AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

127 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Theory on Angkor, Who were the last Varman kings?
KhmerBoi
post Dec 18 2011, 10:09 PM
Post #21


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (AndroidBingBinG @ Dec 19 2011, 09:38 AM) *
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.

Most of us credit much to the Indian but actually we also have to credit to the Javanese as well. but anyways it doesn't mean that without Indian or Javanese there is no other Civilization. According the archaeological found that before Christ Khmer people had been trade with the Chinese, Indian, Rome.... look at the early Khmer civilization status we also have the similar style to the Greece.. Scholars believe that Khmer just choose what they believe that would be advantages to them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nhoona
post Dec 18 2011, 11:01 PM
Post #22


AF Guru
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (KhmerBoi @ Dec 16 2011, 11:04 PM) *
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!


I dont know who behide this but i know they are Khmer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Dec 18 2011, 11:57 PM
Post #23


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Nhoona @ Dec 19 2011, 11:01 AM) *
I dont know who behide this but i know they are Khmer.

okay They are Khmer and they are also other as well., and Thai Government also involve in that as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Dec 19 2011, 10:58 PM
Post #24


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




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.


I've posted about Indravarman III here"

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/cambodia/TS26C5T8M80AU8Q45


He is not a Samre', he is a Siamese from Sukhothai called "Kun Pha Muang"

Sukhothai's stone script says it clearly that he got the sword and the princess from king of Yasodharapura, together with the title name "Sri Indradhidhaya"

Stone script says that he gave the throne and the name "Sri Indradhidhaya" to his brother-in-law and just disappeared.

My theory is that he went to Yasodharapura with the sword and the king daughter and became the next king Indravarman III (Sri Indradhidhaya)

And he is a theravada.

You can debunk me if you want. icon_smile.gif

Or if you think my theory can explain things, you can support it.

But before you do any of that, please delete the border line between Cambodia and Thailand from your map first.

There was no border line back then; if you study it with the borderline in your model, you will eliminate so many possibilities.

I am also investigating the relationship between King U-thong and Yasodharapura.

There is certainly some connection between King U-Thong and the people who built Yasodharapura (aka Angkor)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SabaiSabai
post Dec 19 2011, 11:46 PM
Post #25


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 16 2011, 06:12 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.

A Samre can never become a Ksatriyas. Brahmins are the upholders of the caste system and indic cutural rule. They would never have allowed a slave to become a general or a king.

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!

If he was a negrito, I doubt ZDG would have described him as having a white complexion. Very Very unlikely. The funniest part of this is that he married the wife of the Brahmin that made him king.

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.

The last varman king had already died in 1336. This puts it as 14 years before Angkor was first sacked by Ayodhaya. According to the Chronicles of Cambodia, the sacking of Angkor was a revenge attacked for ousting 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!

It is an interesting theory. However, blaming the Siamese for plague is a bit silly and shows your contempt for the Siamese. Anywho, it could just be as easy as him killing his Khmer wife possibly with slow poison because her kingdom had no more use for him. Afterwards he married a princess from the winners of the conflict who were still in power. Fa Ngum used his marriage to the Angkorian princess to gain troops to conquer himself a kingdom. As for the chronicles stating that the country was still powerful, would they have written down that it was weak and falling apart? not likely. If they were still strong and powerful, the Siamese attack would have failed. Fa Ngums actions looks far more likely to be about politics then him actually loving the Angkorian princess. It is too much of a coincidence that when her kingdom fell, she would automatically die of plague. Especially seeing as there is no record of plague at that time in the region

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..

The language you seek is Siamese. It is a similar language to Khmer branch of the Mon-Khmer language and had been in use by the Siamese people since the Time of Tshen-La. Siamese are Austroasiatic peoples of central and north western SEA. Well to be more exact, Mon people. Mon people were the people who inhabited the region long before the Khmers. Khmers come from south of the Dangrek mountians. Tshen-La was situated north. http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/presc...1_num_44_2_5190

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.

Khom were people south of Sukhothai. Khom were Siamese people. Khmers are not the Khom people. Even the idea of Khom people in Khmer culture such as "Yutha kun Khom" comes from Siamese sources. Old Khmer is said to have originated in Tshen-La which we now know was actually Mon country. The only other Mons who use this script are the Siamese who identity is older than that of Khmers. Both are of the austroasiatic family group, but Siamese are Mons. The Syamese (Ancient Siamese) were responsible for the culture and civilisation of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia.

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?

The word Khamen is the Thai pronunciation of the word Khmer. When written in Thai the Thai language structure changes the sound of the R into an N. God knows what the french and that rubbish have to do with it lol wishful thinking I guess. Actually there is documented proof that the rulers were form other ethnicities. Some were from Sri Dhamaraja, other were Chams, Javanese etc etc it is recorded in other sources lol SEA kingdoms were multiethnic. With the conquest of every city the kingdoms fill with slaves and servants. The chinese don't differentiate people of similar ilk. Hell, if you want to look at it another way... Khmers today look very Indian as it is. Just imagine what they looked like then. Why did the chinese not differentiate between them and indian? because they looked indian lol

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.

Funnily you mention this, According to the glass palace chronicles. The story of the sweet cucumber farmer is in fact a MON legend. Why this appears in Khmer folk lore one can only imagine. It also explains why after the king was killed there was no civil war, no slave rebellion etc etc he who kills the king becomes a king. Now did the Mons take this story from the Khmer or vice versa? one can only speculate.

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 chronicles of cambodia is available to the public. NoKhamen posted links to a website with it a while back. once again speculation and conspiricy theory lol

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!

The caste system may be looser then it was in india but it was still present. The Ksatriyas would never mix with the lower class. Neither will the brahmins. The rich merchants and lower governers/administrators had their own class, so having gold would only promote them into that class. Even if the classes were to be loosely put together. It would still be Brahmins>Ksatriyas>Merchants>everything else this is how it is even TODAY. Having praise put to you for building a temple does not mean you can climb a class ladder. It just means you did good work lol

All in all a lot of speculation, though I did enjoy reading it. Perhaps you can share with me the translations of the inscriptions you saw at Angkor. There may be some that I have not seen before icon_smile.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Dec 20 2011, 12:26 AM
Post #26


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




Man, The Mon them self who who is Khmer. and who is Mon.. Why you you take sometime to listen to them. not just sitting and trying to prove non-sense things.. Please give the Mon chance to talk about their history not you. Trying to proved Mon is Khorm, khorm is Siam you fail to much evident to say about the Khmer of Cambodia who rule the Angkorean Empire. I think Khmer know Mon well and Mon know Khmer well then your nationalist Thai. other why there is no Mon-Khmer of Austroasiatic because we actually sharing the same blood.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PeaceMan
post Dec 20 2011, 06:44 AM
Post #27


AF Guru
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (KhmerBoi @ Dec 20 2011, 12:26 AM) *
Man, The Mon them self who who is Khmer. and who is Mon.. Why you you take sometime to listen to them. not just sitting and trying to prove non-sense things.. Please give the Mon chance to talk about their history not you. Trying to proved Mon is Khorm, khorm is Siam you fail to much evident to say about the Khmer of Cambodia who rule the Angkorean Empire. I think Khmer know Mon well and Mon know Khmer well then your nationalist Thai. other why there is no Mon-Khmer of Austroasiatic because we actually sharing the same blood.


I already shown you the "Keys" info. repeatedly and I told you to do the math unbiasly... So try that again...


Chinese record "Sein" for "Suphanburi" So they were "Sien" "Siamese" of Supahanburi...And Lavo was actually Lawapura of Dvaravati the birth palce of queen Jam Devi...

Angkor considered lavo as "Siamese" administration center against Angkor...

Suphan merged with Lavo created Ayuttaya...or "SienLorhu" for the Chinese...

Now the King of " Krungthep Dvaravati Sri Ayudhaya" was "U-Thong" (Austro-Tai) name...


Again....you do the math carefully and unbiasly...Then you'll know who were the Siamese of Sri Ayuttaya....





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SEAhistory
post Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM
Post #28


AF Fiend
Group Icon

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




A Samre can never become a Ksatriyas. Brahmins are the upholders of the caste system and indic cutural rule. They would never have allowed a slave to become a general or a king.
We don’t know that.


What is already proven is that the caste system was not the same in Cambodia as in India. Many historians (including George Coedes) believes the Khmer people got to choose whatever suited them best, and with the Brahmans as officials there was always an elite Hindu community, but with the very different society in Angkor the Indian caste system was not sufficient. As buddhism was high regarded (according to many references from inscriptions, Zou Daguan’s journal, the fact that Thai monks saw Cambodian monks on a missionary in Sri Lanka, etc.) it was possible for a buddhist to gain more prestige without a high caste bloodline. In fact, the whole way Kampuchea was founded, was by intermarriage between locals and Indian traders. Their off springs were taught in the Indian ways and became born leaders through their bloodline.
At one point there were different tribes with different Indian/native (hindu) communities. This Indianization is believed to happen around two millenniums ago and occurred around the whole mainland of Cambodia, Thailand, Laos. The three inhabitants were Mon-Khmer, Mon (austro-asiatic) and Cham (austronesean). As there were probably disputes among these groups, I believe the different people were drawn together by culture, language, etc. This differentiation lead to the different kingdoms Kampuchea and Champa and the Mons (theravada buddhists) driving east into current day Thailand and Burma. It was through the Mons the Thai and Khmer received Theravada buddhism. However, it is debatable that Funan was a multi-ethnic society, but with the Old Khmer inscriptions found after the usurping of Chenla, we can only conclude it was Khmer which was the native language.
One thing I think is funny is that a lot of Thai people claim that Sanskit was the Khoms language and Khmer the slaves language. All the Indianized people derrived their script about the same time. The Khmer developed their own script, the Cham and the Mon. Like the Khmer the Cham used Sanskrit as a holy language as they were Hindu! Like I said before the use of Sanskrit in Angkor differs from the Indian versions that in Angkor they are very literarily (taught) instead of personal modified (as in India).
But however, according to historians, the communities relied on a vast groups of labourers, which they conquered around them. As these savages were taught as farmers the elitist relied on a corvee system, based on ownership of land. By expanding the territory, more natives were absorbed into the Kampuchean society. The surrounding natives who were animists and not yet taught in the Indians ways, were seen as savages and captured as slaves (Khmer Loeu are the last descendants of these “savages”).
It is very likely that these descendants of the Angkorean nation became more educated and at one point used conquered people themselves and climbed the ladder. This was how the empire expanded and knowledge was passed through. At one point Hinduism was only for the elitist and therefore this knowledge was not passed through and explains why current day Cambodians never learned or lost this particular knowledge. It is obvious that the Shivaïst culture at one point just disappeared. With the sudden appearance of Angkorean culture, it i

If he was a negrito, I doubt ZDG would have described him as having a white complexion. Very Very unlikely. The funniest part of this is that he married the wife of the Brahmin that made him king.

The link to samré can mean negrito (as they are still called Samré) but is also a term for low caste. It is not sure whether the inscription refers to him as just a low caste or indeed the negrito-tribe.

If he was Siamese, I would doubt this would not be mentioned by Zou Daguan, especially as he was there shortly after he became king. The white complexion could also be white powder, to give him a more sacred look. Used by Indian officials in history. Or just a light skinned individual. But I assume it was some sort of make up of the skin

I think I have seen inscriptions which you haven’t, because inscriptions mentioning him to be a Samré warrior. As he was a fierceful warrior he became a leader, and a certain Brahmin (the name was inscripted too) conducted the ceremonial for him to become a king. And then he married the priests wife, again according to the inscriptions.
I will look for a document I know for you to give a link to these inscription.

The last varman king had already died in 1336. This puts it as 14 years before Angkor was first sacked by Ayodhaya. According to the Chronicles of Cambodia, the sacking of Angkor was a revenge attacked for ousting the Siamese.

Why do you think he already died in 1336? The chronicles of Cambodia don’t hold any importance of truth for me, as they were assembled with loose information. There is no evidence at all that the last varman king died then. Also not by the Chinese, which documentation about the kings is most reliable. The sacking of Angkor was revenge for the rebellious acts conducted by the Cambodian people against the Siamese.

It is an interesting theory. However, blaming the Siamese for plague is a bit silly and shows your contempt for the Siamese. Anywho, it could just be as easy as him killing his Khmer wife possibly with slow poison because her kingdom had no more use for him. Afterwards he married a princess from the winners of the conflict who were still in power. Fa Ngum used his marriage to the Angkorian princess to gain troops to conquer himself a kingdom. As for the chronicles stating that the country was still powerful, would they have written down that it was weak and falling apart? not likely. If they were still strong and powerful, the Siamese attack would have failed. Fa Ngums actions looks far more likely to be about politics then him actually loving the Angkorian princess. It is too much of a coincidence that when her kingdom fell, she would automatically die of plague. Especially seeing as there is no record of plague at that time in the region

I am not blaming the Siamese for the plague, I’m saying the chronicles states that that was happened. I think it’s safe to assume she could have been murdered as the Cambodeans were defeated and she held no importance anymore.

I show contempt to the Thais the same way I show contempt to any ancient civilization, lol.

But it could have been the plague. The plague was present around the same time, and probably one of (multiple) reasons of the decline of Kampuchea. Maybe the Siamese killed her with the motive of her being sick (because plague was present in Angkor)?

The language you seek is Siamese. It is a similar language to Khmer branch of the Mon-Khmer language and had been in use by the Siamese people since the Time of Tshen-La. Siamese are Austroasiatic peoples of central and north western SEA. Well to be more exact, Mon people. Mon people were the people who inhabited the region long before the Khmers. Khmers come from south of the Dangrek mountians. Tshen-La was situated north. http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/presc...1_num_44_2_5190

From: Comrie, Bernard (ed.) The World's Major Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. 1990
Relevant References
Gedney, William (1947) Indic Loanwords in Spoken Thai, Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University.
Brown, J. Marvin (1965) From Ancient Thai to Modern Dialects. Bangkok: Social Science Association Press of Thailand:.

“Several factors suggest a latter date for the splits in Thai.
First, late thirteenth-century and early fourteenth-century Ayutthaya poetic compositions appear in the three tone language.
Second, Khmer loanwords, which probably entered the language after the Thai conquest of Angkor in 1431, also predate the splits.
In addition, seventeenth-century descriptions of the Thai alphabet demonstrate that the consonant changes involved with the tonal splits had already taken place by that date.
Citing this evidence, Gedney proposes a date sometime between the mid-fifteenth and the mid- seventeenth centuries for the tonal splits in Thai.
The Ayutthaya period (1350-1767) also saw large numbers of Sanskrit and Pali words borrowed, althrough this phenomenon was not strictly limited to this period. These Indic loanwords comprise a large portion of the technical vocablaries for science, government, education, religion and literature. Gedney(1947:1) states that these loanwords are as common in spoken Thai as Latin and Greek forms are in spoken English. Sanskrit and, to a much lesser extent, Pali assume the same cultural importance for Thai as Latin does for English. Many of these loanwords exist in both short and a long forms.The shorter form represents the usual Thai pronunciation: rat’state’, theep’god’. The longer alternant usually, but not always, functions as a combining form: ratthabaan ‘government’ ( latter constituent baan ‘protecter,protection’); theepphabut’angel’(latter constituent but ’son’). Most of these compounds seem to have been formed in modern Thai since they do not appear in either Sanskrit or Pali.
During the Ayutthaya period, Thai began to acquire other characteristics that have let the Thai to regard their language as highly complex and stratified, difficult to acquire even for the very educated. In the past, this impression grew because of the Indic loanwords. But far more central to the creation of this image was the proliferation of titles, ranks, pronouns, royal vocabulary and royal kin terminology that reflected the growing stratification and complexity of the society. Although much of the complexity applied only to the court, Thai speakers nevertheless interpreted these changes as changes in their own language.
Many of these new terms had their original in Sanskrit and Pali. Still others came from Khmer. Khmer institutions had always had an influence on the Thai court and this influence increased when the Thai imported Khmer intelligentsia into Thailand after the fall of Angkor. Royal titles provide a goood example of this increasing complexity. Originally, during the Sukhothai peroid, the Khmer title "khun" referred to the king . By the Ayutthaya period, this title applied only to officials and the king had acquired more elaborate ones. Other changes affected the titles for the king’s offspring. Newly created titles included those for children by the royal queen, for the children by a non-royal queen and for the grandchildren. In the ninteenth-century titles for great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren were also added.”

Khom were people south of Sukhothai. Khom were Siamese people. Khmers are not the Khom people. Even the idea of Khom people in Khmer culture such as "Yutha kun Khom" comes from Siamese sources. Old Khmer is said to have originated in Tshen-La which we now know was actually Mon country. The only other Mons who use this script are the Siamese who identity is older than that of Khmers. Both are of the austroasiatic family group, but Siamese are Mons. The Syamese (Ancient Siamese) were responsible for the culture and civilisation of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia.

Khom is a common word to refer to the powerful Hindu rulers in Kampuchea. There is no evidence of a race or group called Khom, besides the rulers of Angkor. It is also only in Thailand and Laos that this word is used. Not the Chinese, not the Vietnamese, not the Chams, not the Kampucheans themselve ever spoke of Khom. Khom is just the word that derrived during the time of the Khmer rulers with high caste Indian descendancy (descended from lunar and solar dynasty). Also the Cham claim to be descended from solar dynasty. As Old Khmer was the language used besides the holy language it is safe to assume the inhabitants of Funan and Chenla were of Mon-Khmer stock. Khmer was found and used like Cham language was the native language of the Chams and Sanskrit the holy language. With Pali the holy language of the Mon.

Besides, the inscriptions of Jayavarman II speaks of him returning to the land of his ancestors. As he went to where Angkor is now, it is also to assume that his ancestors were natioves to the area (Khmers).

Also, the first found prehistoric inhabitants of the area of Angkor ressemble the current day Khmers, and the Indian haplogroup P* (ancient Indian) is still found among current day Khmer people.

The word was also used by Ong Kommandam (South Laotion freedom fighter 1910 – 1936). He claimed that they were the Khom who are indigenous to the area, and have lived in a glory age when the Khmer ruled them, and when they were a part of the Kingdom of Lan Xang. As part of his resistance activities, he invented a secret script to convey messages, Khom script.

The word Khamen is the Thai pronunciation of the word Khmer. When written in Thai the Thai language structure changes the sound of the R into an N. God knows what the french and that rubbish have to do with it lol wishful thinking I guess. Actually there is documented proof that the rulers were form other ethnicities. Some were from Sri Dhamaraja, other were Chams, Javanese etc etc it is recorded in other sources lol SEA kingdoms were multiethnic. With the conquest of every city the kingdoms fill with slaves and servants. The chinese don't differentiate people of similar ilk. Hell, if you want to look at it another way... Khmers today look very Indian as it is. Just imagine what they looked like then.

Khmer and Khom had always the same meaning. It was just that the Thais decided to use Khom for the ancient rulers and Khamen for the current day people.
Yes it is true about them having different ethnicities. But noone ever used the word Khom. The Kampucheans referred to themselves as the descendants of the lunar and solar dynasty, the originators of Funan and Chenla.

Why did the chinese not differentiate between them and indian? because they looked indian lol

Because they looked Indian?? The Chinese damn sure knew what Indians were. If the Angkorean kings were Indian and only intermarried with other Indians the Chinese would have referred to as Indians. Also a clue that the Indian caste system was not relavant. The indians intermarried with local women in the first place. Probably to be in a tribe was enough for these Indian to explore the Khmer pussy.

Funnily you mention this, According to the glass palace chronicles. The story of the sweet cucumber farmer is in fact a MON legend. Why this appears in Khmer folk lore one can only imagine. It also explains why after the king was killed there was no civil war, no slave rebellion etc etc he who kills the king becomes a king. Now did the Mons take this story from the Khmer or vice versa? one can only speculate.

I can imagine, because all of the sacred documents were lost (by the Siamese), there was a huge gap in history that was filled up with this Mon legend, because it probably resembled what actually happened. But there is no evidence whatsoever that endorse this, except the story of how Indravarman III came to power. This would also explain that the mysterious brother from the story (the successor of the melon king) is actually Indrajayavarman (according to the Sanskrit inscriptions also a relative of Indravarman III).

The chronicles of cambodia is available to the public. NoKhamen posted links to a website with it a while back. once again speculation and conspiricy theory lol

The chronicles of Cambodia are only reliable from a certain time (about 1400-1500). Before that time the information is good for whiping your @$$.

The caste system may be looser then it was in india but it was still present. The Ksatriyas would never mix with the lower class. Neither will the brahmins. The rich merchants and lower governers/administrators had their own class, so having gold would only promote them into that class. Even if the classes were to be loosely put together. It would still be Brahmins>Ksatriyas>Merchants>everything else this is how it is even TODAY. Having praise put to you for building a temple does not mean you can climb a class ladder. It just means you did good work lol

Yes, it was still present in the way that certain bloodlines stayed high castes, but there is no further information about how the society looked like other than from Zou Daguan. That the most people were farmer/slave (corvee labour) was the same way in any other SEA agrarian society. Also ayutthuya existed primarily out of peasant folk, but we don’t call the old siamese rulers the “Siamose” and the descendants Siamese.

It could also be that the castes were relevant at some point but that other characteristics also decide your prestige in the society. Also the role of women in the Angkorean society is very different than that of India. Women were highly regarded, Indravarman III had female bodyguards, there were women advisors in the royal court and they were able to make decisions without permission of the husband. Also a sign that the caste system was not as similar in Angkor.

Also, it is clearly in the temples that there is influence of different Indian areas, as well as Cham, Javanese, etc. This also shows the Indianization in general as I described before. The structures and temples, etc. of Angkor are furthermore just as distinguished as similar to the Indian. This could mean the Indianization at one point stopped, but the culture, etc. was given through the descendants which distinguished themselves from the Indians through following generations. But the connection with Indian scholars must have stayed, explaining how they kept their knowledge like Sanskrit, etc. I am surprised there is no more domumentation from Indian documents, but this could also mean that the connection broke of once the new Hindu states (like Kampuchea) were set. The Cham were at one point sufficient in using their own language in inscriptions, the Kampucheans stayed the same. Also, the animistic influence is inherited from maternal side (mon-khmer), while Hinduism was passed through on paternal side.

There are inscriptions that the temple builders were highly praised for the work that they did. Or, the temple builders were already high castes, or it is imaginable that the labourers received more privileges after the work was done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Dec 21 2011, 07:39 AM
Post #29


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM) *
What is already proven is that the caste system was not the same in Cambodia as in India.
Many historians (including George Coedes) believes the Khmer people got to choose whatever suited them best,


True that caste system in Yasodharapura is not the same as in india. But there was certainly some caste system of atleast 2 classes, the upper classes were king and brahmin and the lower class were naga or local people.

Do you think local people can have the choice to choose what suit them?

The chooser not the local people, it's the boss who choose.


QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM) *
In fact, the whole way Kampuchea was founded, was by intermarriage between locals and Indian traders.


You used the wrong word. Local people or naga were "conquered" by the "intercoursing" between the indian bosses and the elite local women.

That's the technique they used to "conquere" and "rule" local people who are in the lower classes.

The intermarriage technique was for a the same class, not for the different class.
When a kingdom want to merge with another kingdom, they will send the princess to marry the king of another kingdom.

QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM) *
Their off springs were taught in the Indian ways and became born leaders through their bloodline.


I doubt about that.

QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM) *
I believe the different people were drawn together by culture, language, etc.


That's your belief, not what actually happen.
I will tell you what happened then.

There was no border and no concept of country back then.

The border concepts was just introduced lately by the French.

It was these border lines that seperate people and make them different.

Imagine Suvarnabhumi land in those days when there was no borderline.

There was no Thailand, no Cambodia, no Laos and there was no capital cities of such countries.

There were only small cities and big cities.

When a city become more powerful, it will dominate the other cities and when another city become stronger, it will replace the first one.

It was the French historians who created a concept of country and started to write history of each country seperately.

They "assumed" that Sukhothai was the first capital of a country called "Thailand"; Ayudhaya is the next one and then Bangkok.

They "assumed" that Yasodharapura was the first capital of a country called "Cambodia" before it moved to the new capital called "Phnom Pehn"

Actually, Sukhothai is not a capital of Thailand! It's just a big city like Chiang Mai or Suphanburi. It never have a status of capital city, not even in its name.

Yasodharapura was the most powerful city of its time, but it was not the capital city of Cambodia or Thailand!

Before Yasodharapura, other cities like Pimai or Lopburi may be more powerful but in that period, it was
Yasodharapura that is the most powerful.

After Yasodharapura, it was replaced by Ayudhaya and then Bangkok.

So, it's not strange to see a guy from Sukhothai became the king of Yasodharapura.

We know that some kingsof Yasodharapura were from Malay, Java etc.

And some kings of Ayudhaya were from Sukhothai, Suphanburi etc.

So, there is no reason why "Khun Pa Muang" from Sukhothai can't be Indravarman III of Yasodharapura.


It was the border and the history of each country written by the French that make it impossible in your mind.

If you delete all the border, everything can be explained.

Today people in Laos, Cambodia and Thailand are different not because of the different culture, language like you said.

It was those borders that made them different.

If the French didn't come to Indochina, and Laos + Cambodia are still part of Siam, every Khmers today probably speak and write in central Thai language because of the Thaification.

And the history will be much different; Yasodharapura will be the first capital of Thailand and then Ayudhaya.

Unfortunately, the French did arrive and they brought messy stuffs with them like the word "Khmer Empire" which never existed. icon_smile.gif

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Dec 21 2011, 07:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Dec 21 2011, 07:45 AM
Post #30


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM) *
One thing I think is funny is that a lot of Thai people claim that Sanskit was the Khoms language and Khmer the slaves language.


What is funny about it???

Sanskrit is the language of the upper class until recently, even in thailand.

Thai people only used Thai name until recently when Sanskrit name became normal thing and popular anmong Thai people to name their children in Sanskrit.


QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM) *
All the Indianized people derrived their script about the same time. The Khmer developed their own script,


You mean Khmer developed their own script and not based on the indian (aka Khom) alphabets?

QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM) *
The link to samré can mean negrito (as they are still called Samré) but is also a term for low caste. It is not sure whether the inscription refers to him as just a low caste or indeed the negrito-tribe.


He is a Siamese. I can bet you all the money I have. icon_smile.gif


QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM) *
If he was Siamese, I would doubt this would not be mentioned by Zou Daguan, especially as he was there shortly after he became king. The white complexion could also be white powder, to give him a more sacred look. Used by Indian officials in history. Or just a light skinned individual. But I assume it was some sort of make up of the skin


Your argument has a hole. How could he tell if he was a Siamese? What he knew then was just the rumor (mostlikely from the prince's side) that he took the power from the prince.

He mentined in his record that there wer many Siamese people recently settle down in the city. Isn't that too coincident?

And the most important thing that you (and the mainstream historian) skipped.

It's well recorded in the stone script of Sukhothai about Khun Pa Muang and the sword he got from the king of Yasodharapura with the same title name "Sri Indradhidhaya" or "Srindravarman"

How do you explain it?

QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM) *
I think I have seen inscriptions which you haven’t, because inscriptions mentioning him to be a Samré warrior.


Are you sure it was not "Siamese warrior"? icon_smile.gif

QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM) *
Why do you think he already died in 1336? The chronicles of Cambodia don’t hold any importance of truth for me, as

they were assembled with loose information. There is no evidence at all that the last varman king died then. Also not by the Chinese, which documentation about the kings is most reliable. The sacking of Angkor was revenge for the rebellious acts conducted by the Cambodian people against the Siamese.


Yes, it's recorded in the Chronicle of Ayudhaya also that the sacking is to teach the lesson to the "betrayal"

Can you explain why the first king of a new city like "Ayudhaya" called on a war with a powerful city like
Yasodharapura as the war on the "Betrayal"?

There must be something important happened during 1320 - 1370, something that is hidden and I am finding it.


QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 20 2011, 03:03 PM) *
I am not blaming the Siamese for the plague, I’m saying the chronicles states that that was happened.


Talking about the plague, if you take a look at the black death history, 1347 was the year black death hit Europe and about the same time (1330's) it hit China.

So, what happen with Yasodharapura and Ayudhaya during 1320 - 1370 is certainly related somehow to the black death that kill many people during that period.

A dutch during Ayudhaya period recorded that King U-thong moved his people from "Ayudhaya" to Kampotch because the black death hit Ayodhaya real bad.

1350 which is believed to be the the first year Ayudhaya was built is most likely to be the first year he moved his people back from Kampotch and renamed the city from "Ayodhaya" to "KrungThep Tavaradadi Sri Ayudhaya"

And 2 years later he called for a war on Yasodharapura, "the betrayal"

There is certainly some relationship between King U-Thong of Ayudhaya and the ending of Varman dynasty in Yasodharapura.

But it won't fit the vertical version of the history made by the French.

To study it, you have to delete the frame created by the French and made a horizontal version of the history without the country name Thailand, Cambodia, Laos etc.

That's called "the new theory", unlike yours.

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Dec 21 2011, 08:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
indafunk
post Dec 21 2011, 10:55 AM
Post #31


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13-December 11




This is what I mean, the Thais that usually start introducing new theories to bash their neighbors are racist Chinese like Leeporter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SEAhistory
post Dec 21 2011, 12:42 PM
Post #32


AF Fiend
Group Icon

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




[quote name='Leeporter' date='Dec 21 2011, 08:45 AM' post='4965784']
What is funny about it???

Sanskrit is the language of the upper class until recently, even in thailand.

Thai people only used Thai name until recently when Sanskrit name became normal thing and popular anmong Thai people to name their children in Sanskrit.


It's funny, because almost any civilization gained a written version of their language during the Indianization. It is only said about Khmer people that they did not develop their script but took it over from the "Khom", lol. AS there are more Old Khmer inscriptions then Sanskrit inscriptions, and the two languages lived hand in hand, it is obvious that the Sanskrit users knew Old Khmer as well, so the rulers were indeed Mon-Khmer.


You mean Khmer developed their own script and not based on the indian (aka Khom) alphabets?

No, they developed it from Indian characters, The use of Sanskrit is the same as in any other civilization. Also the Dravidians in the south had their native language and sacred language (Sanskrit), just like the Cham, the Mon, the Thai, etc. It is just that Indianized civilizations used to develop their native language around the same time.

He is a Siamese. I can bet you all the money I have. icon_smile.gif

I will look into it and come back on it, but I have so far found more clues this isn't true




Your argument has a hole. How could he tell if he was a Siamese? What he knew then was just the rumor (mostlikely from the prince's side) that he took the power from the prince.

He mentined in his record that there wer many Siamese people recently settle down in the city. Isn't that too coincident?


Isnt it a coincidence that Zou Daguan describes the Siamese people, but not the king as Siamese? The whole reason Indravarman III came to power, was because of the thread of the Siamese, otherwise the Brahmin priest didnt feel the urge to encrown a buddhist king. The country needed unifiance, and invasions from the Siamese were happening on a large scale already, according to the inscriptions. Also, Zou Daguan also told the story about the country being ravaged, but the Siamese just didn't come close enough to raid the capital.

And the most important thing that you (and the mainstream historian) skipped.

It's well recorded in the stone script of Sukhothai about Khun Pa Muang and the sword he got from the king of Yasodharapura with the same title name "Sri Indradhidhaya" or "Srindravarman"

How do you explain it?


Where is evidence about this?


Are you sure it was not "Siamese warrior"? icon_smile.gif


No, the precise word was Sa'och in Sanskrit


Yes, it's recorded in the Chronicle of Ayudhaya also that the sacking is to teach the lesson to the "betrayal"

Can you explain why the first king of a new city like "Ayudhaya" called on a war with a powerful city like
Yasodharapura as the war on the "Betrayal"?

There must be something important happened during 1320 - 1370, something that is hidden and I am finding it.



Ayyutthuya was at one point far more powerful then Kampuchea, and the Siamese were expanding control into Angkorean territory. The Kampucheans lost more and more control and land, and this was a slow process in which Angkor became weaker and Ayyutthuya became more stronger. It was not until the midth of the 14th century that Ayyuthuya was styrong enough to capture Angkor and they did.

What happened between 1320 - 1370 is clear to me. The Siamese conquered the city and took the intelligentia of the country with them. The Hinduists had nowhere to run and must have stayed around the temples and ruins which was their base. As Sanskrit and the whole Hindu culture was lost at that point, and the influence of Angkor (architecture, language) appeared in Ayutthuya around the same time, it is pretty obvious to me they took everybody with use and shipped them away. The current leaders were most likely killed, while the Brahmins and such were brought to the royal court of Ayutthuya. They probably wanted Angkor to be a vassal of Siam, but the Angkoreans rebelled and gained power over Angkor once again around 1370. And then in 1431 the capital was sacked again, this time with no intention of Angkor becoming a vassal, but just lootering and destroying the place.

Like I said before, the Thais are the only ones to hold information about this period, but is held secret for some dubious reason.

Talking about the plague, if you take a look at the black death history, 1347 was the year black death hit Europe and about the same time (1330's) it hit China.

So, what happen with Yasodharapura and Ayudhaya during 1320 - 1370 is certainly related somehow to the black death that kill many people during that period.

A dutch during Ayudhaya period recorded that King U-thong moved his people from "Ayudhaya" to Kampotch because the black death hit Ayodhaya real bad.


1350 which is believed to be the the first year Ayudhaya was built is most likely to be the first year he moved his people back from Kampotch and renamed the city from "Ayodhaya" to "KrungThep Tavaradadi Sri Ayudhaya"

And 2 years later he called for a war on Yasodharapura, "the betrayal"

There is certainly some relationship between King U-Thong of Ayudhaya and the ending of Varman dynasty in Yasodharapura.


Yes there is, the Siamese captured their previous leader and stole the intelligentia from the people. The Angkoreans were highly regarded by the Siamese and the Siamese were obsessed by gaining the knowledge of the Angkoreans.

The betrayal was probably the fact that Kampuchea never wanted to pay hommage to a new leader. It is pausible that the Siamese had a truce with the Angkoreans and at one point broke this off.

The next betrayal is the rebellious coup of the left-over Cambodians that took over control once again in 1370. The Siamese wanted the city and the knowledge to themselves, and tried to control the Cambodian people as a vassal. The Cambodians didn't take this, and rebelled. At this point the Hindu culture was usurped by the Siamese, and the sacking of Angkor in 1431 was the last strike to destroy/steal all the sacred and holy documents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kdaw_Tmaw
post Dec 21 2011, 02:59 PM
Post #33


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,896
Joined: 18-April 05
From: Phsa Tmey




Let's keep it going. So far this is a very interesting and civilized discussion. biggthumpup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SEAhistory
post Dec 21 2011, 05:56 PM
Post #34


AF Fiend
Group Icon

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




Also, what is very interesting, is the last inscription ever found at Angkor. The inscription talks about Jayavarman IX coming to power, "having torn out the city of his enemy". The biggest enemy at that point were the Siamese, and it is quite possible that he waged wars against the Siamese, as raids from Siamese side were already reported. The other texts from this inscription talk about struggling and fear and can be linked to a time of war.

What is also interesting is the fact that through the inscriptions no link can be found to the former bloodline of kings, but only to Indravarman III. Again evidence that the successors of Indravarman III were probably only related to him. And as I said before, they could be Buddhists as well, as I found no evidence the rulers were devoted Hinduists (no inscriptions, no temples, no statues, only inscriptions from the family's officials). They probably kept using the wooden statues, buildings, etc. introduced by Indravarman III, wich explaines no more Hindu-objects were constructed. The religion of the kings became buddhism, and the Varman suffix was probably only relevant to the Hinduists, as the common people knew the leaders by another name, since they didn't know Sanskrit. Also Indravarman III was referred to by another name in Pali and Khmer inscriptions. Also an explanation how the Varman suffix disappeared.

One problem I have with Indravarman III being Kun Pa Muang is the given fact that Indravarman III spent ten years in Sri-Lanka. Also other links contradict him being Kun Pa Muang. I will follow up on this..

It is clear that the Hindu-influence was lost during the time of 1327 and 1370. New kings would immediately sent embassies for hommage to China and because of these embassies we know about the Cambodian kings. It is clear that Angkor was attacked around 1352, which perfectly cohere with the army of Fa Ngum in 1351 and the influence of Angkor in Ayutthuya. The Thai probably wanted to have Angkor in their kingdom as a vassal, as the Cambodians were high regarded. But the Cambodians rebelled and rebelled but were oppressed and oppressed again, and finally became uninterresting for the Siamese. The savage looting of the Angkor temples in 1431 was most probably done, because the Siamese were fed up with the rebellious actions and had something like, if we can't have it, no one will. At first they probably wanted to keep the temple(s) intact. The obsession of gaining these structures has always been clear after when kings wanted to have replica's and also tried to move stone parts to Siam (when Cambodian people prevented this by killing the Siamese). The Siamese tried to use the style of Angkor themselves and this can be shown in some old temples.

It is sad to see that many of the Cambodian cultural customs are influenced a lot by Thai. Many arts and customs were used by the Thai, while the Cambodians lost more and more of their culture. By stimulating the culture of Cambodia, the Cambodians had to borrow knowledge from the Thai for filling the gaps. The Thai people had hundreds of years of developing the new customs they learned from the Cambodians, while the Cambodians culture reduced and declined by 700 years of wars and oppression.

Now a funny fact. Many Thai people claim the Khmer not to be Khom, but with the invasion of 1431 Thai documents spoke of taking war prisoners, because Khom people had good build and were seen as strong people who would make good hybrids. But according to the Thai, the Khom were already gone by that time (supposedly overrun by Khmer)! Isn't that funny?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PeaceMan
post Dec 21 2011, 08:57 PM
Post #35


AF Guru
Group Icon

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




What happened between 1320 - 1370 is clear to me. The Siamese conquered the city and took the intelligentia of the country with them. The Hinduists had nowhere to run and must have stayed around the temples and ruins which was their base. As Sanskrit and the whole Hindu culture was lost at that point, and the influence of Angkor (architecture, language) appeared in Ayutthuya around the same time, it is pretty obvious to me they took everybody with use and shipped them away. The current leaders were most likely killed, while the Brahmins and such were brought to the royal court of Ayutthuya. They probably wanted Angkor to be a vassal of Siam, but the Angkoreans rebelled and gained power over Angkor once again around 1370. And then in 1431 the capital was sacked again, this time with no intention of Angkor becoming a vassal, but just lootering and destroying the place.

Like I said before, the Thais are the only ones to hold information about this period, but is held secret for some dubious reason.






Sorry for the interference...as Khom and Indravarman III is not my area of interest...but your assumption need correction...

FYI

It was the Bhraman of Lavo/Ayodhaya who presented the "Ramathibodi" title to King U-thong.

"Phrang Sam Yod" in Lavo was built by Jayvarman VII before the establishment of "Sri Ayuttaya" .... After the rise of Ayuttaya, their architectures and arts obviousely became more and more of its own unique distinction...definitely not more and more toward Angkorian arts.

the allocation of man power and treasure from the defeated kingdom was a very common practice by every Empire...They're all done in the same manner....

This post has been edited by PeaceMan: Dec 21 2011, 09:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Dec 22 2011, 01:31 AM
Post #36


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 21 2011, 01:42 PM) *
It's funny, because almost any civilization gained a written version of their language during the Indianization. It is only said about Khmer people that they did not develop their script but took it over from the "Khom", lol. AS there are more Old Khmer inscriptions then Sanskrit inscriptions, and the two languages lived hand in hand, it is obvious that the Sanskrit users knew Old Khmer as well, so the rulers were indeed Mon-Khmer.


Thai, Lao and Khmer alphabets are all derived from the same root, the Pallava alphabets from India.

Those alphabets were adapted to suit each spoken language and it was the different in spoken language that made their alphabets gradually became different.

Every people who studied about it already accepted this fact; only uneducated Khmers can't accept it.

So everytime they see some Thai alphabets or numerics that are familiar to them, they will tell you that Thai copied Khmer alphabets.



QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 21 2011, 01:42 PM) *
No, they developed it from Indian characters,


Tell Khmer folks here to memorize it. icon_smile.gif

QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 21 2011, 01:42 PM) *
Isnt it a coincidence that Zou Daguan describes the Siamese people, but not the king as Siamese?


Your argument used "false logic."

You are arguing that "Since ZDG didn't mention that the king was a Siamese, therefore he was not a Siamese"

I can use the same "false logic" to conclude that "Since ZDG didn't mention that the king was a Khmer, therefore he was not a Khmer"

You see why I said it's a false logic? icon_smile.gif

If ZDG said that he was a Khmer, then you may conclude that he was not a Siamese.

But just because he didn't mention that the king was a Siamese, it doesn't mean that he was not a Siamese.

It's called "False Logic" in my Logic 101 class.




QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 21 2011, 01:42 PM) *
The whole reason Indravarman III came to power, was because of the thread of the Siamese, otherwise the Brahmin priest didnt feel the urge to encrown a buddhist king.



Where is your souce?


QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 21 2011, 01:42 PM) *
Also, Zou Daguan also told the story about the country being ravaged, but the Siamese just didn't come close enough to raid the capital.


Who said they raid it the capital of Siam????

Like I said, you mixed up the current concept of country into the ancient history.

Kun Pha Muang from Sukhothai was a warrior and he was given the power from Yasodharapura king through the sword (Preah Khan Reach) and his daugther.

He didn't come to make it a capital of Siam! No country called Siam in those days!


QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 21 2011, 01:42 PM) *
Where is evidence about this?


Here it is.

http://th.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%B8%A8%E0...%B8%B8%E0%B8%A1

It was transcripted into modern Thai alphabets, if you can read it.

It's said clearly in the stone script that the king of Yasodharapura (Sri Sodharapura) gave his daughter (Sikara Maha Dhevi), the sword (Pra Khan Chai Sri/Preah Khan Reach) and the title "Sri Indradhidhaya" to him but he gave the title and the city of Sukhothai to his brother-in-law.


Edit: For your convenience, I've cut the part where it said about these names in the stone script of Sukhothai and hi-lighted them here.



Isn't it odd that the French never included this fact in their version of Khmer history?

You know why?

Because it doesn't fit into their frame to separate the land into 2 pieces with 2 unrelated history!

If they did include this fact, they wouldn't be able to explain their invented keyword "Khmer Empire"



QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 21 2011, 01:42 PM) *
No, the precise word was Sa'och in Sanskrit


What is the correct romanized word for that "Sa'och"??


QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 21 2011, 01:42 PM) *
Ayyutthuya was at one point far more powerful then Kampuchea, and the Siamese were expanding control into Angkorean territory. The Kampucheans lost more and more control and land, and this was a slow process in which Angkor became weaker and Ayyutthuya became more stronger. It was not until the midth of the 14th century that Ayyuthuya was styrong enough to capture Angkor and they did......They probably wanted Angkor to be a vassal of Siam, but the Angkoreans rebelled and gained power over Angkor once again around 1370.


From the "Chronicle of Cambodia" below
http://th.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9E%E0...%B8%A1%E0%B8%A3



it's said that King U-Thong (Ramadhibodi I) sent his troop to Yasodharapura in 1352 (Sakkarat 714) and could take over the city in 1353 (Sakkarat 715 /during King Lampong Racha)

According to the history, King U-Thong became the first king of Ayudhaya in 1350.

So, it was only 2 years after he became the first king of ayudhaya that he made a war on the "betrayal"

How could that be?

How could a new king of a new city called a big city like Yasodharapura as a "betrayal"?


QUOTE (SEAhistory @ Dec 21 2011, 01:42 PM) *
What happened between 1320 - 1370 is clear to me. The Siamese conquered the city and took the intelligentia of the country with them. The Hinduists had nowhere to run and must have stayed around the temples and ruins which was their base. As Sanskrit and the whole Hindu culture was lost at that point, and the influence of Angkor (architecture, language) appeared in Ayutthuya around the same time, it is pretty obvious to me they took everybody with use and shipped them away. The current leaders were most likely killed, while the Brahmins and such were brought to the royal court of Ayutthuya.


That's the "old theory" you learned from the French. icon_smile.gif

I am telling you a "new theory" here, listen to me carefully and think along.

If the French didn't come to Indochina and took over the land from Siam, ask yourself what would happen?

1) All Khmer and Lao people today would be using Bangkokian spoken and written language like people in the other part of Thailand.

2) Yasodharapura, not Sukhothai, will be regarded as the first capital of Thailand before Ayudhaya.

3) Phnom Pehn and Sukhothai would be just another big city of Thailand like Chiang Mai.

4) There wouldn't be the word "Khmer Empire", and also no such thing as "Angkor" or "Angkorian"


Unfortunately, the French did come and they brought something called "border line" that divided a piece of land into several pieces with separated histories of each piece to suit their political purpose.

This "border line" makes it impossible for people to accept the fact that King Indravaraman III of Yasodharapura was actually a warrior from another city called "Sukhothai"

This "border line" makes it impposible for people to accept the fact that King U-Thong was actually from Yasodharapura or another city related to Yasodharapura, and the fact that Ayudhaya, not Phnom Pehn, was the next center of the power of Suvarnabhumi after Yasodharapura.

They thought this is not possible because they have the border line in their head and 2 seperated history, one for "Thailand" and the other one for "Cambodia" while in the real world, there was only one history of Suvarnabhumi.

They tried very hard with several theories to explain why the power of Yasodharapura suddenly ended and declined into a weak Phnom Pehn, by manipuating the history to blame it on Ayudhaya.

If there was no border line, the power of Yasodharapura wouldn't ended or declined into a tiny Phanom Pehn, but it would be even stronger and became Ayudhaya.

That's what I was trying to tell your people who are blinded by the fake history created by the French.

Think about it and take yourself out of the frame drawn by the Frenches.


This post has been edited by Leeporter: Dec 22 2011, 05:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
k82562131
post Dec 22 2011, 02:42 AM
Post #37


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 515
Joined: 1-January 11




QUOTE (Kdaw_Tmaw @ Dec 21 2011, 11:59 AM) *
Let's keep it going. So far this is a very interesting and civilized discussion. biggthumpup.gif


I haven't been on AF for a long while, but damn, some things never change. I'll give you a thumb up for agreeing with you biggthumpup.gif icon_smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Dec 22 2011, 06:39 AM
Post #38


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Leeporter @ Dec 22 2011, 01:31 PM) *
Thai, Lao and Khmer alphabets are all derived from the same root, the Pallava alphabets from India.

Those alphabets were adapted to suit each spoken language and it was the different in spoken language that made their alphabets gradually became different.

Every people who studied about it already accepted this fact; only uneducated Khmers can't accept it.

So everytime they see some Thai alphabets or numerics that are familiar to them, they will tell you that Thai copied Khmer alphabets.





Tell Khmer folks here to memorize it. icon_smile.gif



Your argument uses "false logic."

You are arguing that "Since ZDG didn't mention that the king was a Siamese, therefore he was not a Siamese"

I can use the same "false logic" to conclude that "Since ZDG didn't mention that the king was a Khmer, therefore he was not a Khmer"

You see why I said it's a false logic? icon_smile.gif

If ZDG said that he was a Khmer, then you may conclude that he was not a Siamese.

But just because he didn't mention that the king was a Siamese, it doesn't mean that he was not a Siamese.

It's called "False Logic" in my Logic 101 class.







Where is your souce?




Who said they raid it the capital of Siam????

Like I said, you mixed up the current concept of country into the ancient history.

Kun Pha Muang from Sukhothai was a warrior and he was given the power from Yasodharapura king through the sword (Preah Khan Reach) and his daugther.

He didn't come to make it a capital of Siam! No country called Siam in those days!




Here it is.

http://th.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%B8%A8%E0...%B8%B8%E0%B8%A1

It was transcripted into modern Thai alphabets, if you can read it.

It's said clearly in the stone script that the king of Yasodharapura (Sri Sodharapura) gave his daughter (Sikara Maha Dhevi), the sword (Pra Khan Chai Sri/Preah Khan Reach) and the title "Sri Indradhidhaya" to him but he gave the title and the city of Sukhothai to his brother-in-law.


Edit: For your convenience, I've cut the part where it said about these names in the stone script of Sukhothai and hi-lighted them here.



Isn't it odd that the French never included this fact in their version of Khmer history?

You know why?

Because it doesn't fit into their frame to separate the land into 2 pieces with 2 unrelated history!

If they did include this fact, they wouldn't be able to explain their invented keyword "Khmer Empire"





What is the correct romanized word for that "Sa'och"??




From the "Chronicle of Cambodia" below
http://th.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9E%E0...%B8%A1%E0%B8%A3



it's said that King U-Thong (Ramadhibodi I) sent his troop to Yasodharapura in 1352 (Sakkarat 714) and could take over the city in 1353 (Sakkarat 715 /during King Lampong Racha)

According to the history, King U-Thong became the first king of Ayudhaya in 1350.

So, it was only 2 years after he became the first king of ayudhaya that he made a war on the "betrayal"

How could that be?

How could a new king of a new city called a big city like Yasodharapura as a "betrayal"?




That's the "old theory" you learned from the French. icon_smile.gif

I am telling you a "new theory" here, listen to me carefully and think along.

If the French didn't come to Indochina and took over the land from Siam, ask yourself what would happen?

1) All Khmer and Lao people today would be using Bangkokian spoken and written language like people in the other part of Thailand.

2) Yasodharapura, not Sukhothai, will be regarded as the first capital of Thailand before Ayudhaya.

3) Phnom Pehn and Sukhothai would be just another big city of Thailand like Chiang Mai.

4) There wouldn't be the word "Khmer Empire", and also no such thing as "Angkor" or "Angkorian"


Unfortunately, the French did come and they brought something called "border line" that divided a piece of land into several pieces with separated histories of each piece to suit their political purpose.

This "border line" makes it impossible for people to accept the fact that King Indravaraman III of Yasodharapura was actually a warrior from another city called "Sukhothai"

This "border line" makes it impposible for people to accept the fact that King U-Thong was actually from Yasodharapura or another city related to Yasodharapura, and the fact that Ayudhaya, not Phnom Pehn, was the next center of the power of Suvarnabhumi after Yasodharapura.

They thought this is not possible because they have the border line in their head and 2 seperated history, one for "Thailand" and the other one for "Cambodia" while in the real world, there was only one history of Suvarnabhumi.

They tried very hard with several theories to explain why the power of Yasodharapura suddenly ended and declined into a weak Phnom Pehn, by manipuating the history to blame it on Ayudhaya.

If there was no border line, the power of Yasodharapura wouldn't ended or declined into a tiny Phanom Pehn, but it would be even stronger and became Ayudhaya.

That's what I was trying to tell your people who are blinded by the fake history created by the French.

Think about it and take yourself out of the frame drawn by the Frenches.

is that becasue of the Sokhothai inscription mention about the Khorm?? then you say Khorm and Khmer is difference people and France faule to tell the truth?

Okay so then what about the Dutch had mention about the Cambodjaans. and English as Cambodian and France as Combodgien and Chinese as Jian Bu Jai...? So then people will have a terrible time if they found out that the name is not exactly the same. I guess no one want to be a historian!!! ^^
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KhmerBoi
post Dec 22 2011, 06:41 AM
Post #39


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




oh Can you teel me that is that in Sokhothai inscription also mention that Khorm is not Khmer?? any sentence? Can you kindly provide me these? If not then I have no wonder why no scholar agreed with your assumption!! ^^
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weareallone
post Dec 22 2011, 07:14 PM
Post #40


AF Geek
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Leeporter @ Dec 22 2011, 01:31 AM) *
Your argument used "false logic."

You are arguing that "Since ZDG didn't mention that the king was a Siamese, therefore he was not a Siamese"

I can use the same "false logic" to conclude that "Since ZDG didn't mention that the king was a Khmer, therefore he was not a Khmer"

You see why I said it's a false logic? icon_smile.gif

If ZDG said that he was a Khmer, then you may conclude that he was not a Siamese.

But just because he didn't mention that the king was a Siamese, it doesn't mean that he was not a Siamese.

It's called "False Logic" in my Logic 101 class.


LOL. How is that any different to

QUOTE (Leeporter)
And also according to Zhou Da Guan, people who was in Brahman and King Class speaks a different set of language because they speak Sanskrit while the other lower class speak what is Khmer language today. So we can see both languages on the stone temples.


since the kings spoke a different language they must not be khmer. LOL. this is called "Contradiction" in my Logic 101 class. embarassedlaugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

127 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 03:15 PM