New Theory on Angkor, Who were the last Varman kings? Options

[chadwarden]

Do you think Emperor Wu Di really knew who were Tai in those prefectures? I think the prefectures were just multi-ethinics, not just a Tai. Same concept as Bai Yue.

of course right ? what you think is right but who cares about documented history right ? lets just throw that out the window and number 1 claim everyone is related to everyone so nobody has culture.then we can take things from said culture and call it ours or take things from 2 cultures because it is ours. number 2 if another nation had culture before us (cambodia) lets just flip flip names and then use chinese written history (to our advantage) and claim those people as our people.

of course they knew tai and if anythign they will know the people as baiyue so i still dont get why you are arguing? the chinese know either tai race or baiyue races already and its known since BC time. so the logic then says the chinese should have known that the supposed tai leaders at funan were tai or bai yue .

[LoveIsAllAround]

According to Chinese sources, Funan was eventually conquered and absorbed by its vassal polity Chenla (pinyin: Zhēnlà). Chenla was a Khmer polity, and its inscriptions are in both Sanskrit and in Khmer. The last known ruler of Funan was Rudravarman (留陁跋摩, pinyin: Liútuóbámó) who ruled from 514 up to ca. 545 AD.

^
^
Why Chinese didn't know that Funanese and Chelan were same people? LOL

It's likely my new theory is true.

Funan (Siem) and its vassal state Chenla (Khmer) had wars, and the last war is really great war that made Chenlan king named their country as Defeated Funan or 'Chenla -- Chen Lap/Siem Reap'.

[KhmerBoi]

Since when Khmer started to be Mahayana? Weren't you converted to be Hindu first?

Khmer were begin with Hindu dude! then Mahayana and sometime back to Hindu that I only mention the king but people is still practice both but mostly Hindu which more share to Animism.. But it was swift to Mahayana Buddhism officially by King Jayavarman VII when the Angkor fail to the Cham during the formal king.. which make the idea of DevaJaja lost his truth among his people...

[LoveIsAllAround]

of course right ? what you think is right but who cares about documented history right ? lets just throw that out the window and number 1 claim everyone is related to everyone so nobody has culture.then we can take things from said culture and call it ours or take things from 2 cultures because it is ours. number 2 if another nation had culture before us (cambodia) lets just flip flip names and then use chinese written history (to our advantage) and claim those people as our people.

of course they knew tai and if anythign they will know the people as baiyue so i still dont get why you are arguing? the chinese know either tai race or baiyue races already and its known since BC time. so the logic then says the chinese should have known that the supposed tai leaders at funan were tai or bai yue .

Chinese Emperor knew Khmer but he never knew Funanese were Khmer? LOL

same stupid logic, isn't it?

[LoveIsAllAround]

Khmer were begin with Hindu dude! then Mahayana and sometime back to Hindu that I only mention the king but people is still practice both but mostly Hindu which more share to Animism.. But it was swift to Mahayana Buddhism officially by King Jayavarman VII when the Angkor fail to the Cham during the formal king.. which make the idea of DevaJaja lost his truth among his people...

and what the religion that Funanese king practised?

[Leeporter]

OK, Chad and KhmoerBoi.

Stop twisiting my logic.

I never used that fact that the rulers of Funan had Tai names to prove that Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

My logic is straighforward, Srivijaya abmassador went to China and told the emperor that Srivijaya was called "Siam-Lavo"

So, Srivijaya = "Siam-Lavo" or later be called "Siam"

And if Suzuki is correct that Srivijaya rulers fled from Funan, then:

Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

Simple like that, I never used the Tai name of Funan kings to prove this.

Don't twist my logic, ok?

I just proved that Funan rulers and Siam rulers were related, there are evidence to link them together, while for Khmer, there was no evidence to link Khmer King Nippean Bat to those Varman kings of Chenla (a vasaal of Funan and Srivijaya)

Very simple and straightforward.

For those rulers of Funan and Srivijaya speaking Tai or Mon or Indian, we will find out.

But for now, Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

Don't twist my logic.

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Feb 20 2012, 12:23 AM

[KhmerBoi]

and what the religion that Funanese king practised?

the Funanes's king was Eyso (Vishnu?) Niyum.. as far as I remember only one king was Mahayana Buddhism...

[Leeporter]

OK, Chad and KhmoerBoi.

Stop twisiting my logic.

I never used that fact that the rulers of Funan had Tai names to prove that Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

My logic is straighforward, Srivijaya abmassador went to China and told the emperor that Srivijaya was called "Siam-Lavo"

So, Srivijaya = "Siam-Lavo" or later be called "Siam"

And if Suzuki is correct that Srivijaya rulers fled from Funan, then:

Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

Simple like that, I never used the Tai name of Funan kings to prove this.

Don't twist my logic, ok?

I just proved that Funan rulers and Siam rulers were related, there are evidence to link them together, while for Khmer, there was no evidence to link Khmer King Nippean Bat to those Varman kings of Chenla (a vasaal of Funan and Srivijaya)

Very simple and straightforward.

For those rulers of Funan and Srivijaya speaking Tai or Mon or Indian, we will find out.

But for now, Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

Don't twist my logic.

Saying that Funan kings were Tai speaking people does not equal to saying that Funan = Srivijaya = Siam, ok?

For example, I've proved that Kun Pha Muang became king of Chenla as Indravarman III.

That's to say one of Chenla kings was Tai-speaking people, but we can't say that Chenla = Siam

But now, I've proved that Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

Their kings could speak Tai or Mon (or both), but one thing for sure, they didn't speak Khmer.

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Feb 20 2012, 12:32 AM

[chadwarden]

OK, Chad and KhmoerBoi.

Stop twisiting my logic.

I never used that fact that the rulers of Funan had Tai names to prove that Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

My logic is straighforward, Srivijaya abmassador went to China and told the emperor that Srivijaya was called "Siam-Lavo"

So, Srivijaya = "Siam-Lavo" or later be called "Siam"

And if Suzuki is correct that Srivijaya rulers fled from Funan, then:

Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

Simple like that, I never used the Tai name of Funan kings to prove this.

Don't twist my logic, ok?

I just proved that Funan rulers and Siam rulers were related, there are evidence to link them together, while for Khmer, there was no evidence to link Khmer King Nippean Bat to those Varman kings of Chenla (a vasaal of Funan and Srivijaya)

Very simple and straightforward.

For those rulers of Funan and Srivijaya speaking Tai or Mon or Indian, we will find out.

But for now, Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

Don't twist my logic.

lol what logic everything you and love say are huge leaps. by twisting word meanings and ancient pronounciations this is how you are getting at your theories. i never knew a reasearcher or historian that takes historical names and fudges them to make the basis of their theories.

the main points are chinese knows tai people by 100 BC at least. China should know the difference between a person called Pu race and a person of Tai or Dai ancestry which was later attributed to being glumped together as Yue. If they didnt anthropoligcaly they wouldnt have made the catergory up anyway. Going by logic that actually makes sense is that we would see a Chinese scholar acually making it known that a tai is leading people in a land full of different race


Why Tai are also called Shan? One of the suppositions concerning the origin of the name
“Shan” (oSsef;) is that, it derived from the word “Siam” (Hsian, Sein), which designates to a group of
mountainous people who migrated from Yunnan in the 6th century AD. Siam means agriculture or
cultivating. Most probably because they were people of farming. Another supposition is, when Kublai
Khan and his Mongol army conquered Nan Chao Kingdom in AD 1253 a second wave of Tai migrating
down south into many areas of Southeast Asia. Some migrating Tai became mercenaries for the Khmer
armies in the early 13th century AD as it was depicted in the walls of Angkor Wat. In those days the
Khmer called Tai as Syam, the word derived from Sunskrit meaning golden or yellow. The Tai at that
time had a yellow or golden skin color. Shan can be a corrupt word of Syam, a name given to Kshatriya
(warriors) (those warriors were said to be Shan) who were on duty for the Khmer Empire. A third
supposition suggests that Shan were the people named after the “Great Mountain Ranges of China”
from where they had migrated. Shan in Chinese is “mountain” or “hill”.

Why all of a sudden do you guys want to be firsts in southeast asia? why dont you read and look athe the real Tai history of China and actually see that as being cool. Not just reaching and trying to take others cultures because you make assumptions.

[KhmerBoi]

Saying that Funan kings were Tai speaking people does not equal to saying that Funan = Srivijaya = Siam, ok?

For example, I've proved that Kun Pha Muang became king of Chenla as Indravarman III.

That's to say one of Chenla kings was Tai-speaking people, but we can't say that Chenla = Siam

But now, I've proved that Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

Their kings could speak Tai or Mon, but one thing for sure, they didn't speak Khmer.

U missed a big part at least he speak Cham!!!! ^^

[chadwarden]

Saying that Funan kings were Tai speaking people does not equal to saying that Funan = Srivijaya = Siam, ok?

For example, I've proved that Kun Pha Muang became king of Chenla as Indravarman III.

That's to say one of Chenla kings was Tai-speaking people, but we can't say that Chenla = Siam

But now, I've proved that Funan = Srivijaya = Siam.

Their kings could speak Tai or Mon (or both), but one thing for sure, they didn't speak Khmer.

lol reaching again their king could speak tai or mon but didnt speak khmer. hmm interesting that also none of the mon history from the region document tai speakers right?

[Leeporter]

U missed a big part at least he speak Cham!!!! ^^

Cham = Srivijaya = Siam-Lavo?

[Leeporter]

Chad and KhmerBoi,
you 2 are trying so hard to twist my simple logic and the evidence found in Chinese record that Siam-Lavo = Srivijaya.

You keep talking something unrelated and not getting to the poitn.

That's a sign of hopeless debater, you know.

[Leeporter]

Let me quote it again what the Chinese said:


"During the winter of 961 A.D. the tribute was sent by a king called Che-li Wou-ye. These ambassadors reported that the kingdom of San-fo-tsi was also called Sien-lieou."]

This is what we call "primary source" evidence.

And now you are trying to disprove primary source with your wiki quote?

What a laugh!

[Leeporter]

Chad and KhmerBoi,

This record by the Chinese is called "Primary source"

"During the winter of 961 A.D. the tribute was sent by a king called Che-li Wou-ye. These ambassadors reported that the kingdom of San-fo-tsi was also called Sien-lieou."

It was not written after the French came to Indochina, so it wasn't written to suit any political purpose of Siam and Cambodia.

In oder to prove that Siam not equal to Srivijaya, you have to find another "primary source" to show that it contradict to this record.

Then we will see which one is more reliable.

Or prove that Srivijaya ambassador lied to the Chinese emperor.

But not like you guys are doing now, i.e. quoting some textbooks/wiki written by don'tknowwho to disprove the primary source.

It's dumb, you know?

[KhmerBoi]

Chad and KhmerBoi,
you 2 are trying so hard to twist my simple logic and the evidence found in Chinese record that Siam-Lavo = Srivijaya.

You keep talking something unrelated and not getting to the poitn.

That's a sign of hopeless debater, you know.

Really? tell me when Syam and Lavo were merging? Is that not go that far of Funan??? There is no evident to say Funan were Tai speaker!! you drop so many evidence said that the people there was Khmer-Mon people and Cham.. the people who existed is Cham and Khmer in where is now located to Funan capital... where is Tai?? go to North Vietnam go to Thailand and Lao... What about Khmer population?? We can go to Lao, Thailand, Cambodia and Southern Vietnam....

Wait one very simple fact is what Thai daughter at Phimai response when you asking them Are you Thai they will probably responce Jar, Khun Thai.. not Kha Khun Thai!!!

Jar is in Khmer meaning Yes, and in Tai is Kha (meaning Tribe?? kekekeke kidding) meaning Yes for woman.

[Leeporter]

Really? tell me when Syam and Lavo were merging?

It was recorded in the Chinese annal 1350 A.D. that Sian and Lohu were merged into one.
I guess that was when Ayudhya began to rise.

[Leeporter]

Wait one very simple fact is what Thai daughter at Phimai response when you asking them Are you Thai they will probably responce Jar, Khun Thai.. not Kha Khun Thai!!!

Jar is in Khmer meaning Yes, and in Tai is Kha (meaning Tribe?? kekekeke kidding) meaning Yes for woman.

An attempt of the hopeless.
I hope this is your final attempt.


This post has been edited by Leeporter: Feb 20 2012, 01:14 AM

[LoveIsAllAround]

Let me quote it again what the Chinese said:


"During the winter of 961 A.D. the tribute was sent by a king called Che-li Wou-ye. These ambassadors reported that the kingdom of San-fo-tsi was also called Sien-lieou."]

This is what we call "primary source" evidence.

And now you are trying to disprove primary source with your wiki quote?

What a laugh!

That's true, They don't wanna answer but keep asking and throwing WIKI quotes. And they admire themselves as professional. LMAO!!!

[chadwarden]

Chad and KhmerBoi,

This record by the Chinese is called "Primary source"

"During the winter of 961 A.D. the tribute was sent by a king called Che-li Wou-ye. These ambassadors reported that the kingdom of San-fo-tsi was also called Sien-lieou."

It was not written after the French came to Indochina, so it wasn't written to suit any political purpose of Siam and Cambodia.

In oder to prove that Siam not equal to Srivijaya, you have to find another "primary source" to show that it contradict to this record.

Then we will see which one is more reliable.

Or prove that Srivijaya ambassador lied to the Chinese emperor.

But not like you guys are doing now, i.e. quoting some textbooks/wiki written by don'tknowwho to disprove the primary source.

It's dumb, you know?

lol your primary source is written by a japanese man trying to change history of a region he has never even been to or has any type of background with. am i missing something? yet u say its bad the french wrote history about angkor?

once again all hail the great thai scholars and brains even tho nobody told them to accept khmer history version they went right on ahead. shows u how good that thai education system is because we have 2 scholars right here in our mists! lee porter and love you 2 should run for education board in thailand to change the world!

dont worry il find your little name switching theory to be false. i already know its false but i just like u to keep talking and talking to let everyone see how stupid and nationalistic you are. i guess ever since they changed thailands name to thailand you guys have become obsessed with changing names and flip flopping pronounciations of languages you dont even know yourselfs ?