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.

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.

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".

Very simple, allow me to answer your question.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 Cœdès who tried very hard to link Varman kings and Khmer kings failed to do it.

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

Can you answer that?

Leeporter, I have an evidence to support you.

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
añ 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 añ 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 añ śrī Sūryavarman varmadeva
พระบาท กมรเต็ง กมตวาน อัญ ศรีสุริยวรมัน วรมเทวา
2. Śrīndravarman =>
vrah karuna ta parama pavitra vrah pāda kamraten añ 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.

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?


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.

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

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

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.



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.

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.

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

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.

Wasn't he the one who build Angkor Wat????

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???

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.

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.

I am fine, thank you, and you?



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

They insists that it is a Khmer word.

Yes, Wat is a Thai word.

lol which Mon record is this?


Anyway. The Po Nagar inscription lists the peoples that were captured as slaves and presented to the temple as a offering.

The list goes has Bagan, Syam, Lav, Kvir. Scholars have mistaken Kvir as "Khmer" and this is clearly seen in many papers written about the subject. However, the name Kvir appears again on a later inscription to mean Virapura, not "Khmer" as is first thought (did it have to be Khmer because it had a K in the beginning? lol)

This is a list of peoples present in SEA at the time which were recognised by the Chams. Following this list and using it as a reference to the geographical location of the people/kingdoms we can see that between Bagan/Burma and Lav/Lao is Syam people.

Khmers as a people were not recognised by what is supposed to be their rivals for hundreds of years. Khmers were not yet on the SEA political map. It could also mean that they were grouped with one of the mentioned peoples.

I have a theory that Khmers are actually part of Champa. The creation story as well as the Phra Thong myth coupled with the fact that Jayavarman II moved Khmer people into Northern Cambodia region leads me to believe Khmers were part of Champa.

The Translation of the Phrea Thong myth translated in 1886 by the french has Phra Thong taking over the Cham kingdom territory. This means that the Area was populated by Chams.

Now here's something else I noticed. Phra "Thong" is a Mon name. The word Thong to mean Gold is from the Mon word Thongkam. In Thai it is shortened to just Gold and in Lao it is just Kham. None of these variations appear in Khmer. Phra Thong was not Khmer.

Anyway, Suryavarman II came from Lava. This area is in southern Isan the power base of Ancient Chenla. This is the Area that the Chenla kings such as Bhavavarman, Citrasena and Isanavarman came from. This was not Khmer territory. Khmers were not in the Area this far north until Jayavarman II forced migrated the people of Vyadapura (lower mekong delta) to northern Cambodia. (Jayavarman II inscription, sdok kok thom)

Now restraining myself from throwing lots of other interesting things I've found, lets just stick to the Syam theory.

The Syam were the Kings and people of The Isan region of Thailand aka the kingdoms that were situated a long the Mun river. This is Chenla. Those kings that came from Chenla were Syam kings. This is the beginning of the Culture that sprang up around SEA. The language which is accredited to the Khmer originated in the Chenla period when Chenla kings were in power.

Chenla kings/people were not "Khmers"

Another interesting little twist is that Syambhupura can be pronounced in chinese as Syam (Tsien) Bhu (silent) Pura (La). The Chinese have always known the Syam people as Tsien or its variations. Tsien, Sien, Xien, Xian. All same sound.

Now back to Suryavarman II who came from Lopburi in Syam country. He was a foreigner to the Khmers (fits in with explanation given by local Khmers when first asked who built Angkor) To be exact Suryavarman II came from Phimai.

There was no record of a mass migration of Khmer people into this region or any other region north of the Dangrek mountain. The only record of mass migration is from Jayavarman II. This means that the base population of were not Khmers.

Now an interesting point in his post saying that Mons were under Khmer rule. It was Bhavavarman and Citrasena and Isanavarman who expanded the the Empire west into Mon territory. We know these kings were not Khmer. How can their kingdom be under Khmer rule?

Yasovarman I who is accredited for building Yasodharapura (Angkor) is connected with the Chenla (Syam) line.

Siem still doesn't exited during his reign.. Siem is Siem Syampura is difference. From Siem in SokorThei (sokothai).
Siem is the Nanchoa refugee and Syam is other Tai migration not the same group as Siem!!!

KhmerBoi, before you go too far to Nanchao, let me show you some people in Suratthani, southern Thailand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BaseFeDvRw

These people are local Tai speaking people.

Do they look like Chinese for you?

You listen carefully to these people, they may be your Khmer ancestor.

YEs it was Khmer Empire that these people couldn't understand!! how can slave understand about their Master!!!! ^^

Inscription K1158 found in Nokor Reach (Former Khmer province, now in Thailand). This inscription used the word SRUK KHMER (Country of Khmer = Cambodia), so it means that Khmers ruled Angkor Empire. Thai Pro. Chirapat Prapandvidya at Silpakorn University, translated this inscription in English :" Indeed, the images of Vrah (God) Buddhalokesvara were installed by the High Official Srisatyavarman, who had supernatural power, in the past, on Abhayagiri, with the intention that Jaya may not attack SRUK KHMER (Country of Khmer = Cambodia). Later on, the nine images deteriorated . The venerable teacher by the name of Dharanindrapura has renovated the deteriorated images and reinstalled them once again. In this way, they became free from harm. Indeed, his pupil, Vrah Acaryya Dhanu, has installed these images in the year 988, (Saka 988 = AD 1066) which is in the reign of His Majesty King Udayadityavarmadeva (King Udayadityavarman II) . May he live long and remain powerful for the rest of his reign.

Khmer people always proud of their nation, brave.. other why we will become Thai and Viet but look at our Khmer in Vietnam they always fight for their freedom and Khmer in Thailand still practice Khmer culture and tradition when I was in Thailand Khmer Surin and Khmer Buriram told me that the Thai government just stop allow Khmer to learn our writing about 40 years a go that why these Khmer-Thai in this generation couldnt know how to write and read Khmer and some of them have been education to hate Khmer them self..

I actually have an explanation for this too

This is from the Jayavarman II inscription

Now a little about Jayavarman II. He was said to have come from Java. This I have found to be baseless as there is no record from the Javanese kingdoms regarding a war with Cambodia or that they have ever occupied Cambodia. There is no record at all. Scholars have also suggested that this is actually a misinterpretation of Lava (Lavapura/Lopburi in syam country) as there is clear indication throughout the history that there was major interactions between these two areas. Lava will still be classed as a foreign source. Jayavarman II had conquered the people of Vyadhapura and moved them to populate his new capital. This is the most likely time that Khmers were moved from the lower mekong delta area into northern Cambodia as there is no evidence of them being in the region prior to this (This is the ONLY inscription with the word "Khmer" written on it anywhere)

The inscription is also dated 200 years AFTER the events of Jayavarman II actually ascending to become the king. There may have been a shift in power during those 200 years between the populace. Jayavarman II did bring an entire population to populate the area from Khmer territory. Is it a surprise there is a mention of Khmer in the inscription? The person who made the inscription may have been a Khmer and decided to use the word Sruk Khmer instead of Kamvujadesa like it is written in the Sanskrit section.

From this we know that Khmers were moved into the Area but the civilisation had already begun in the area before their arrival. The language and script had already surfaced during the Chenla period. The art style was already present too. There was no big evolution of the culture as the big event had already occured 200 years BEFORE Jayavarman II (invention of the script)

?

I think you need to reread your post and see if it makes sense to you lol

The people that took Sukhothai were TAI people. Not syam. Like I tried to explain before, the identities of these 2 peoples have been forced together and causes confusion.

Siamese are not Tai.

I will even make a very easy distinction for you. Do you see the relief at Angkor about the Siem kuk? look at what they are wearing. Tai men have always worn trousers since ancient times. There was never a period that they wore Skirt like clothing or dangling tassles. Those people are not Tai people, they are wearing a Miao Hmong-Mien style clothing. Tai people do not wear that, even in ancient days.

Actually Im not sure why this point has never come up before. Its quite a blatant one.

Another point about this relief and inscription is, does the inscription say that ONLY the people at the front were Syam? Syam kuk is Syam land. These are the troops from Syam land. How do we know it does not mention the entire army as coming form syam land? The artists may have portrayed the Syam exactly the same as the Angkorian army. Why? because it was the same people.

Im not sure why it is focused on a small part of the procession as being Syam troops when there is no indication at all. It is just an assumption. Syam country covered many regions and gave it access to regional troops such as the northern tribes. They could have just been skirmishers in the army. The weapons they hold is also in question as these types of weapons were not in use by the Tai.

This is just a blind assumption ignoring the details again Im afraid.

You've never actually checked the time line now have you lol

Jayavarman II 9th century

Inscription in sdok kok thom created 11th century

200 year gap.

Old Khmer script first appeared? 6th century

Expansion of Chenla 6th century

This inscription is a secondary source as it was not created during the time period the events actually happened. But it does give us lots of good information

That language sound similar to khmer..well at least to me. What language they speaking?

Im watching without audio (am at work) but Im guessing its southern Thai dialect

Because that was Khmer combine together that we call solidarity and created the Khmer Script as the result!! and Sanskrit have only use as the message to the God!!! understand??

I guess this is what you are referring to.

--
Java, Chama, Lava
The word in the inscription that has often been translated as "Java" has caused endless debate. Some early scholars, such as George Coedès and Lawrence Palmer Briggs, has established the notions that it is refer the island of Java in present-day Indonesia and quoted mythical stories of battles between the Khmers and Javanese. Later scholars such as Charles Higham doubt that the word refers to the island.[5] Michael Vickery has re-interpreted the word to mean "the Chams," the Khmers' neighbors to the east.
The letter J and L in Sanskrit-based alphabets are pretty much alike. Thus "Java" could in fact be "Lava" which was the former name of Lavo kingdom which is Lopburi province in present day Thailand. Note that Lava was a dominant kingdom during this period.
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayavarman_II




Yes, I doubt it too. They don't look like Thai style dressing at all.

They speak a Tai dialect called "Dambro". It's been used in sounthern cities of Thailand, some part of Malaysia and some part of Burma.



They believe that it's from Sanskrit Tāmbra (Pali Tāmba) for "copper"

Suratthani is where historians believe to be "Tam-bal-inga" kingdom.

Southern Thailand was where the Indian, including Brahman, landed on Suvarnabhumi.

The clip I show you are local people of Kirirat, a district in Suratthani (see the map above).

I personally believe that it was the center of Funan or Phnom.

Last week, while I was driving from southern thailand back to bangkok, on the route I found this Kirirat Disctirct, and another district nearby called "Phanom" and another district nearby called "Chaiya" or Jaya.

Later I will show you Funan arts found in Suratthani.



BTW, the reason I show you the clip is to tell you that Tai speaking people have been living here for don't know how long.

The people you see are local or a mix of local and Indian, they never migrated from Nan Chao.

I am fine, thank you, sit down

อ่ะ I am fine, thank you



Langkasuka-Pattani 7th century
Chaiya- 8th century
South Cmbodia 9th Century

a hundred year gap

Khmer people have to change their believe that they are the first contact to indian civilization and Thai adopted second hand indian culture from them despite it is the other way around.



PS i went to northern Thailand, Chiengmai and Chiengrai ร้อนมว๊ากกเลย แต่สนุกดีค่ะ

ha ha ha .. I like that term "second hand Indian culture"

And your map is good too.

Khmer people always think that Indian flied across Thailand to Cambodia first.

It's ridiculous.

I never say they are Malay. I think they had been influenced by Malay so they got the word Tvan. Sukhothai had Malay word Tvan, but why not Sri Dhammaraj? I am aware that people in Sri Dhammaraj are native, not Malay, Malay from Java, Aceh migrated to mainland penisular later.

Yes, Malay speaking people are a new comer in Malay Peninsular.

Actually, the peninsular was called "Lam Thong" or "Golden Peninsular (Aurea Chersonesus)" and it was a habitat of Siamese people who spoke Tai dialect.

It was the western colonists (again) who started to call it Malay Penninsular.

Leeporter, how was your trip to Southern Thailand? Do you enjoys?? ^^

Ofcourse, it's always enjoyable traveling in the south.
Millions of people around the world come to enjoy plenty of beautiful beaches in the south like Phuket, Krabi, Pang Nga, Trang, Samui every year.

Too bad this year we had a lot of rain and a flood on hiway near Chumpon on the east coast. So I have to use alternative route on the west coast instead.
That's why I could see many towns I never seen before like Kirirat, Tagola (Ta Gua Pa), and Phnom.

I just recently read a book talking about these towns being the center of Funan. So, it's quite exciting for me to drive through these towns.

The west coast and the east coast are seperated by a long range of mountains. To cross from the east coast to the west, you have to drive through a valley from Suratthani to Ta Gua Pa (Tagola)

And these towns are in this valley that link Tagola and Chaiya (Jaya) in Suratthani.

While driving through this valley, I can imagine why the Indians who landed at Tagola needed to go through this route to Surat Thani and then cross the gulf to Cambodia.

And why they called it Phnom or Funan.

I'm confuse , you guys claimed Khom People build Angkor now you claimed Siamese People build Angkor :/

Khom is just a name used to call a group of Siamese living around Lopburi (Lavo) and central Thailand.

The word Siamese is a vague term. It does not equal to the word 'Tai'.

Tai is just a subset of Siamese.

BTW, Suriyavaraman I was from Nakorn Sri Dhammarat in southern Thailand.

Was he Khmer?

Oh, and if you want to see how the Apsara dance on the temple wall should look like, watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfn_19V0Un4...feature=related

It's Nora dance in southern Thailand.

It's "closer" to the dance you see on the temple's wall in Nakorn Wat.

Not the one created by Princess Buppha Devi to show to the French.

That one was copied from Bangkok (Rattanakosin) dance.

Khmer have conquered Dvaravati (Mon Kingdom, not Siem) since the mid 850AD. Even though it broke away from Khmer rule for a short period of time, it was still heavily under Khmer control. It's only obvious that the conquered land would be settled by the inhabitants of the conqueror. Suryavarman II is a Khmer King whose people originated from the lower Khmer land. He is Khmer as depicted on the wall of Angkor. If he is Siem as you claim he is, then there would be no Siem depicted on the wall of Angkor, and instead the whole depiction on Angkor would be just Siem. But it's not. He just had a few Siem that pledge loyalty to him and joined his troops. Even the Vietnamese mention that Khmer tried to attack Annam during Suryavarman II reign but failed. Now the Vietnamese sure know the difference between Khmer and Siem back then.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mon_people
http://www.eumon.org/history.php

Yasovarman I is a Khmer King who is also accredited for conquering Mon Kingdom. By doing so it established Ayuthhaya.
http://www.ayutthaya-history.com/Temples_Ruins_Ayodhya.html

This is the picture of the hi-way I was talking about.

I think the hi-way in red in the map above was the exact route the Inidan used to travel from the west coast to the east coast, because it's the only way to cross the mountain.

In the book I read, it says that the very first empire of Indians (around 1st - 2nd century) in Suvarnabhumi consisted of 3 states; namely Java Dhaveep, Nak (Naga) Fa, and Nak (Naga) Din.

These 3 states are mentioned in the record of Chinese.

The capital of the empire then was in Java Dhaveep, in a city called "Phnom" and the house of council of the empire was located at a city called "Ta Kun". It's called "Tha coucil of 3 states"

If you can read Thai, you can see the name of the districts called "Phnom" and "Ban Ta Kun" in the map I show above.

That's where the center of the first state and the center of the whole empire was.

In each state, there are many kingdoms in it.

1) Java Daveep consists of 4 kingdoms: Tian Son, West Java Daveep, Eat Java Daveep and and Hai Nan (yes, Hai Nan in China), the first 3 are in southern Thailand, the last one (Hai Nan) is near today China)



The capital of this state is "Phnom" in Suratthani.

2) Nak Fa consisted of 11 kingdoms, consisting of cities in central Thailand, eastern and some north cities for example, Petchburi, Ratchaburi, Kanjanaburi, Singhaburi, Chanburi,Prajinburi, Ayudhaya, Nakorn Sawam, Sri Dhep, Uttharadit, Pitsanulok etc, with Ratchaburi as the capital.

This "Nak Fa" state later expanded eastward and cover part of today Cambodia and Vietnam and became "Kam Langka", what we called "Khom"

3) Nak Din consisted of most of Isaan (north easthern Thailand), Laos, Vietnam and part of China. With Nakorn Phnom (Kotraboon) as the capital.

It's quite complicated, indeed, but it's an interesting read and it can help deleting the concept of today countries in your head.

This empire is what Chineses called "Funan", it covers a very large area from Maly Peninsular to Hai Nan and southern China.

PS> I think the history of Suvarnabhumi is quite complicated and it changed all the time. So, when we talk about history, we need to specify which period we are talking about. The one I was talking about now is during 1st-2nd century. And it's just a theory from a book, not a fact, ok?

Hey, KhmerBoi.

I got a question, do you know how many "Khmer Speaking" People in this world?

What is the population size for Khmer speaking people?

I could find tons of information about Tai speaking people, but I couldn't find information about Khmer speaking people.

Here is a Wiki Site about Khmer Speakers.
But this is in German^^
I would translate but my English is not so good as German.
But this Article is a bit older no update.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer-Sprache

14 million people speaking Khmer, mainly in Cambodia and Vietnam?

Thailand gov did that becos they was fear that Kherm Thai will be effected by your Khmer rouge, Khmer communists disease. LOL

I think it's very lucky that those Khmer Thai live in Thailand otherwise they must be refugee to Thai fellow or would be killed by your so-callled KHMER brother.

Sruk Khmer is what slaves call the land they lived, not the name of the country. It's not name created by rulers, Ruler's countriy name is Kamvujadesa.

14 million native, 2 million second language speakers.
But mainly in Cambodia,Vietnam and Thailand.

oh here I found a better page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_language

more informations then the german page.

I'm not going to join your discussions I just want to share this link , maybe you "Historians" can
find something importent in this text.

Its about Thai Cambodian Art (Including Apsara dance , khmer empire etc)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/256756/thai-cambodian-art