Being young people conquering the former territory of the Khmer people, the neighbors of Cambodia such as the Vietnamese, the Thais, and the Laotians always have their biased views and their speeches are filled with politics and nationalistic rhetoric because they have no choice.

When Khmer talk about the Mon-Khmer culture, it is not to upset the Vietnamese, the Thais, or the Laotians, or about taking back the territory, but it is about helping these new conquerors to understand better the Mon-Khmer people living in their "land".

Cambodian researchers should not focus on just the Angkor period, but they should conduct studies on the larger Mon-Khmer culture to better understand the Chenla history and Funan history and the evolution of the Khmer language. In this way, we can preserve the collective memory of an ancient people. By knowing where we came from, then we find our identity, our pride, our spirit.

The Angkorian period is only one tree, whereas the Mon-Khmer culture, it's the forest.

Michel Tranet (2005). “History of the Kingdom of Cambodia, Alliance between the Khmer and Thai people from the 13th Century,� in Khmer.

Hey Antibiotic aka MADEINCAMBODIA, why you keep on trying to start $hit?

Hey DeeJai the TROLL if you are going to accuse, learn to accuse properly. You think I say all of that? Take it up with Dr. Michel Tranet. Stop trolling my thread, LIEV with a set of yellow stained teeth.

Unlike you, I ain't gotta pretend or fake my identity. You ain't ain't even Cambodian.

Being young people conquering the former territory of the Khmer people, the neighbors of Cambodia such as the Vietnamese, the Thais, and the Laotians always have their biased views and their speeches are filled with politics and nationalistic rhetoric because they have no choice.

When Khmer talk about the Mon-Khmer culture, it is not to upset the Vietnamese, the Thais, or the Laotians, or about taking back the territory, but it is about helping these new conquerors to understand better the Mon-Khmer people living in their "land".

Cambodian researchers should not focus on just the Angkor period, but they should conduct studies on the larger Mon-Khmer culture to better understand the Chenla history and Funan history and the evolution of the Khmer language. In this way, we can preserve the collective memory of an ancient people. By knowing where we came from, then we find our identity, our pride, our spirit.

The Angkorian period is only one tree, whereas the Mon-Khmer culture, it's the forest.

Michel Tranet (2005). “History of the Kingdom of Cambodia, Alliance between the Khmer and Thai people from the 13th Century,� in Khmer.

^ I think that goes for all groups of people who are related either ethnically or culturally.

Vietnamese don't like to be associated with Chinese.
Lao don't like to be associated with Thai.
Koreans don't like to be associated with Japanese.
Mon don't like to be associated with Khmer.
....and vice versa for all of them.

I think the reason is that you want people to identify you for you, not as a group with others who were your brothers 1,000 years ago.

Obviously this is a general rule, you'll probably find Koreans who want to be associated with Japanese people, or Vietnamese who want to be associated with Chinese.

^ I think that goes for all groups of people who are related either ethnically or culturally.

Vietnamese don't like to be associated with Chinese.
Lao don't like to be associated with Thai.
Koreans don't like to be associated with Japanese.
Mon don't like to be associated with Khmer.
....and vice versa for all of them.

I think the reason is that you want people to identify you for you, not as a group with others who were your brothers 1,000 years ago.

Obviously this is a general rule, you'll probably find Koreans who want to be associated with Japanese people, or Vietnamese who want to be associated with Chinese.

to me, the Mon seem more Malay and the Khmer are more of the indiginous ppl of the land.

true they live side by side, but i thought the Mon's first true Kingdom was in Burma until the burmese chased them out and they entered into the Khmer lands.

so are they truely the same ppl, or ppl that share somewhat of the same culture. which is two different things.

The Lao are the same as the Tai in thailand, no Lao person is denying this or trying to get away from that notion.

Lao ppl have an issue of who are the Thais. unless ur saying every Thai is Tai, because every Lao is Tai. Its not a problem of association its a problem of truths. ur assumption that Thai is Tai, but as i pointed out, Since RamaI, who was a Mon King, RamaII who was a Mon, RamaIII who was a Mon, RamaIV who was also a Mon, Thailand should be considered a Mon Kingdom. which i have no problem with, they are who they are.

I mean what would u Classify Thailand as being? a Tai kingdom or a Mon Kingdom? if the rulling class, royal family, the nobles and the lineage of the royal Court of Siam and Thailand are Mon. shouldnt u consider Thais as being Mon and not Tai which is what the Lao are. Thats the issue im pointing out.

You should know the political situation back then didnt allow the Chankri dynasty to openly say they are Mon, when the majority of the population were Tai.

^ I think that goes for all groups of people who are related either ethnically or culturally.

Vietnamese don't like to be associated with Chinese.
Lao don't like to be associated with Thai.
Koreans don't like to be associated with Japanese.
Mon don't like to be associated with Khmer.
....and vice versa for all of them.

I think the reason is that you want people to identify you for you, not as a group with others who were your brothers 1,000 years ago.

Obviously this is a general rule, you'll probably find Koreans who want to be associated with Japanese people, or Vietnamese who want to be associated with Chinese.

I'm well aware that not all Thai people are Tai ethnics. I don't think I ever said Thai and Tai are the same people. Thai = Nationality, Tai = Bloodline. As for Chakri dynasty being of Mon ethnicity, that still didn't change the fact that the people who they fought for were Tai. I get where you're coming from, but they never fought for a Mon kingdom, they fought for a Siamese kingdom.

I agree with you because there's also Khmer people who don't like to be associated with Thai, but then there's also Khmer members like Goombaqueen who has his head up Thai people's azzes and wants to be Thai because he seems to think that all things in SEA were invented by the Thais. I think he's forgotten about his own wonderful culture. Khmer members in here should teach more Khmer history and culture to Goombaqueen to hopefully give him back some of his Khmer pride. Anyway, there's also Thai people who don't like being associated with neither Khmer nor Lao people. There's bad people in all ethnics, not just Lao, Thai or Khmer.

I think they fought for their own Kingdom, Siam use to be Mon Kingdom before the Tai's took power and created Ayutthya. But Ayutthya fell, and the Tai ruling family destroyed and hunted down by the New Mon Kings.

They fought against the other Tai Kingdoms, destroying and manipulating documentation to rewrite hisotry. They were afraid of the reunification of the Tai kingdoms to the North, thats why they fought so hard to keep them seperate.

They had no choice but to hide their Mon roots from the general public because the majority of the ppl they had conquered were Tai.

Siam itself was that region i feel in central Thailand, it may of never been a term to discibe any particular group of ppl. the powers changed hands ever so often, from Khmer to Mon to Tai to Mon. or which other order. but it is ruled by a Mon Elite class now.

Abstract
BackgroundAustronesian is a linguistic family spread in most areas of the Southeast Asia, the Pacific Ocean, and the Indian Ocean. Based on their linguistic similarity, this linguistic family included Malayo-Polynesians and Taiwan aborigines. The linguistic similarity also led to the controversial hypothesis that Taiwan is the homeland of all the Malayo-Polynesians, a hypothesis that has been debated by ethnologists, linguists, archaeologists, and geneticists. It is well accepted that the Eastern Austronesians (Micronesians and Polynesians) derived from the Western Austronesians (Island Southeast Asians and Taiwanese), and that the Daic populations on the mainland are supposed to be the headstream of all the Austronesian populations.

ResultsIn this report, we studied 20 SNPs and 7 STRs in the non-recombining region of the 1,509 Y chromosomes from 30 China Daic populations, 23 Indonesian and Vietnam Malayo-Polynesian populations, and 11 Taiwan aboriginal populations. These three groups show many resemblances in paternal lineages. Admixture analyses demonstrated that the Daic populations are hardly influenced by Han Chinese genetically, and that they make up the largest proportion of Indonesians. Most of the population samples contain a high frequency of haplogroup O1a-M119, which is nearly absent in other ethnic families. The STR network of haplogroup O1a* illustrated that Indonesian lineages did not derive from Taiwan aborigines as linguistic studies suggest, but from Daic populations.

ConclusionWe show that, in contrast to the Taiwan homeland hypothesis, the Island Southeast Asians do not have a Taiwan origin based on their paternal lineages. Furthermore, we show that both Taiwan aborigines and Indonesians likely derived from the Daic populations based on their paternal lineages. These two populations seem to have evolved independently of each other. Our results indicate that a super-phylum, which includes Taiwan aborigines, Daic, and Malayo-Polynesians, is genetically educible

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=2408594


Malay-Tai people like tai and cham left china then conquered southeast asia after mon-khmer viets won against them but the opposite happened to the mon who forced themselves to merge/assimilate with tai

So Malay and Tai people have a common ancestor?

yes....

Can you break it down in simple English. I tried reading the article you posted but still don't get it.

it means that majority of tais,zhuangs,malays and taiwanese aborigines are descended from the same father(y haplogroup) based on their most oldest and popular line of descent which is not by mixing and the ancestors of polynesians and sundic malays passed by vietnam to get into their present area.....

Thanks for explaining. One more thing, who was this "same father"? And what about the mother?

he is not known unfortunately but he is a real man living in southern china thousands of years agro...he is codenamed as O1a-M119

well about the mother B4A1 lived in china her descendants live in china,philippines,thailand,vietnam and indonesia

Holy $hit! So one man from Southern China gave birth to all these different ethnic groups we see today? When you said the "same father", I wasn't expecting it to be literal. I thought you mean't all these groups came from one single group or something like that.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=2408594


Malay-Tai people like tai and cham left china then conquered southeast asia after mon-khmer viets won against them but the opposite happened to the mon who forced themselves to merge/assimilate with tai

Going back to your previous post, correct me if I'm wrong, the Tai and Cham speaking people which is classified under the Austronesian group conquered South East Asia from the Mon-Khmer and Viets who are classfied under Austroasiatic, correct?

he is not known unfortunately but he is a real man living in southern china thousands of years agro...he is codenamed as O1a-M119

well about the mother B4A1A lived in china her descendants live in china,philippines,thailand,vietnam and indonesia while her sisters/cousins migrated to japan and korea...

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/15/8225.pdf

When you said "southern China" you meant Yunnan, right?

I'd suppose some of your kinsmen would've picked up some of our ancestors' genes too, right?

based on the map polynesians and sundic malays may have plenty ancient austroasiatic genes....

Do you consider Peninsular Malays as Austronesian or Austroasiatic?

to me, the Mon seem more Malay and the Khmer are more of the indiginous ppl of the land.

true they live side by side, but i thought the Mon's first true Kingdom was in Burma until the burmese chased them out and they entered into the Khmer lands.

so are they truely the same ppl, or ppl that share somewhat of the same culture. which is two different things.

The Lao are the same as the Tai in thailand, no Lao person is denying this or trying to get away from that notion.

Lao ppl have an issue of who are the Thais. unless ur saying every Thai is Tai, because every Lao is Tai. Its not a problem of association its a problem of truths. ur assumption that Thai is Tai, but as i pointed out, Since RamaI, who was a Mon King, RamaII who was a Mon, RamaIII who was a Mon, RamaIV who was also a Mon, Thailand should be considered a Mon Kingdom. which i have no problem with, they are who they are.

I mean what would u Classify Thailand as being? a Tai kingdom or a Mon Kingdom? if the rulling class, royal family, the nobles and the lineage of the royal Court of Siam and Thailand are Mon. shouldnt u consider Thais as being Mon and not Tai which is what the Lao are. Thats the issue im pointing out.

You should know the political situation back then didnt allow the Chankri dynasty to openly say they are Mon, when the majority of the population were Tai.

to me, the Mon seem more Malay and the Khmer are more of the indiginous ppl of the land.

true they live side by side, but i thought the Mon's first true Kingdom was in Burma until the burmese chased them out and they entered into the Khmer lands.

so are they truely the same ppl, or ppl that share somewhat of the same culture. which is two different things.

The Lao are the same as the Tai in thailand, no Lao person is denying this or trying to get away from that notion.

Lao ppl have an issue of who are the Thais. unless ur saying every Thai is Tai, because every Lao is Tai. Its not a problem of association its a problem of truths. ur assumption that Thai is Tai, but as i pointed out, Since RamaI, who was a Mon King, RamaII who was a Mon, RamaIII who was a Mon, RamaIV who was also a Mon, Thailand should be considered a Mon Kingdom. which i have no problem with, they are who they are.

I mean what would u Classify Thailand as being? a Tai kingdom or a Mon Kingdom? if the rulling class, royal family, the nobles and the lineage of the royal Court of Siam and Thailand are Mon. shouldnt u consider Thais as being Mon and not Tai which is what the Lao are. Thats the issue im pointing out.

You should know the political situation back then didnt allow the Chankri dynasty to openly say they are Mon, when the majority of the population were Tai.

austronesian but sundic

1. My understanding is: "AustroNesian" means "Southern Islandic", while "AustroAsiatic" means " Southern Asian" (but actually used to mean essentially "Mainlandic South East Asian").

So, since Peninsular Malays originally came out of mainland southern Asia, i.e. Yunnan area n thereabouts, n they stayed in the Peninsula after moving into there thru Burma n Thailand, how come they're called "AustroNesian" instead of "AustroAsiatic"?

2. Why Sundic? Since they never went to Sundaland.

I have also come across material linking Mon n Pyu with Malay. Some guys even contemplate that Mon n Pyu could be branches, or offshoots, of Malay. Bearing in mind that they all came out of Yunnan. With Malays coming out first, then Pyu n Mon. What do you think?

^ Why are there no arrows pointing into the Philippines. Did Filipinos come from the Taiwanese Aborigines or the Malays?

^ So are the theories about Taiwanese Aborigines spreading into the Philippines, then Malaysia/Indonesia, and the Pacific still true? Or did they just stop once they got to the bottom of the Philippines? Because according to the map, Indonesians, Malaysians, and Polynesians had nothing to do w/ Taiwanese Aborigines. That's contrary to everything I had heard before.

yes they stopped on borneo and madagascar not migrating to east,then the ancestors of current filipinos appeared in north luzon,then the current filipinos migrated to s.luzon,palawan,visayas,mindanao and north sulawesi,leaving outliers like bajau not like the sundics did

yes they stopped on borneo and madagascar not migrating to east,then the ancestors of current filipinos appeared in north luzon,then the current filipinos migrated to s.luzon,palawan,visayas,mindanao and north sulawesi,leaving outliers like bajau not like the sundics did

Interestingly, the spread of the domestic pig in the Southeast Asia archipelago and the Pacific took place in almost the same way as that of Western Austronesian populations suggested by our study. The pigs in Taiwan and in regions as far as Micronesia came directly from the mainland of East Asia, while those in the Southeast Asian archipelago and Polynesia came from the Indochina Peninsula. It is assumed that the domestic pig was introduced by human populations during early migrations, which would imply that humans have also entered the Southeast Asia archipelago and the Pacific in two different routes

Its quite confuse me when they said Mon Khmae people. I think they may related but not the same people ,for me Mon culture is very Theravart Budism ,where as Khmae is hindu influence.Dont you guys think that Mon and Kmae separate from other bcause of the religious?

Mon-Khmer is a term used to describe speakers of languages that shares an affinity with each other. This doesn't mean all Mon-Khmer people are related or share a similar appearance. Take for an example, a swedish and finnish person. They're both european but speak unrelated languages. However, Hindi is related to Swedish. This gives a clue on how different "related" people are. Lemongrass, Mons and Khmers are not people of the same tribe. Our affinity is clear, but very old. We haven't been the same people since many thousand years before the dawn of Christ. Khmers and Mons are, speaking from language basis like the english and the danish.