt came from Mon kingdoms, but from Indians intermarrying with Mon-Khmer like Champa was Cham with Indian. You speak of a fairytale about Mon rulers going into Mon-Khmer territory and enslaving the people. But the Inidan-Khmer did this to their own people. Thats why the Cham people migrated north to being with their own people and the Mon east to establish Mon territory. The Thais migrated south from south China. Thats the story! Stop fantasizing about another ethnicity, lol. When it's 100% proven you will say it were Han-chinese or Mongols to rule the empire, or Sukhotai people, lol. Khmers were slaves to the high castes of Khmers, like any civilization had elitists and peasants, nothing more. Kings always spoke about their people, and somehow had a caste system (not like India, just for status). You are funny.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weareallone
post Jan 12 2012, 07:53 PM
Post #174


AF Geek
Group Icon

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




Still waiting on Sabai to draft this theory on paper. At this point it is a clusterfu-k of information with half truths and what not. I enjoy the arguments on both side just prefer it in a scholarly format.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SabaiSabai
post Jan 12 2012, 09:08 PM
Post #175


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,807
Joined: 4-January 09




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Jan 12 2012, 08:30 PM) *
Haha, you say that eastern Mon were responsible for Angkor, but Chenla rulers didnt came from eastern Mon. Funan and Chenla were different from eastern Mon and were Mon-Khmer. The whole area was inhabited by Mon KHmer people. The eastern Mon had their kingdom and the Western Mon had their territory. The rulers of Angkor didnt came from Mon kingdoms, but from Indians intermarrying with Mon-Khmer like Champa was Cham with Indian. You speak of a fairytale about Mon rulers going into Mon-Khmer territory and enslaving the people. But the Inidan-Khmer did this to their own people. Thats why the Cham people migrated north to being with their own people and the Mon east to establish Mon territory. The Thais migrated south from south China. Thats the story! Stop fantasizing about another ethnicity, lol. When it's 100% proven you will say it were Han-chinese or Mongols to rule the empire, or Sukhotai people, lol. Khmers were slaves to the high castes of Khmers, like any civilization had elitists and peasants, nothing more. Kings always spoke about their people, and somehow had a caste system (not like India, just for status). You are funny.


1. Eastern Mon are not Mon? what do you think Mon-Khmer means? just Khmer? lol This statement shows your mentality quite clearly. Mon-Khmer is just Khmer to you icon_smile.gif
2. "The whole area was inhabited by Mon KHmer people" yes... the Eastern Mon were Mon people.
3. "The eastern Mon had their kingdom and the Western Mon had their territory" Eastern Mon territory is the area of East Siam (Isan+Laos) This is the geographical location of Chenla.
4. "The rulers of Angkor didnt came from Mon kingdoms" Chenla was a Mon kingdom. Preah Thong was no Indian. Thong is a Mon name. Have you even read the bio for all the Angkorian kings? most of them descend from Chenla line. Some come directly from that region.
5. "Mon rulers going into Mon-Khmer territory and enslaving the people" Jayavarman II sacked Vyadhapura and forced migrated the people from the lower mekong delta up into the Dangrek area (Sdok kok thom inscription) if this isn't slavery, I don't know what is lol so he destroyed their city then invited them to come and live in a new area for the hell of it? ancient kingdoms were built on the blood and sweat of slavery. This is documented proof of the present population being moved into that area. What else do you need? a time machine?
6. "But the Inidan-Khmer did this to their own people. Thats why the Cham people migrated north to being with their own people and the Mon east to establish Mon territory. The Thais migrated south from south China" Chams had pretty much stayed in the same area. There was no migration. their territory was always along the coast (Austronesians are maritime people) Mon people were always present in Isan and Laos. In modern times their descendents have been classed as Lawa people who still live in the region. They didn't move East. The only migration (and this is recorded) was them moving west into Burma. Khmers? refer to point 5 icon_smile.gif
7. "Stop fantasizing about another ethnicity" another ethnicity? eastern Mon and Western Mon are all AA people just like Khmers and Khmu etc etc however there are many groups in the AA family.. Khmer does not represent them all. Syamese are also AA people, this is not an invention, it is fact. Syamese were also present in the area at the time. This is also fact. Khmer is not the be all and end all of SEA, get over yourself. Various groups of Mon people have been in the region practicing Indian culture far longer.
8. "When it's 100% proven you will say it were Han-chinese or Mongols to rule the empire, or Sukhotai people, lol" Don't be stupid. Those people were not in the region at the time nor is there evidence pointing to them. However, there is much evidence to show that the kings of Chenla were Mon and not Khmer icon_smile.gif
9. "Khmers were slaves to the high castes of Khmers, like any civilization had elitists and peasants, nothing more. Kings always spoke about their people, and somehow had a caste system (not like India, just for status)" this is just an assumption based on your thought that only Khmers were in the region at that time (you can thank vickery for that) however, I have pointed out the ruling class were not Khmers, they have no link with Khmers, did not come from lower mekong delta, did not in any way refer to themselves as Khmer. What proof do you have that they were Khmer? your imagination? even the reliefs at Angkor show the peasantry were different to the ruling class. Strangely enough it fits in with ZDG description about the loin cloth too. There's your Khmers right there.
10. "You are funny" Im glad you think so lol Im about as funny as Khmer people calling themselves the masters and inventors when the fantasy history is being ripped to shreds as we speak icon_smile.gif Khmers calling themselves masters so they can upgrade from being peasants lol now that is funny icon_smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoveIsAllAround
post Jan 13 2012, 02:54 AM
Post #176


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,366
Joined: 14-August 11




QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Jan 12 2012, 10:08 PM) *
eastern Mon and Western Mon are all AA people just like Khmers and Khmu etc etc however there are many groups in the AA family.. Khmer does not represent them all. Syamese are also AA people, this is not an invention, it is fact. Syamese were also present in the area at the time. This is also fact. Khmer is not the be all and end all of SEA, get over yourself. Various groups of Mon people have been in the region practicing Indian culture far longer.being peasants lol now that is funny icon_smile.gif


Even there are concrete historical evidence about Syam identity carved in stone inscription and Angkor wall. These Khmer still are in denial states. I suggest them go to Angkor wall and shout at Syam that 'You are fuking not real!!!!" 555+

Oh btw, why there are no Khmer interested in slave name 'Khmer' carved in stone inscription too? Khmer is not from Kambu + Mera but a native name. No link is found between 'Khmer' and 'Kamvujadesa'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SEAhistory
post Jan 13 2012, 02:53 PM
Post #177


AF Fiend
Group Icon

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




Funan villages [50 CE]. Speakers of the Austro-Asian Khmer language established Funan along the Mekong River. Funan grew prosperous by selling supplies to ships traveling between India and China.
• Wet rice. The Khmer grew rice in flooded fields [wet rice]. While other methods of farming wear out the soil quickly, rice paddies can be kept fertile for generations.
Funan decline [250]. Funan's prosperity declined when ships changed to a different route and rarely stopped at Funan's ports.
Funan prosperous [400]. Sea trade increased because instability in China made land trade risky. Funan prospered and expanded. Settlers from India introduced the Hindu religion.
Chenla takes Funan [550]. Chenla, a new Khmer state, emerged along the Mekong River north of Funan. Chenla attacked Funan repeatedly for 100 years before conquering it [620].
Mon city-states [650]. The Mon, who also spoke the Austro-Asian Khmer language, formed city-states north of Chenla. Most Mon were Buddhist. Most Khmer were Hindu.
Chenla divided [750]. Chenla split into two kingdoms, Land Chenla in the north and Water Chenla in the south [750].
Kambuja kingdom [802]. After the Malay Srivijaya conquered Khmer Water Chenla [802/812], a Khmer leader [Jayavarman II] broke away, formed the kingdom of Kambuja, and recovered Water Chenla [812].
Kambuja expands [877]. Kambuja united Water Chenla and Land Chenla [877], took land from the Mon and the Thai.
• Green Revolution. A 6 kilometer [3.5 mile] long reservoir was built at Kambuja's capital city of Angkor by surrounding flat fields with dirt walls [895, Baray Reservoir]. The reservoir provided surplus food by allowing an extra crop of rice to be harvested each year [green revolution].

* Along the Mekong river the area was primarily inhabited by Khmer people.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SabaiSabai
post Jan 13 2012, 10:42 PM
Post #178


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,807
Joined: 4-January 09




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Jan 13 2012, 07:53 PM) *
Funan villages [50 CE]. Speakers of the Austro-Asian Khmer language established Funan along the Mekong River. Funan grew prosperous by selling supplies to ships traveling between India and China.

The ethnicity of Funan people has never been confirmed. The only language connected with funan is Sanscrit. Where did you get Khmer language from? lol more fantasy?

• Wet rice. The Khmer grew rice in flooded fields [wet rice]. While other methods of farming wear out the soil quickly, rice paddies can be kept fertile for generations.

Khmer are not the only people to do wet rice cultivation lol not by a long shot. God knows why you even brought this up lol Just about everyone in SEA and East Asia did wet rice cultivation. It goes back to 4000BC at least.

Funan decline [250]. Funan's prosperity declined when ships changed to a different route and rarely stopped at Funan's ports.

What has this got to do with anything?

Funan prosperous [400]. Sea trade increased because instability in China made land trade risky. Funan prospered and expanded. Settlers from India introduced the Hindu religion.

Indianisation happened before 400AD icon_smile.gif

Chenla takes Funan [550]. Chenla, a new Khmer state, emerged along the Mekong River north of Funan. Chenla attacked Funan repeatedly for 100 years before conquering it [620].

How is Chenla a Khmer state? where is your proof? I can show evidence that the kingdoms north a long the Mekong Delta were not Khmer. What proof have you that they were?

Mon city-states [650]. The Mon, who also spoke the Austro-Asian Khmer language, formed city-states north of Chenla. Most Mon were Buddhist. Most Khmer were Hindu.

Archaeological evidence shows us the Mons practiced both religions, though most had a preference for Buddhism, there was still many that practiced Hinusim, especially those kingdoms a long the Mun river.

Chenla divided [750]. Chenla split into two kingdoms, Land Chenla in the north and Water Chenla in the south [750].

Land Chenla (Mon) Water Chenla most likely Khmer or Cham. The kings of Brunei claim descent from Funan... they are not Khmers. So who is lieing?

Kambuja kingdom [802]. After the Malay Srivijaya conquered Khmer Water Chenla [802/812], a Khmer leader [Jayavarman II] broke away, formed the kingdom of Kambuja, and recovered Water Chenla [812].

Where is the proof there was even a war between Java and Cambodia? There is only an inscription from Sdok kok thom which looks more like a miss translation than anything. I have mentioned elsewhere that the relationship between Lava and Angkor is far more stronger then a connection with Java and Angkor. There is almost no connection what so ever between Java and Angkor.

As for the story about the last water chenla king to have died in 790 by the Javanese... where did this story come from? All I have found is a repeat of the same story. No actual link to an original source. More fantasy created to link Java to Jayavarman II I suspect icon_smile.gif


Kambuja expands [877]. Kambuja united Water Chenla and Land Chenla [877], took land from the Mon and the Thai.

877 the reign of Jayavarman II. Jayavarman sacked vyadhapura (southern Cambodia) and forced migrated the people into the northern region. He then attacked Syambhupura. Then he tried to attack the Mons in the west and got his @$$ handed to him (this is the point where I think Jayavarman II tried to force his claim to all the lands but failed) so he told the brahmin to do a ceremony to name him the king of all the lands. And also to declare independence from LAVA (the people that just kicked his @$$).

This makes far more sense then a story about a war that is not recorded by anyone... not even the kingdoms of Java.


• Green Revolution. A 6 kilometer [3.5 mile] long reservoir was built at Kambuja's capital city of Angkor by surrounding flat fields with dirt walls [895, Baray Reservoir]. The reservoir provided surplus food by allowing an extra crop of rice to be harvested each year [green revolution].

Archaelogical digs at the Barays have not found any canals that connected the Barays to fields or places where it it would be considered an water suplly network.

The Barays were just very big pools of water. Perhaps as surplus drinking water. Wet rice cultivation using buckets to get the water from the barays is quite ludicrous lol


* Along the Mekong river the area was primarily inhabited by Khmer people.

Khmers only inhabited the lower mekong delta valley. North of that area is Lawa, Mon, Akha, Wa, Lolo, Khmu etc etc etc none of these people identify themselves as Khmer.

Khmers do not represent all the AA people. Get over yourself icon_smile.gif


Doesn't this just show you how stupid mainstream history of Cambodia is? people have made up a lot of crap to try to connect 1 thing to another. Its not real history. just assumptions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Jan 14 2012, 04:57 AM
Post #179


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Jan 14 2012, 02:53 AM) *
Funan villages [50 CE]. Speakers of the Austro-Asian Khmer language established Funan along the Mekong River. Funan grew prosperous by selling supplies to ships traveling between India and China.
• Wet rice. The Khmer grew rice in flooded fields [wet rice]. While other methods of farming wear out the soil quickly, rice paddies can be kept fertile for generations.
Funan decline [250]. Funan's prosperity declined when ships changed to a different route and rarely stopped at Funan's ports.
Funan prosperous [400]. Sea trade increased because instability in China made land trade risky. Funan prospered and expanded. Settlers from India introduced the Hindu religion.
Chenla takes Funan [550]. Chenla, a new Khmer state, emerged along the Mekong River north of Funan. Chenla attacked Funan repeatedly for 100 years before conquering it [620].
Mon city-states [650]. The Mon, who also spoke the Austro-Asian Khmer language, formed city-states north of Chenla. Most Mon were Buddhist. Most Khmer were Hindu.
Chenla divided [750]. Chenla split into two kingdoms, Land Chenla in the north and Water Chenla in the south [750].
Kambuja kingdom [802]. After the Malay Srivijaya conquered Khmer Water Chenla [802/812], a Khmer leader [Jayavarman II] broke away, formed the kingdom of Kambuja, and recovered Water Chenla [812].
Kambuja expands [877]. Kambuja united Water Chenla and Land Chenla [877], took land from the Mon and the Thai.
• Green Revolution. A 6 kilometer [3.5 mile] long reservoir was built at Kambuja's capital city of Angkor by surrounding flat fields with dirt walls [895, Baray Reservoir]. The reservoir provided surplus food by allowing an extra crop of rice to be harvested each year [green revolution].

* Along the Mekong river the area was primarily inhabited by Khmer people.

Men you faild in so many points.. So then you need to relearn again who is huntien and who is kaundinya and both of them the the source to say that huntien base on Chinese he might be the Java (some believe he is Indian ) kaundinya is Indian (the evidence can be found in both Chinese, Indian and the Cham inscription. Don't forget you need to learn who is the Cham as well then you have have a better understand
Ing about the Cham people. And to learn about the Cham view about Khmer I suggested you find a book call Navigating the Rift (Muslim-Bhuddhist Intermarriage in Cambodia) by Ysa Osman it might answer your stupid doubt about us. Sometime you don't just need to realize on the history record too much but see what the reality is!!! ^^
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Jan 15 2012, 08:01 PM
Post #180


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,020
Joined: 12-September 11




QUOTE (Weareallone @ Jan 12 2012, 08:53 PM) *
Still waiting on Sabai to draft this theory on paper. At this point it is a clusterfu-k of information with half truths and what not. I enjoy the arguments on both side just prefer it in a scholarly format.


Don't worry, he will one day. icon_smile.gif
The last jigsaw hasn't been found yet. So, you may view it as half-truth.

But if you go back and take a look at mainstream history, you will see that those versions of history is worse than half-truth; they intentionally skipped many evidence that doesn't add up into their framework, and filled the gap with their old imagination to suit their political purpose.

Atleast Sabai is trying to put all the evidences (both from mainstream and his evidences) together, I never seen him skipping evidences from mainstream historians, instead, he tried to put everything together.

What he threw away is not evidences, he only threw away old 'assumption' like the existent of Khmer Empire or the assumption that the ruler of Angkor were Khmer, etc.

And if you are open to it and delete old assumption (which is based on false logic) from your head, you will find that his theory is quite possible (may not 100% correct) and it can explain so many things which was not explanable by mainstream history.

He did an incredible job and spent a lot of time in this topic. He surely know much more than you.

biggthumpup.gif biggthumpup.gif


This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 15 2012, 08:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

127 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 11 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st July 2014 - 07:42 PM