AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

11 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Siam and Angkor?
XigonCongchua
post Jan 10 2012, 02:03 AM
Post #1


AF Legend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 21,777
Joined: 24-September 07




Hi there,

I've been reading some topics on how Angkor being built by Siamese and I got a bit confused. All the racist slurs and insults in the topics didn't help either.

So I made this new topic for myself to better understand the situation.

Let's start over.


So the common knowledge is that Angkor was built by Khmer people.

Thai members here argue the otherwise, they insist that Angkor was built by the so-called "Siamese" which they claim to be ancestors of modern Thai people.


So what evidence do you have to say that Angkor was built by ancestors of Thai people? Please give them one by one.


No bashing here plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoveIsAllAround
post Jan 10 2012, 04:36 AM
Post #2


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




It's Indy History, that's why it's very interesting! LOL

Indy History can turn to be true and can be just a joke. icon_smile.gif

Thai members talk with evidence in our hands, we provide more and more evidence which are not seen in non-Thai language. It'd be shocked for Khmer to know the truth that they are created by the French work.

Siam and Angkor? If Siam didn't cede Angkor to French. I guarantee you there would be no imaginary "KHMER EMPIRE". embarassedlaugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Jan 10 2012, 07:38 AM
Post #3


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (XigonCongchua @ Jan 10 2012, 03:03 AM) *
So what evidence do you have to say that Angkor was built by ancestors of Thai people? Please give them one by one.


Very simple, allow me to answer your question. icon_smile.gif

You always hear Khmer people said that Khmer built those temples, so it belong to Khmer and the land under it belong to Khmers, right?

And everybody who hear that will always agree, right?

Yeah, you never questioned on it because you always listen to the fake history from the French who made up of something called "Khmer Empire" which we are proving that it never existed.

In your mind, you always think that those templese were built by Khmer because of the history book written by the French and the word "Khmer Empire"

But let me show you exactly who built those temples.

Ask you self or go google who built Nakorn Wat (the French call Angkor Wat)?
Answer: Suriyavarman II

Now go google where Suriyavarman II was from?
Answer: Lopburi, Thailand.

Ask you self or go google who built Pra Viharn (Khmers call Preah Vihear)?
Answer: Suriyavarman I

Now go google where Suriyavarman I was from?
Answer: Nakorn Sri Dhammarat (Ligor) southern Thailand.

We also provided evidences that Indravarman III of Angkor was actually a Tai from Sukhothai.

That's just a sample of the king of Angkor who was not Khmer.

And I still can't find any king of Angkor that can be proved to be pure Khmer.

The first Khmer blood king of Angkor was Nippean Bat (since 1340-1350) which is called Post-Angkor period.

All kings before that are no Khmer.

The reason people belive that those kings are Khmer (without even searching where those kings are from) because of the word "Khmer Empire"

Khmer were just a minority group of people in Suvarnabhumi.

If you compare them with Tai speaking people, they are just a small group, very tiny group.

This region was ruled by the indian ruiling system which is like United States, there were many states and one center state which is shifted from here to there. And the king of each state can become the emperor at the center (Thai call Pra Nakorn)

Angkor was once the capital of the empire, but the ruler of the city were from other cities.

Khmers were just people who lived there, probably they were moved from other cities down south to populate the city of Angkor.

There was no such thing as Khmer Empire until the French came to Indochina and took Vietnam, then Cambodia then Laos.

And they started to create fairy tales to divide and conquer people of Suvarnabhumi by making a name such as "Khmer empire" and try to link Khmer king with those Varman kings in Angkor (but failed to do so).

And they started to claim everything which share similarity, no matter where it was built and by whom.

And when we have shown them the obvious fact that the builder of Angkor Wat and Preah Vihear were not Khmer. They are just speechless.

icon_smile.gif





This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 10 2012, 07:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Jan 10 2012, 07:43 AM
Post #4


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (XigonCongchua @ Jan 10 2012, 03:03 AM) *
No bashing here plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Oh and saying that Khmers then were slaves is not a bashing.

It's a historically true.

Slavery was introduced into this region by the Indian as part of Devaraja (god king) ruling system.

Even in Thailand, slave system was abandoned just less than 200 years ago.

Saying that Khmers were slaves in Angkor is not a bashing at all, it's a fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Jan 10 2012, 08:03 AM
Post #5


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Leeporter @ Jan 10 2012, 08:38 AM) *


And they started to create fairy tales to divide and conquer people of Suvarnabhumi by making a name such as "Khmer empire" and try to link Khmer king with those Varman kings in Angkor (but failed to do so).



I will show you why I said they tried to link Angkor Kings with Khmer kings but failed.

Frist, let me show you what a famous French historian George Cds 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.

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 (Jayavaraman IX, the last Varman) 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 Cds who tried very hard to link Varman kings and Khmer kings failed to do it.

But how could every historians who took George Cds's work as the foundation of their books said that Varman King (Angkor kings) were Khmer????

Can you answer that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoveIsAllAround
post Jan 10 2012, 08:55 AM
Post #6


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Leeporter @ Jan 10 2012, 07:38 AM) *
Ask you self or go google who built Nakorn Wat (the French call Angkor Wat)?
Answer: Suriyavarman II

Now go google where Suriyavarman II was from?
Answer: Lopburi, Thailand.

Ask you self or go google who built Pra Viharn (Khmers call Preah Vihear)?
Answer: Suriyavarman I

Now go google where Suriyavarman I was from?
Answer: Nakorn Sri Dhammarat (Ligor) southern Thailand.

We also provided evidences that Indravarman III of Angkor was actually a Tai from Sukhothai.


Leeporter, I have an evidence to support you. icon_smile.gif

below is from Michale Vickry's work

For the 11th-14th centuries, with the last example around 1327, the
culmination of Angkor development, royal titles were of the form vrah pāda kamraten
a śrī... varmadeva, with the ellipse in the place of the individual proper name, indra-
, yaśo-, sūrya-, jaya-, etc. Sūryavarman I (1002-1049), for reasons not yet understood,
added kamtvan following kamraten, and Śrīndravarman (1295-1307), perhaps in
connection with his Buddhism, prefixed the above titles with vrah karuna ta parama
pavitra.30


Normal title for Angkor king is
vrah pāda kamraten a śrī... varmadeva | ... is king's name
พระบาท กมรเต็ง อัญ ศรี... วรมเทวา

There are 2 king's title that are different.
1. Sūryavarman =>
vrah pāda kamraten kamtvan a śrī Sūryavarman varmadeva
พระบาท กมรเต็ง กมตวาน อัญ ศรีสุริยวรมัน วรมเทวา
2. Śrīndravarman =>
vrah karuna ta parama pavitra vrah pāda kamraten a śrī Śrīndravarman varmadeva
พระกรุณา ธ ปรม ปวิตระ พระบาท กมรเต็ง อัญ ศรี ศรินทราวรมัน วรมเทวา

Vickery doesn't know why king Sūryavarman added 'kamtvan'. I think tvan is actually Malay word. Tvan ตวาน is same word as ตวน Tuan of Malay word, means Royal. This Malay word was loaned by Sukhothai king. Tuan is seen in Sukhothai inscription here.

http://www.sac.or.th/databases/inscription...8&id_part=1
๑๐. ฉ่ำ ทองคำวรรณ : ตวาน หรือ ตวน ตรงกับภาษามลายูว่า tuwan แปลว่า นาย (หรือ เจ้า) เพราะฉะนั้นคำว่า ลูกขุนมูลตวาน ก็คือลูกขุนมูลนายนั่นเอง

This is solid evidence support that Sūryavarman came from Ligor or Sri Dhammaraja, South of Thailand.

King Śrīndravarman is Indravarman III. He was from Sukhothai, that why his title is different. It also support your evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Jan 10 2012, 09:14 AM
Post #7


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (LoveIsAllAround @ Jan 10 2012, 09:55 AM) *
Leeporter, I have an evidence to support you. icon_smile.gif

below is from Michale Vickry's work

For the 11th-14th centuries, with the last example around 1327, the
culmination of Angkor development, royal titles were of the form vrah pāda kamraten
a śrī... varmadeva, with the ellipse in the place of the individual proper name, indra-
, yaśo-, sūrya-, jaya-, etc. Sūryavarman I (1002-1049), for reasons not yet understood,
added kamtvan following kamraten, and Śrīndravarman (1295-1307), perhaps in
connection with his Buddhism, prefixed the above titles with vrah karuna ta parama
pavitra.30


Normal title for Angkor king is
vrah pāda kamraten a śrī... varmadeva | ... is king's name
พระบาท กมรเต็ง อัญ ศรี... วรมเทวา

There are 2 king's title that are different.
1. Sūryavarman =>
vrah pāda kamraten kamtvan a śrī Sūryavarman varmadeva
พระบาท กมรเต็ง กมตวาน อัญ ศรีสุริยวรมัน วรมเทวา
2. Śrīndravarman =>
vrah karuna ta parama pavitra vrah pāda kamraten a śrī Śrīndravarman varmadeva
พระกรุณา ธ ปรม ปวิตระ พระบาท กมรเต็ง อัญ ศรี ศรินทราวรมัน วรมเทวา

Vickery doesn't know why king Sūryavarman added 'kamtvan'. I think tvan is actually Malay word. Tvan ตวาน is same word as ตวน Tuan of Malay word, means Royal. This Malay word was loaned by Sukhothai king. Tuan is seen in Sukhothai inscription here.

http://www.sac.or.th/databases/inscription...8&id_part=1
๑๐. ฉ่ำ ทองคำวรรณ : ตวาน หรือ ตวน ตรงกับภาษามลายูว่า tuwan แปลว่า นาย (หรือ เจ้า) เพราะฉะนั้นคำว่า ลูกขุนมูลตวาน ก็คือลูกขุนมูลนายนั่นเอง

This is solid evidence support that Sūryavarman came from Ligor or Sri Dhammaraja, South of Thailand.

King Śrīndravarman is Indravarman III. He was from Sukhothai, that why his title is different. It also support your evidence.


Thank you.

Actually, we don't even need more evidences; it's a welknown fact that Suriyavarman I was from Ligor or Nakorn Sri Dhammarat, southern Thailand. icon_smile.gif

What I don't understand is that why they said the builder of the temple was Khmers??

When in the same history book says that the he was from Nakorn Sri Dhammarat in southern Thailand????

They said the builder was Suriyavarman I and he was from Nakorn Sri Dhammarat and conclude that Khmers built the temple so it belong to Khmer??????

Are they nut? icon_smile.gif


BTW, to classify Nakorn Sri Dhammarat as a Malay state is not really correct.
People in Nakorn Sridhammarat speak a dialect of Tai, not Malay.

http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%A0%E0%...%B8%95%E0%B9%89

They don't have written language, but their spoken language is a Tai based.

And one thing for sure, people of Nakorn Sridhammarat is not Khmer. icon_smile.gif

I guess they will claim Nakorn Sridhammarat also!!!! ha ha ha ...


This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 10 2012, 09:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Jan 10 2012, 09:44 AM
Post #8


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (LoveIsAllAround @ Jan 10 2012, 08:55 AM) *
King Śrīndravarman is Indravarman III. He was from Sukhothai, that why his title is different. It also support your evidence.


And yes, Srindravarman is the same as Indravarman III or Sri Indradhidhaya, the title name of Kun Pha Muang from Sukhothai.

The title was given to him, the sword was given to him, and the princess was given to him.

How could he not become Indravarman III of Angkor?????

Let me re-post what is said on the stone script of Sukhothai for Miss Xigon to see.



It was taken from line 31-34 of the stone script which you can see here.

http://www.sac.or.th/databases/inscription...7&id_part=1



This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 10 2012, 09:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kdaw_Tmaw
post Jan 10 2012, 09:49 AM
Post #9


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




You extremists try so hard, but there where no Siem at the time so it was Khmer land and yes, they are Khmer Kings. Siem only started to emerge to during the time of Suryavarman II as depicted on the walls of Angkor (Nokor). Please, stop twisting simple facts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Jan 10 2012, 10:00 AM
Post #10


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Kdaw_Tmaw @ Jan 10 2012, 09:49 AM) *
You extremists try so hard, but there where no Siem at the time so it was Khmer land and yes, they are Khmer Kings. Siem only started to emerge to during the time of Suryavarman II as depicted on the walls of Angkor (Nokor). Please, stop twisting simple facts.


Kdaw_Tmaw, this topic belong to Miss Xigon, she asked us to provide evidences to support our theory, so we did it.

If you claimed that Siem or Siam didn't existed until Suryavarman II period, please provide your evidences so that she can judge.

embarassedlaugh.gif

And don't forget to prove that:

1) Suriyavarman I who built Pra Viharn was not from Nakorn Sri Dhammarat, south of Thailand
2) Suriyavarman II who built Nakorn Wat was not from Lopburi north of Ayudhaya, Thailand.
3) Indravarman III was not Kun Pha Muang from Sukhothai.



This post has been edited by Leeporter: Jan 10 2012, 10:05 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kdaw_Tmaw
post Jan 10 2012, 10:09 AM
Post #11


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




Yes, she did asked you to provide "evidence". But I don't need to provide her any evidence because I'm assuming she already know the facts about Angkor. And if she doesn't, then I'm sure she can look it up on the internet and judge for herself. All I'm saying is stop twisting facts around.

This post has been edited by Kdaw_Tmaw: Jan 10 2012, 10:10 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SabaiSabai
post Jan 10 2012, 02:33 PM
Post #12


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




Syam exists as early as 1050AD according to the inscription at po nagar temple.

Chenla is also linked to syambhupura from the royal title that the Chinese gave them.

Your assumption that Syam/Siam/siem did not exist until the 13th century is incorrect
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kdaw_Tmaw
post Jan 10 2012, 03:36 PM
Post #13


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




I stated that Siem/Siam/Syam emerged during the reign of Suryavarman II which is in the early 12th century around 1113-1150. However, an interesting fact is in Mon history it also mention that it was receiving Tai migrations into its northern territory at the same time around 1000 AD when they were under Khmer rule. Now this is the beginning of the creation of Siem. I know some Lao members in here will deny any relation to early Siem, but it's most likely that the creation of Siem is a mix consisting of Mon, Khmer and Tai group living among the Northern territory of Khmer land. Suryavarman II (an usurper Khmer king) took advantage and gather some small pockets of Siems to join his military campaign to rule the Khmer Kingdom. Now this does not mean that Siem built Angkor just because Suryavarman had some of them fighting alongside his army.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Jan 10 2012, 07:01 PM
Post #14


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Kdaw_Tmaw @ Jan 10 2012, 04:36 PM) *
Suryavarman II (an usurper Khmer king) took advantage and gather some small pockets of Siems to join his military campaign to rule the Khmer Kingdom. Now this does not mean that Siem built Angkor just because Suryavarman had some of them fighting alongside his army.


Wasn't he the one who build Angkor Wat???? icon_smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kdaw_Tmaw
post Jan 10 2012, 07:24 PM
Post #15


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




As depicted on the walls of Angkor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Jan 10 2012, 08:56 PM
Post #16


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Kdaw_Tmaw @ Jan 10 2012, 07:24 PM) *
As depicted on the walls of Angkor.



Suriyavarman II was the one who built Nakorn Wat and he was a Siamese from Lopburi.

How did you conclude that Khmers built it???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nhoona
post Jan 10 2012, 09:25 PM
Post #17


AF Guru
Group Icon

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




May i ask what does Angkor mean? It is not Thai word for sure because it has no meaning.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Jan 10 2012, 09:38 PM
Post #18


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Nhoona @ Jan 10 2012, 10:25 PM) *
May i ask what does Angkor mean? It is not Thai word for sure because it has no meaning.


We've discussed this so many times.

It's from Sanskrit word "Nagara" = city

Thai says it "Nakorn"

Khmer say it "Nokor"

But the French say it "Angkor"

It's neither Khmer or Thai or Sanskrit, it's a bad pronounciation by the French colonist.

That's why it has no meaning in Thai or Khmer. icon_smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nhoona
post Jan 10 2012, 09:54 PM
Post #19


AF Guru
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Leeporter @ Jan 10 2012, 10:38 PM) *
We've discussed this so many times.

It's from Sanskrit word "Nagara" = city

Thai says it "Nakorn"

Khmer say it "Nokor"

But the French say it "Angkor"

It's neither Khmer or Thai or Sanskrit, it's a bad pronounciation by the French colonist.

That's why it has no meaning in Thai or Khmer. icon_smile.gif


I see, thank you teacher. How are you?

It is a french make up word. Which one does the Khmer actually cal the temple ? Nokor wat or Angkor wat. I know Wat is a Thai word.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leeporter
post Jan 10 2012, 10:00 PM
Post #20


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (Nhoona @ Jan 10 2012, 09:54 PM) *
I see, thank you teacher. How are you?


I am fine, thank you, and you? embarassedlaugh.gif

QUOTE (Nhoona @ Jan 10 2012, 09:54 PM) *
It is a french make up word. Which one does the Khmer actually cal the temple ? Nokor wat or Angkor wat. I know Wat is a Thai word.


99% of them follow their French boss to call it Angkor.

They insists that it is a Khmer word. icon_smile.gif

Yes, Wat is a Thai word.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th October 2014 - 11:10 PM