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

[SabaiSabai]

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!!! ^^

Kambojas, Kambojian etc etc etc is taken from the ruling family and their territory. Is Kambojas interchangeable with Khmer? lol not really.There is only the assumption that the Kambojas are Khmer because the main population of Cambodia today is dominated by Khmers. Things can change over 1000 years, populations may move, die etc

Those who practice the culture and live on the land in present day do not have to be the same people in the past. I do admit that Khmer were likely present in Kamboja, but Kamboja was not a Khmer country.

References from outside sources for Kambojadesa were never used in conjunction with the word Khmer.

Khom were southerners to Sukhothai. Khmer territory was not south of Sukhothai. Perhaps you need a compass to see the logic in why Khmers are not the Khom.

[KhmerBoi]

Kambojas, Kambojian etc etc etc is taken from the ruling family and their territory. Is Kambojas interchangeable with Khmer? lol not really.There is only the assumption that the Kambojas are Khmer because the main population of Cambodia today is dominated by Khmers. Things can change over 1000 years, populations may move, die etc

Those who practice the culture and live on the land in present day do not have to be the same people in the past. I do admit that Khmer were likely present in Kamboja, but Kamboja was not a Khmer country.

References from outside sources for Kambojadesa were never used in conjunction with the word Khmer.

Khom were southerners to Sukhothai. Khmer territory was not south of Sukhothai. Perhaps you need a compass to see the logic in why Khmers are not the Khom.

Lolzzzzzzzz

[Leeporter]

LOL. How is that any different to

since the kings spoke a different language they must not be khmer. LOL. this is called "Contradiction" in my Logic 101 class.

It doesn't prove that the kings were not Khmer just because they didn't speak Khmer.

I just pointed out that there were 2 classes, the upper one who spoke and used Sanskrit and the lower class who spoke and used Khmer.

That opens a possibility that there was a master class who were foreign to Khmers so they could use Sanskrit as a superior language over the local.

Then I've proved that at least one of the king, Indravaraman III was from Sukhothai and not a Khmer.

And if you made a research, you will find out that many of the kings are from somewhere else, like Malay, Java, Cham etc.

Yasodharapura was not a capital of "Khmer Empire", it's an empire that used Khmers as slave!

And Khmers only made themselves free from being slaves in 1336 after the last Varman was killed.

They stood up and free themselves.

That's why the old "Chronicle of Cambodia" started the history of Khmer with King Nippean Bat as shown in the excerpt below.



Did you see the first line of the Chronicle?

It starts with King Nippean Bat in 1336 (Sakkarat 708)!!!

Why no Jayavarman IX mentioned in the Chronicle?

George Cœdès said after years of studying about Varaman dynasty and Khmer kings after Angkor period.

He was trying to link the last Varman king and the first Khmer king mentioned in the Chronicle of Cambodia (Nippan Bat)

You can read the whole book here:
http://books.google.co.th/books?id=qgrAFlA...Bat&f=false


Page 196 in his book says:

"No link has yet been found between Jayavaramaparameshvara and the first kings mentioned in the Cambodia Chronicles, which begin around the year 1350 with a name that is presumably posthumous: Nirvanapada (Nippean Bat).

Not only is there are complete break between the kings formerly mentioned in the indsciptions and the kings later listed in the chronicles, but there are no reliable dates for these later kings except those of embassies and changes of reign recorded in the Chinese history of the Ming Dynasty. Unfortunately this history refers to the Cambodians kings by their reign titles (Samdach, Chao Ponhea), never by their personal or posthumous names, so that it is difficult to identify them with the kings mentioned in either the Cambodian or the Siamese chronicles, which in any case rarely tally."

Even George Cœdès who tried to link Khmer with Khom, couldn't find the relationship between Varman and the first Khmer king!

And who are you to claim that they share the same bloodline?

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Dec 22 2011, 10:30 PM

[KhmerBoi]

Anyways, the idea of the Sweet melon Man is similar to the idea of the Preah Ko Preah Keo, as well as the story of Preah Thong Neang Neak they all base on the true story... The Sweet Melon Man actually a legend can also found in the religious text in Burma... so that mean something not tell directly about it because of the self security.. for example the Prediction of the future of Cambodia have been told by generation believe that it was from the Buddha call the Buddha's Prediction.. but it is actually from a Cambodian (Khmer) who credit to the Buddha for their own safety., and the point is to let all those ordinary people passionate memorize it easily and notes about the situation in Cambodia. And other story here about King Indravoraman, I admitted he is not Siem which I used to believe he was but he is rather other Austroasiatic according to my research.

This post has been edited by KhmerBoi: Dec 22 2011, 10:34 PM

[KhmerBoi]

Even George Cœdès who tried to link Khmer with Khom, couldn't find the relationship between Varman and the first Khmer king!

And who are you to claim that they share the same bloodline?[/b]

Man, I heart that many Thai have mention about the work of George Cœdès and fail to link this!! you keep telling us the same thing from the scholars who was already death. You think, the world is stop moving after this death? U better tear your eyes and look at other scholar work as well.. Don't just stuck with the France!!!

[Leeporter]

Anyways, the idea of the Sweet melon Man is similar to the idea of the Preah Ko Preah Keo, as well as the story of Preah Thong Neang Neak they all base on the true story... The Sweet Melon Man actually a legend can also found in the religious text in Burma... so that mean something not tell directly about it because of the self security.. for example the Prediction of the future of Cambodia have been told by generation believe that it was from the Buddha call the Buddha's Prediction.. but it is actually from a Cambodian (Khmer) who credit to the Buddha for their own safety., and the point is to let all those ordinary people passionate memorize it easily and notes about the situation in Cambodia. And other story here about King Indravoraman, I admitted he is not Siem which I used to believe he was but he is rather other Austroasiatic according to my research.

I know where you got that argument from.

Yes, the Trasok Paem (Sweet melon) story was not a true story.

It could be a story made up by Trasok Paem, a Khmer slave who made the coup on Varman king and made up that story using the plot from Burma or somewhere else to make people obey him for his magical ability.

I suspect that Trasok Paem was actually King Nippean Bat mentioned as the first king in the Chronicle of Cambodia because it doesn't say in the chronicl who is him, where he is from and how he became a king etc.

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Dec 22 2011, 10:40 PM

[Leeporter]

Man, I heart that many Thai have mention about the work of George Cœdès and fail to link this!! you keep telling us the same thing from the scholars who was already death. You think, the world is stop moving after this death? U better tear your eyes and look at other scholar work as well.. Don't just stuck with the France!!!

Why don't you show us a new evidence that link Nippean Bat, the first king in the Chronicle to Jayavarman IX?

[Leeporter]

And the reason why I am quite sure King U-thong of Ayudhaya was some how related to Yasodharapura is from what I found here.

On page 2 in a book "The Civilization of Angkor" By Charles Higham

http://books.google.co.th/books?id=AKzqy2_...p;q&f=false

It says:


In the words of Marcello de Ribadeneyra in the first account of Angkor in a western language, published in 1601;

"We suppose that the founders of the kingdom of Siam came from the great city which is situated in the middle of a desert in the kingdom of Cambodia. There are ruins of an ancient city there which some say was built by Alexander the Great or the Roman, it is amazing that no one lives there now, it is inhabited by ferocious animals, and the local people say it was built by FOREIGNERS"



It fits what I tried to tell you here, doesn't it?

You won't call Charles Higham a "Thai nationalist", right?

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Dec 23 2011, 01:35 AM

[Leeporter]

And other story here about King Indravoraman, I admitted he is not Siem which I used to believe he was but he is rather other Austroasiatic according to my research.

I've shown you the evidence from a primary source (stone script of Sukhothai) that Khun Pa Muang got the sword, the princess and the title "Sri Indradhidhaya" from a king of Yasodharapura.




The fact that you can't have 2 swords which is the symbol of the power and sovereignty of the devaraja (god-king) of an empire at the same time, prevents me from other possibility that he was not related to Indravarman III.

Together with the story told by Zhou Daguan about the fight over the throne between Indravarman III and the prince, I can't find any other theory to explain it from the evidences I have so far.

Show us the evidence that Indravarman III was not "Khun Pa Muang" from Sukhothai

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Dec 23 2011, 02:23 AM

[SabaiSabai]

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.

What rebellious act? The first sack of Angkor happened before Angkor was a vassel of Siam. How can it be rebellious if it was not in a position to rebel. Ayuthaya was a newly formed city. How did it have the might to challenge Angkor or even begin to demand submission from Angkor.

The Legend of Trasok paem and how he came to power is that he accidently killed the king. Funnily enough this is the same legend as the glass palace chronicles describing a “sweet cucumber” killing the king for taking his sweet cucumbers. It also explains why there was no rebellion or civil war as “he who slays a king becomes a king” thus a peasant was able to become a king without war, royal bloodline, or in the higher sphere of the caste system. Whatever version you see there is still one simple fact, the king was killed by this person and the throne was taken by him

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.

There is clear differentiation by the Siamese/Tai of Khom and Khmer. If the only 2 groups of people use the word Khom. How is it that other people know what the definition of the word is then those that use it. All text/inscriptions found from the Funan era is written in Sanskrit. We cannot yet ascertain who the inhabitants really were. It is an even split between Austronesean (cham/malayu) and Austroasiatic (Mon-Khmer). Chenla or the Chenla area was populated by a Monic group. If their base language is what is used to create the old script, can we then say that it is Khmer script at all. The ball is now in the side of proving that Chenla was indeed of Khmer ethnic.


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).

Khmer is one of the possible native groups of the area. All roads do not lead to Khmer.

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.

First prehistoric people resemble Khmers? Lol did they take that picture to show you with a stone age Polaroid? As for the blood group. We know that ancient Indians mixed with the indigenous group of people that populated the area. Then the people of the Area also mixed and interbred with each other. A few hundred years ago, the caste system was dropped completely and the slaves intermixed with people carrying the bloodgroup P*. The present population of people will carry the genetic code of those they mixed with if they were indigenous or not. It’s just how it is with ethnic mixing in 2 thousand years.

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.

This guy was a crack pot. He “invented” khom script? Khom script is hundreds of years old. How did he invent it? With a time machine? Lol come on, you got to do better than dig up crack pots as a source of information.

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.

The only 2 peoples who use the word Khom are Thai and Lao. So if we are the people who invented the term and use it... how then do you seem to know more about the meaning to this word then the people who use it?

Now the second part to this is, are kambujeans Khmer? Are people of Chenla Khmer? The first part is debatable as there was a good mix of people and it can swing any way. The second part I used to believe were Khmer but now with the record of Major Eric Seidenfaden I really begin to doubt this.


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.

Lol I was kidding. Ok so on a more serious note. People of the ancient world were not racist. Racism is a modern creation. The king was simply the king. Even in Chinese history they do not differentiate between the ethnic groups on the throne. Juchen king, mongol king, han king, Manchu king etc etc They have their title they have their dynasty. They were not differentiated by race or ethnic.

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 @$$.

Written by your Khmer royal. I am actually more inclined to believe records and research written over 100 years ago or older before the French started coming and changing history for their own agenda. As I have already seen from the manipulation of certain myths and legends removing elements out from them so that the only element that remains is Khmer, I don’t think any of the modern research done worth any more either.

Plenty of toilet paper to go around then I guess.

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.

Using Syam and Siam is to make a clear distinction Pre ayuthaya and post ayuthaya period. If you haven’t realised..they are both the same thing.

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.

This is evident throughout Thia/Siamese history. Suriyotai, Yah Mo, The female warriors that fought in the wars with the neighbouring countries etc. It is also in Mon culture. Actually it’s pretty evident in just about every Asian culture, especially those that successors or inheritance goes a long from the maternal side rather than the paternal side.

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.

I totally agree with you in cultural distinction. It’s the way all cultures are. Just as Thai culture sprang from Siamese culture with added elements

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.

Slaves have no identity, no merit. If slave labour was used then it was very unlikely that the slaves themselves would receive praise. However, those that fund the building or made us of his own personal slaves would be the ones receiving the merit. Things have not changed much in 2 thousand years.

In the ancient world, slaves were just like animals. To be owned and counted.

[BingbingNaboo]

And the reason why I am quite sure King U-thong of Ayudhaya was some how related to Yasodharapura is from what I found here.

On page 2 in a book "The Civilization of Angkor" By Charles Higham

http://books.google.co.th/books?id=AKzqy2_...p;q&f=false

It says:


In the words of Marcello de Ribadeneyra in the first account of Angkor in a western language, published in 1601;

"We suppose that the founders of the kingdom of Siam came from the great city which is situated in the middle of a desert in the kingdom of Cambodia. There are ruings of an ancient city there which some say was built by Alexander the Great or the Romand, it is amazing that no one lives there now, it is inhabited by ferocious animals, and the local people say it was built by FOREIGNERS"



It fits what I tried to tell you here, doesn't it?

You won't call Charles Higham a "Thai nationalist", right?

Let's just say Thailand is internationally reconized by many country that support Thailand version of history. Afterall Thailand develope ahead of both Laos and Cambodia in terms of introducing ours selfs to the international community. That is why our evidence is weak on that part.

But our people know who and where we came about our passing of history from our ancestor. So what does it make you have the right to historically make history for us. When we can do it in our own ways and belief?

Thailand seem to speak for all of us and our history. But tell the world that we are wrong? Really? From a Thai nationalist who only see within their own box and history verion of the Thai nationalist ways.

[BingbingNaboo]

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.

What rebellious act? The first sack of Angkor happened before Angkor was a vassel of Siam. How can it be rebellious if it was not in a position to rebel. Ayuthaya was a newly formed city. How did it have the might to challenge Angkor or even begin to demand submission from Angkor.

The Legend of Trasok paem and how he came to power is that he accidently killed the king. Funnily enough this is the same legend as the glass palace chronicles describing a “sweet cucumber” killing the king for taking his sweet cucumbers. It also explains why there was no rebellion or civil war as “he who slays a king becomes a king” thus a peasant was able to become a king without war, royal bloodline, or in the higher sphere of the caste system. Whatever version you see there is still one simple fact, the king was killed by this person and the throne was taken by him

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.

There is clear differentiation by the Siamese/Tai of Khom and Khmer. If the only 2 groups of people use the word Khom. How is it that other people know what the definition of the word is then those that use it. All text/inscriptions found from the Funan era is written in Sanskrit. We cannot yet ascertain who the inhabitants really were. It is an even split between Austronesean (cham/malayu) and Austroasiatic (Mon-Khmer). Chenla or the Chenla area was populated by a Monic group. If their base language is what is used to create the old script, can we then say that it is Khmer script at all. The ball is now in the side of proving that Chenla was indeed of Khmer ethnic.


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).

Khmer is one of the possible native groups of the area. All roads do not lead to Khmer.

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.

First prehistoric people resemble Khmers? Lol did they take that picture to show you with a stone age Polaroid? As for the blood group. We know that ancient Indians mixed with the indigenous group of people that populated the area. Then the people of the Area also mixed and interbred with each other. A few hundred years ago, the caste system was dropped completely and the slaves intermixed with people carrying the bloodgroup P*. The present population of people will carry the genetic code of those they mixed with if they were indigenous or not. It’s just how it is with ethnic mixing in 2 thousand years.

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.

This guy was a crack pot. He “invented” khom script? Khom script is hundreds of years old. How did he invent it? With a time machine? Lol come on, you got to do better than dig up crack pots as a source of information.

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.

The only 2 peoples who use the word Khom are Thai and Lao. So if we are the people who invented the term and use it... how then do you seem to know more about the meaning to this word then the people who use it?

Now the second part to this is, are kambujeans Khmer? Are people of Chenla Khmer? The first part is debatable as there was a good mix of people and it can swing any way. The second part I used to believe were Khmer but now with the record of Major Eric Seidenfaden I really begin to doubt this.


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.

Lol I was kidding. Ok so on a more serious note. People of the ancient world were not racist. Racism is a modern creation. The king was simply the king. Even in Chinese history they do not differentiate between the ethnic groups on the throne. Juchen king, mongol king, han king, Manchu king etc etc They have their title they have their dynasty. They were not differentiated by race or ethnic.

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 @$$.

Written by your Khmer royal. I am actually more inclined to believe records and research written over 100 years ago or older before the French started coming and changing history for their own agenda. As I have already seen from the manipulation of certain myths and legends removing elements out from them so that the only element that remains is Khmer, I don’t think any of the modern research done worth any more either.

Plenty of toilet paper to go around then I guess.

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.

Using Syam and Siam is to make a clear distinction Pre ayuthaya and post ayuthaya period. If you haven’t realised..they are both the same thing.

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.

This is evident throughout Thia/Siamese history. Suriyotai, Yah Mo, The female warriors that fought in the wars with the neighbouring countries etc. It is also in Mon culture. Actually it’s pretty evident in just about every Asian culture, especially those that successors or inheritance goes a long from the maternal side rather than the paternal side.

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.

I totally agree with you in cultural distinction. It’s the way all cultures are. Just as Thai culture sprang from Siamese culture with added elements

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.

Slaves have no identity, no merit. If slave labour was used then it was very unlikely that the slaves themselves would receive praise. However, those that fund the building or made us of his own personal slaves would be the ones receiving the merit. Things have not changed much in 2 thousand years.

In the ancient world, slaves were just like animals. To be owned and counted.

You do not speak for the Lao people. You're not even Lao and beside you lack Lao history by rewriting and opinionating it in a negative ways. So you can force you're own Thai idea history into Lao history to support Thai history. We know, without Lao history to support Thailand own history. It won't logically work out for any Thai nationalist like you to controll everyone history. As I said it before. Thai are using History and politic to educate Thai of their illogical suborinate.

[SabaiSabai]

You do not speak for the Lao people. You're not even Lao and beside you lack Lao history by rewriting and opinionating it in a negative ways. So you can force you're own Thai idea history into Lao history to support Thai history. We know, without Lao history to support Thailand own history. It won't logically work out for any Thai nationalist like you to controll everyone history. As I said it before. Thai are using History and politic to educate Thai of their illogical suborinate.

Like your government teaches you that you are Tai? lol idiot Lawa boy. Its you and Khmers that have been brainwashed by your government for years. We honestly couldn't care less.

Real Lao people are on friendly terms with Thailand. Only rejects are hostile to Thailand perhaps you can show us where in Lao history are Khom people mentioned and in what context lol

I will love to see this.

[BingbingNaboo]

Like your government teaches you that you are Tai? lol idiot Lawa boy. Its you and Khmers that have been brainwashed by your government for years. We honestly couldn't care less.

Real Lao people are on friendly terms with Thailand. Only rejects are hostile to Thailand perhaps you can show us where in Lao history are Khom people mentioned and in what context lol

I will love to see this.

I never said Lao history support you're 'Khom' Thai theory.

And when was I ever hostile? Perhaps you got me the wrong way. I have no problems with Thailand in general. But I do have an issue with how Thai education system seem to lack an open box and possibility with its neighbor history. I'm just telling you that to me. Thai aren't being taught freely because, Thai politician are too busy being caught up with nationalism and lost of face firstly.

[indafunk]

bingbing and sabai sabai, dont ruin this thread, take your racist nonsense elsewhere.

Sabai, you neither have the knowledge to support your claims, all you do is regurgitate what leeporter's spews.

At least leeporter is a genuine nutcase...you on the other hand is just a wannabe.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present another Chinese racist who ruins the reputation of real Thais.

This post has been edited by indafunk: Dec 23 2011, 01:29 AM

[Leeporter]

bingbing and sabai sabai, dont ruin this thread, take your racist nonsense elsewhere.

Sabai, you neither have the knowledge to support your claims, all you do is regurgitate what leeporter's spews.

At least leeporter is a genuine nutcase...you on the other hand is just a wannabe.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present another Chinese racist who ruins the reputation of real Thais.

Thank you for taking your time to consume my spews.

I know you don't want to believe what I presented here but you just can't debunk it, right?

BTW, is that "Chinese racist" for me?

I am not here to ruin the reputation of real Thais.

I am here to make the real history known to the world.

The real history of this region is much different from what you know, I can tell you.

I am sure no one, after reading what I presented, would think bad about Thai people or think that I am an idiot.

They may don't like it, but they got to accept that it's logical and convincible.

Because I made it very simple to read and follow, even a kid can understand it.

You can hate me, but you can't hate the truth I presented here.

Unless you want to fool yourself.

This post has been edited by Leeporter: Dec 23 2011, 02:11 AM

[indafunk]

And the reason why I am quite sure King U-thong of Ayudhaya was some how related to Yasodharapura is from what I found here.

On page 2 in a book "The Civilization of Angkor" By Charles Higham

http://books.google.co.th/books?id=AKzqy2_...p;q&f=false

It says:


In the words of Marcello de Ribadeneyra in the first account of Angkor in a western language, published in 1601;

"We suppose that the founders of the kingdom of Siam came from the great city which is situated in the middle of a desert in the kingdom of Cambodia. There are ruins of an ancient city there which some say was built by Alexander the Great or the Roman, it is amazing that no one lives there now, it is inhabited by ferocious animals, and the local people say it was built by FOREIGNERS"



It fits what I tried to tell you here, doesn't it?

You won't call Charles Higham a "Thai nationalist", right?

Reach, damn you have long arms. Angkor was forgotten through the ages just like many other ancient civilizations.

You are down to your last leg if you based your theory on that.

Don't listen to this Chinese, he is not Thai.

This post has been edited by indafunk: Dec 23 2011, 02:53 AM

[indafunk]

Thank you for taking your time to consume my spews.

I know you don't want to believe what I presented here but you just can't debunk it, right?

BTW, is that "Chinese racist" for me?

I am not here to ruin the reputation of real Thais.

I am here to make the real history known to the world.

The real history of this region is much different from what you know, I can tell you.

I am sure no one, after reading what I presented, would think bad about Thai people or think that I am an idiot.

They may don't like it, but they got to accept that it's logical and convincible.

Because I made it very simple to read and follow, even a kid can understand it.

You can hate me, but you can't hate the truth I presented here.

Unless you want to fool yourself.

I don't hate you bro, but it seems you're the one that's filled with hate. one has to be to spend so much time bashing Khmers as you do.

Nothing you say is creditable, all you do is take pieces from sources that are meant to be viewed as a whole and patch up your own version of history.

For all we know you're just a fu-king virgin living under your parent's stilt house, What credentials do you have to invalidate foreign scholar's hard work?

I would only be fooling myself for believing this ridiculous bull$hit. Even your band of minions have no faith in you....they only follow you out of necessity to bash Khmers.

In the end, you make Thais look bad and trolls like sabai sabai get cheap laughs out of it.

This post has been edited by indafunk: Dec 23 2011, 02:55 AM

[KhmerBoi]

And the reason why I am quite sure King U-thong of Ayudhaya was some how related to Yasodharapura is from what I found here.

On page 2 in a book "The Civilization of Angkor" By Charles Higham

http://books.google.co.th/books?id=AKzqy2_...p;q&f=false

It says:


In the words of Marcello de Ribadeneyra in the first account of Angkor in a western language, published in 1601;

"We suppose that the founders of the kingdom of Siam came from the great city which is situated in the middle of a desert in the kingdom of Cambodia. There are ruins of an ancient city there which some say was built by Alexander the Great or the Roman, it is amazing that no one lives there now, it is inhabited by ferocious animals, and the local people say it was built by FOREIGNERS"



It fits what I tried to tell you here, doesn't it?

You won't call Charles Higham a "Thai nationalist", right?

He mean the Angkor city?? and build by Foreigner? Alexander?? Lol what a joke!!!

[KhmerBoi]

Thank you for taking your time to consume my spews.

I know you don't want to believe what I presented here but you just can't debunk it, right?

BTW, is that "Chinese racist" for me?

I am not here to ruin the reputation of real Thais.

I am here to make the real history known to the world.

The real history of this region is much different from what you know, I can tell you.

I am sure no one, after reading what I presented, would think bad about Thai people or think that I am an idiot.

They may don't like it, but they got to accept that it's logical and convincible.

Because I made it very simple to read and follow, even a kid can understand it.

You can hate me, but you can't hate the truth I presented here.

Unless you want to fool yourself.

The truth from your cheap mouth? who gonna believe that?? the World Court of Justice or UNESCO?? Have you sleep or what?? Yes they might think you are idiot from your truth because they can't see any logic out of it!!