I left for a few days and the other topic got so hijacked already. It's sad that I have to make another topic to respond.

Ok, let me put this out first. I'm not here to make a judgement on whether Angkor was built by the Khmer or the Siamese. I'm here to understand the nature of what happened. Remember that history is too complex to be interpreted in one way, and if you do, you're carrying out an agenda. In a way, all history writers have agendas since they all impose a single view on what happened. What I try to do is to understand things without judging it.



So back to the topic. Let me go point by point.


1. Some members suggested that Chenla and Syam were the same.
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...t=0&start=0


I'm not sure how one could solidly connect Chenla to Syam and say they were the same thing. What I saw so far are merely superficial similarities between the romanization of the words Syam La, Chen La and Sambhupura.

Syam La and Chen La may be a little similar if you "look" (not listen) at the words in roman letters but they're not really the same.

Syam La is Xiêm La in Vietnamese

Chen La is Chân Lạp in Vietnamese
(Note that both Mandarin e and Vietnamese â are pronounced like "io" in nation. Not like e in dedicate or a in father).

Modern mandarin lost all -p endings, so similarities the two "La" are merely coincidence. One is supposed to be La and the other is supposed to be Lạp.

But if this is not enough to prove that Syam La and Chen La were two different countries (and SabaiSabai asked me when Vietnamese started calling Thailand "Xiêm La") let me show you the quote from the Annals of Đại Việt (Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư 大越史記全書)

Book IV (page 238 in the complete annals), Reign of King Lý Anh Tông
Trảo Oa above is Java
Lộ Lạc (also called Lộ Hạc, La Hồi) was supposedly a country in Northern Thailand nowadays. Judging from the name, it could be Lawa or Lavo that you've been talking about. Just my speculation.
Xiêm La was also in the proximity of Thailand and that was how Vietnamese referred to Thailand until the 20th century. Even in modern Vietnamese language today, there are still remnants of this. For example, there's breed of chicken from Thailand originally and it's called "gà xiêm". There are also vịt xiêm (Xiem duck), hồng xiêm (Xiêm Persimmon, known in English as Sapodilla), dừa xiêm (Xiêm coconut). These names remind people that their origin was in Siam before being imported to and cultivated in Vietnam.

Vietnamese annals also wrote that Xiêm La was originally two states "Xiêm" (Siam) and "Lộ Hạc/La Hồi" (Lavo?). Later Lộ Hạc grow strong and absord Xiêm and became "Xiêm La". So Xiêm La mentioned here during the Lý dynasty (1009-1225) here was just "Siam" (the word La was added in by historians in later edits after it was merged with Lavo)

Now let's continue with the excerpts of Annals of Đại Việt (Book IV)
^^ It's obvious that Xiêm La (Syam La), Chân Lạp (Chenla), Chiêm Thành (Champa) and Ai Lao were all different countries, and they most likely all existed at about the same time. That's why you could see all their names mentioned in Đại Việt's foreign relation within less than 50 years.

If you want the characters, I can give you
Xiêm La (Syam La) is 暹羅
Chân Lạp (Chen La) is 真臘
Chiêm Thành (Champa) is 占城

So you can't say Syam La and Chen la are two different names for the same state


2. Some people argue that the king who "built" Angkor Wat, Suriyavarman II, was from Southern Thailand, so Angkor Wat is Thai/Siam


Two things to address here:

I. It's invalid to use modern political boundaries to make a judgement on ethnicity of a person in the ancient time. Borders are not fixed and ethnicity of inhabitants change over time. I don't think I need to mention that Cambodia used to be much bigger than it is today before being invaded by the Thai and Vietnamese. While you can't argue whether Suriyavarmant II was Khmer, you can't prove that he was Thai or Siamese ethnically either.

II. It's common for people to say Suriyavarman II "built" Angkor Wat but that statement isn't very accurate. It's more accurate to say "Angkor Wat was built under the reign of Suriyavarman II" or "Suriyavarman II ordered the construction of Angkor Wat". Did Suriyavarman II literally built the temple himself? I hope none of you thinks so. I also doubt whether he designed it. In other words, the king ordered the construction, the architects designed it, the mandarins planned out transportation of materials and stuff, the workers do the physical work in building it. In other words, Angkor Wat was a product of cooperated works of a society, a community, it's not the work of any single person. Hence it's absurd to say whether Angkor Wat is Khmer or Thai/Siamese based on the ethnicity of one person.





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

Perhaps the terminology of "Khmer Empire" didn't exist. But it's very likely that there existed a Khmer-based "state" that covered much of mainland Southeast Asia. I'm talking about Chenla of course.

From the quotes above you could tell that Chenla was able to "plunder" Nghệ An of Đại Việt, not just once but several times. There were also times when Chenla and Champa allied with each other to attack Đại Việt. This tells you that Chenla stretched much further North than the current boundary of Cambodia. If not they wouldn't be able to attack Đai Việt and Champa wouldn't be interested in allying with them.

This is Nghệ An for your reference to see how far north it is


So some thing like this map may make sense

very interesting thread Xigon thx

(although it sounds very complicated to me, I read it 3 times and I'm still figuring out who is 'supposed' to be who and why.. lol)

Hi fivers

I didn't think you'd be interested in Southeast Asian history and find yourself here.

But I appreciate your time and effort to read and understand it.


To help you understand a bit:

- Chenla/Chân Lạp: an ancient kingdom in Southeast Asian, commonly believed to be a Khmer Kingdom. But some members here dispute that it was rather a "Siamese" kingdom. This was where Angkor Wat was built.
- Siam/Syam La/Xiêm La: Old name of Thailand, though its people and its territory weren't the same as modern Thailand today.
- Champa/Chiêm Thành: A kingdom in Central Vietnam. It was conquered by Vietnamese.
- Đại Việt: Old name of Vietnam, but back then it consisted of Northern Vietnam only.


What's going on is that some members argue that Chenla and Siam were two names for the same kingdom, and that Khmer people are not descendants of Chenla but they were originally Cham people from the Mekong Delta (Southern Vietnam). What I'm saying is that they're all different.

ah I see now.. thx for re-explaining (gosh I feel dumb now..), yes I'm interested in the topic as I have a special bonding with Thailand and its surrounding neighbours, I wanna live there later on <3

Fantastic!

So now we can cross out Chenla is Syamla thanks xigon.

And also thanks for confirming that there was a Syamla in existance in the Area at that time. Though now we just have to identify which group existed in Thailand in that period. Dvaravati or Lavo? And also another interesting point, who were the Xiemla mentioned as the Tai still had not mass migrated into SEA yet

Dvaravati = Mon
Lavo = Mon
Kingdoms of the Mun river = Mon <--- Chenla

Now we know that Chenla does not translate as Syamla, but still doesn't change that it is still a Monic society. Khmer population does not go that far into Thailand. There was no record of mass migration either.

We can see that The territory of Ancient Chenla were not Khmer. Thus ultimately, the only thing that changes from my theory is the origin of the name

The population of SEA did no wander. When there is a massive migration it would be recorded. Khmers were moved into the Dangrek area in the 9th century. Chenla already prospered before their arrival. (Sdok kok thom)

So then this brings it back to Chenla = Sima? lol Geographic location is accurate

In my very humble speculation Xiêm La (Syam La) was Lavo.


I added in a part about the formation of the name "Xiêm La". Not sure whether you read it.

According to the Annals of Đại Việt (not sure if it's true), originally there were two states in the area. One was called "Xiêm" (Siam) and the other was called Lộ Hạc/La Hồi (Lavo in my speculation). Later, Lavo grew strong and absorbed Siam. That region is then known as "Xiêm La" (Xiêm from Siam and La from La Hồi/Lavo).

So Syam La was basically Lavo absorbing Siam.

The Xiêm La mentioned in the quotes above was supposed to be "Xiêm" only, because at that time Lavo still existed as a separate entity (known as Lộ Hạc or La Hồi to Vietnamese).

However, it's written as Xiêm La in the quote above because later historians confused the original Xiêm with the later Xiêm La, to them Xiêm and Xiêm La were interchangeable.

Lavo was a Mon state as I know, which would make Syam La a Mon state too, but there likely were other ethnicities there, like Wa, Tai, Khmer. I'm not sure whether it has nothing to do with Lao.


Also in my humble belief, there's a strong connection between Lavo and Dvaravati because Xuanzang, famous monk of the Tang dynasty (See Journey to the West), refer to Lavo in his journal as Tou-lo-po-ti (Dvaravati)


Chenla is Khmer for me because it well included the Mekong delta (Southern Vietnam) and present-day Cambodia and the people there are Khmer. If you say they were Mon then where did the Khmer come from? You can't say from the Cham.

it has nothing to do with Lao.

Which would then make Suryavarman II Syamese as he was from Lavo (Phimai to be exact) The Syamese (Mon) built Angkor Wat.

The shift in geographic locations of the ethnic groups were recorded in the chronicles of each nation.
Northern Thailand (Chiang Saen/Lanna) occupied the far north having pushed the Khom (Mon) further south.
The Khmer ethnic group populated the lower mekong delta region until they were moved into the Battambang lower Dangrek area by Jayavarman II (Sdok kok thom inscription)
The Area of Laos was populated by Khmuic (they do not identify themselves as Khmer) people and Lawa (Mon) Northern Laos is Hmong mien and Tai territory.

Suvarnabhaumi is Mon country Mon is the origin of SEA culture.

That's exactly what I've been repeating since almost day 1 in here...sadly I couldn't present them as effective as the way you did...


As for Lavo... the Chinese called it "LorHu"...It was actually "Lawapura" the major state of "Dvaravati" the birth place of "JamDevi", the queen of "Haripunjaya"....

Chinese called "Suphanburi" as "Xien/Sien" and "Lavo" as "Lorhu"..."SienLorhu" for "Ayuttaya"(Krungthep "Dvaravati" Sri Ayuttaya)


Here is some info. about us Siamese/Thai

Sien/Siem/Syam/Siam are actually how they called people from "Suphan" which had strong tie with Lavo/lawapura/Lopburi...

King U-Thong's power base was actully in Lavo/Loburi....It's the sanctuary for Rarmasuan;his son, to seek refuge from his uncle,"Khun Luang Pngua" (ขุนหลวงพะงั่ว) ,his mother's older brother...

So "Siem/Siam" is most likely doesn't mean "black" as many assumed, but rather "gold" from the word "Suphan"...

Ok, now that we have firmly established where the Syamla is (Suphanabhaumi) we look at the bas relief at Angkor regarding the "Syam kuk" we have historical art from the region from the founding of the city (9th century) does it match with the skirt wearing troops on the Angkor walls? I don't think so.

Suphanburi art is the same art and style of Dvaravati. These were not Jungle people so the Khmer and western interpretation of Syam kuk being jungle people is quite ridiculous

So Syam comes form the word Suphan. Sienla is Suphanla. Chenla minus the "la" will just be Chen... I wonder what kingdom of that era was named as Chen (or something similar o.O)

I have to agree that the bas-relief as U mentioned doesn't seem to be the troops from Siam... Anyhow ever do any research on "KOK RIVER" and its relation to Lanna???

I've read a paper that has suggested those tribesmen could be from the Kok river but I haven't really done anything on it yet. Maybe I should get digging 555

Well, I've just looked. Geographically it is pretty smack bang in Tai territory in that period. The power house of the region was Chiang Saen. But as I've mentioned before... Tai people have never worn that kind of clothing or used that type of weaponry. Perhaps these were any of the Hmong, Akha, Lahu, Lawa, Miao, Yao, Lisu, Karen, palong etc etc

The dress style certainly fits in with the Hill people. For example.

http://www.justfoodnow.com/wp-content/uplo...eople-getty.jpg

The the girl on the right of the picture. Does she looks like she has braids? just like the soldiers on the Syam kuk relief.

Seeing as Suphanburi is Syam/Siam why would the hill people be called Syam kuk? different people, different culture. No connection.

some believed they're another Tai speaker from the north around the region of Kok river...for differentiation, they put the word "Kok" after "Siem"....BUT...as you just said that still doesn't seem so convincing enuff about the costume and weaponary as of the Tai...

So dig on Detective!...Fight!fight!

Mhmm so we got our culture from Mon ppl? Thang that sucks they lost there whole land and now a minority is some countries.

It is quite tragic I totally agree. They also seem to be the most quiet about it too lol Though it is the Buddhist way.. to live peacefully. No need for fame etc

We all owe the Mon so very much

They didn't lost the land...we merged into "Siamese" the Austro-Tai people...

As you can obviously see the "Hongsa" ,as a symbol related to the king, is still being us in many occasion including the SuphanaHongsa royal Barge and etc.

The Mon people said where there is "Hongsa"(หงษ์) there is Mon spirit...

Well the kings of Thailand are descended from Mon line ^_- As well as a very large amount of mixtures in Thailand. Also Ratchaburi and Nakhon Pathom still has many. I think there was an area in Bangkok given to Mon entirely though I cant remember the name.

The Mon are still around. But not like in the glory days T_T I wouldve loved to see what Dvaravati was like at the zenith of its civilisation.

to be frank I'm more proud of the term "Siam" as it show we are the true melting pot of Suwannabhumi...

Somone should seriously write a theroy about this I wonder what the response would be, but seriously if this publish on khmer newspaper or happened to be on the news aha it's going to get crazy there.

to the Mon and their civilization...with all gradtitude...

So Lộ Hạc was Lavo, Xiêm/Syam was Suphanburi and Xiêm La (Syam La) was a union of the two ~ Ayutthaya?


I'm not sure whether Khmer culture was influenced by Mon people, but from what I learned in my Anthropology class, they were pretty much the progenitor of mainland Southeast Asian nowadays.

They were the first to receive Theravada Buddhism from Sri Lanka and spread it throughout Southeast Asia. At that time, Khmer were Hindu/Mahayana Buddhist. Mahayana Buddhism was made the state religion by king Jayavarman VII but the commoners still practiced the older Hindu religion; to be precise, Khmer culture at that time was a blend of Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism. Khmer kings claimed themselves to be Bodhisattvas (figures that only existed in Mahayana Buddhism but not Theravada Buddhism) and the big face on Angkor Thom was supposed to be the face of Boddhisattava as well as of King Jayavarman VII. With this context, I believe Khmers were introduced to Theravada Buddhism by the Mon.

I didn't think much about the Mon and I didn't know that all those dances, all those beautiful architectures of Southeast Asia were adopted from the Mon. Now when I look up the internet, majority of ancient civilizations in Southeast Asian were Mon-speaking. So basically they left a huge influence on this part of the world. But...

But it is sad because now people don't even know of them, people may know of their culture but they know it through the names of Thai, Burmese, Lao...They don't have a country for themselves, they're like a lost tribe you know, a tribe that once produced so many wonderful things but now virtually got wiped out of the world.



What theory?

Are you talking about the Mon people?
I think most anthropologists in the field of Southeast Asian culture have already known that most of Southeast Asian culture came from the Mon. So we don't need to publish any new paper for the scientific community. For the average folks maybe, since they don't know much about the Mon.

But still the fact that Mon people were the founder of mainland SEA civilizations doesn't say anything about who built Angkor Wat and who were the people of Chenla. Whoever they were, I believe their descendants are inhabitants of Cambodia today.

the population of Chenla are all around Suwannabhumi right now...still I'll give credit of Angkor to the Cambodian people since they're the one who still try hard in preserving the culture and language, Although I believe the rulers were of Mixed blood be the Indian/Charm/MonKhmer and etc.

Hey Xigon,

Don't have to be so sad, we don't need a country for "every" race.

Thailand (aka Siam) is now their home because they have transformed into Siamese.

If you realized how Mon is playing important rules in Thai high society, you wouldn't worry that much.

They are in every society of the modern Thailand and has a lot of influence on the high society of Thailand, whether in political, economy, culture etc.

Peaceman, you forgot Kun Pha Muang.

Or he is a Mon, not a Thai?

Sri Thep ศรีเทพ- Ancient Dvaravati City
http://www.oknation.net/blog/voranai/2009/09/25/entry-1

I have a question. You're in Thailand so you may know.

Mon people and language. Do they look and sound more similar to Thai or Khmer? Everyone on this board associate them with the Khmer but from the pictures and youtube clip, they seem to be more like Thai. I don't know. Maybe it's just me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtVovG2oU_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wR0AdwaR8s
^ Are they speaking Thai or Mon?


And notice the way the wrap their sashes. It's similar to Lao.

That's the reason why I listed Indian/Charm/MonKhmer and etc. respectively

Oh, ok. I didn't see that "etc."

And how would you classify Suriyavarman I who came from Nakorn Sri Dhammarath?

Do you classify him as a Tai or Mon or Khmer or Malay or Indian?

I believe he's a Javanized(of Sailendra) King though...other than that I still couldn't come to the decent conclusion...

Wow! that's beautiful, very advanced and well arranged music.

Their language in the announcement sound more like Khmer, their language in the song sound more like Thai.

Their music sound more like Indian mixed with Chinese, probably because no "Ranad"

Their dance look more like Indian.

For their dress, it's the common dressing found in this region but look more like Burmese.

And they are not as dark as Khmer.

I got the picture of Mon to accompany this song.

What is this picture? Where is it found?

Actually their dance reminds me of Dai dance in China. Maybe because they both got elements from India.

From this website, but I don't remember which page.

http://www.myanmarimagegallery.com/about-m...d-pyu-kingdoms/

I wanted to know which temple/architecture it was found on and how old it is because I found the human faces on the art interesting. They're more like Vietnamese and Chinese whereas faces on Cham arts are quite different. I'll show you








Cham arts from Central Vietnam
















It's like they tend to carve bigger lips and noses for the faces. I thought it were a common style in Southeast Asia

Angkor Wat


Malay Art



I don't know maybe there are variations

The world is familiar with the Buddhist mon civilisation, however the world is not familiar with the Hindu mon civilisation. If they did, they would not group Chenla as Khmer. Sri thep, sima, fa daed are all Monic kingdoms. These settlements and it's history is still relatively unknown to the world.

This is the area of ancient Chenla. The civilisation that exploded throughout SEA.

If people knew about the eastern Mon, I doubt they will believe in the fiction that is the "Khmer" empire. Perhaps there will be peace between Thailand and Cambodia. The ridiculous notion that Thailand stole Khmer culture would disproved and Khmer nationalists would stop being so crazy.

Well what proof is there to say Chenla wasn't Khmer but something else, like Mon?

Sri thep, sima, fa daed...what are those?

I don't know...if the comments about Thai stealing Khmer culture is the sole reason why you want to disprove Chenla being Khmer then it's not worth it. On the other hand there are also Thai who say Khmer stole their culture. Nationalists of both sides are equally ridiculous. Just forget about it.

There are bits of information about these kingdoms but. Nothing extensive. These kingdoms of the mum river are classed as dvaravati kingdoms though they used mon and Khmer language as well as Sanskrit and Pali. These are the kingdoms that controlled the territories of Isan and Laos. There are many legends about the kingdoms from Ian and Laos people. However, none of them say it was Khmer kingdoms. Infancy these states were said to have been form from the expansion of kingdoms further north rather than south.

These kingdoms developed during the rise of Chenla 6th century. They also fit with the geographical location. They were Buddhist and Hindu. Used all 4 languages. I don't think you can go anymore east to find Chenla. Archaeologists still class them as dvaravati civilisation though. Though they could have been their own element entirely.

Because there is not enough information on these ancient kingdoms, mainstream ideas are that the people had to be Khmers as the language used was from the khmer branch and not Mon. People have overlooked this area for far too long.

YEs you are right!!! But I would rather say Java instead of Cham!! Because for those JAva push to CHampasak become Cham but Java in Cambodia is still Java!!!

There are no records of Java ever attacking Cambodia at all. The belief that Java had taken control of Cambodia comes from the Jayavarman II inscription. Which I think is definitely a miss translation. I believe it is Lava and not Java. Lava is the other area/people that could possibly be Chenla. As we can tell from the history. Chenla came south and invaded the area and became the rulers. Jayavarman II could have performed the ritual as defiance to the rule of Lava.

Lava is the area or source of scholarship that princes and future kings were sent to be educated. Through out the Angkorian kings lines, we see that quite a few of them come from Lava. There is a much higher frequency in the connection between Angkor and Lava then there is Angkor with Java.

Perhaps Jayavarman II was just a prince that wanted to stamp his own identity and decide to go conquer the people of the south. When he tried to attack the northern territories he was beaten back. TBH Jayavarman II didn't actually get that far in his conquests but he did begin something important. The independence of the southern kingdom from Chenla control.

Anyone actually have any links between Java and pre Angkor? Ive read in many places that there were attacks by the Javanese pirates in the 8th century but have not been able to track down the source material for this. Makes me believe it is just a story created to link Jayavarman II with Java and that him coming from Java to be legitimate.

King of Thailand, actors/actrsses, and many many more



Their look and costume look like northern Thai and Thai Airways flight attendants

Their dance look like central Thai mix northern Thai in speed rythm
Their step in dancing look Burmese
my 2 stangs ^^

You talk to me? I think u r confusing!

Can you a find a link between jayavarman II and java? Lol you don't even have any evidence to show ANY angkorian king was Khmer lol

I think because you just too much hated Khmer that why u can't think of the evidence. But I can give you clue that he was mix of Java (huntien) father + Khmer month (lievyee) = sorivong, Indian father (kaundinya)+ Khmer mother (soma or neang nak) = somvong, king of Angkor are somvong + sorivong = Khmer king , you know why? Because they all have their Khmer mother's blood base and they all have to married to the Khmer princes if they wanna be a king. That is the law and incase if king don't have any crown prince then someone from the queen bloodline will suggested by Brahmanh.
And why we say it was Khmer not any other Austroasiatic because of the Khmer inscription... And Khmer people who still existed with their strong believe in their indentety, and we you learn about us! You will found clue back to the empire..

One really small example: Khmer people would say "Arch Kor Me" meaning $hit of a cow's mother for something that it was believe that it usefull then is not!

So you will get stuck how it make sence but if you look at the bas-relief you will found Brahmanh getting the cow's $hit which just deliver a babe in a Hindu temple.. And that would lead the scholars learn more about it.

And that why we say we are the Master! ^^

Lol idiot still don't get it. Adopted culture doesn't mean it's your created culture lol your whole history is created to fit the bad reliefs. Is it a surprise it has it in there? Lol everything you have claimed so far we have proved you got it from siam. Your history and culture is just borrowed history and culture.

Khmers are masters of copy and false claims lol

Lolzzz why don't u use ur brain a little bit.. Vietnamese known khmer not Khorm, Roman known Khmer not Khorm, the Cham known Khmer not Khorm i am not mention the word kambuja. Ur culture keep influence from us until 15th that the fact and we have proved it was not dying in the13th century. But unt
il 17th century Khmer was influence from Siem was in 17 century since the lost of longvek. Which the vietnamese also taking part of Khmer business.. And it is because of our Khmer king during that period. U should learn to think a little bit of optimistic... And it can make you happy and satisfy of what you have.. We Khmer recognize the difference of you culture and tradition... But because of you act of your government which provoke us to call you thief again!

Vietnamese known khmer and not Khom. because Khmer are not Khom
Romans known khmer and not Khom. Because Khmer are not Khom
Cham known khmer and not Khom. Because Khmer are not Khom

How can simple logic like this not be understood? Only Khmers think Khom are Khmer.

Khom is a name used to decribe southerners by the Tai kingdoms of northern Thailand. Who was south of the Tai kingdoms? Mon kingdoms. There was no mass migration of Khmer people from the lower mekong delta. Your people never populated central Thailand. How can you be Khom? how.. your people didnt even populated central and northern Isan. How are you even Chenla?

Your people have adopted the culture and language from these places. We know from evidence that your people was moved into Chenla territory by Jayavarman II. How do we know you even speak the same language you do now as you did back then? The language appeared from the 7th century. Your people was moved to the Battambang area in the 9th century. It has been almost 1000 years for your people to adapt to the language. Funan never had this language. Your people were in the vacinity of Funan, so why is there no evidence of this language from Funan?

This is shameless culture theft right here.

Khmer are not Khom. Khmers have not been influencing anyone. Your people are the peasants and servants of your Khom (Mon) masters.

Let me paint a picture for you so that you can understand. It is like one day Siem Reab broke away and became indipendent from Cambodia and suddenly claim that all Cambodia came from Siem Reab. And guess what, Angkor Wat is in Siem Reab so they have evidence to say it comes from there.

Get it?

I know you don't like to be call Khmer influence to everyone but you want other say Khorm influence anyone because Khorm is Siem right?? Lol

Anyways, Everyone don't know who is Khorm only you guy know that is not weir because that is from your fairy tale..

Vietnames, Roman, and Cham know that Khmer is the ruler!!!
and Cham know very well that Khmer have very sweet heart!!! (Navigating the Rift- Muslim-Buddhist Intermarriage in Cambodia).

And now what Siem like you crying for? You are not enough right?? look at your Muslim booming almost everyday!!! what a pity of Buddhist Thai over there... and Pls don't say because Cham and Khmer are the same people... it doesn't help you dear!!! ^^

Siem Reap broke away from Cambodia? what a joke?? and Do you know why most people in Battambong wear Tatoo? according to the interview it was said that it for protected from Chor Siem (Siem thief).. Do you knwo where King Ourng Dourng come from?? Battambong man...

According to the recently scholars have suggested that.. Khmer never abadone Angkor.. only King, some of officials, some ordinary people were leave to Toul Basan not all of them.. some of them still live and protected their ancestor heritage.. proof is the TaToach temple was build in 15th century... some other Buddhism temples and the Nirvanna Buddhism was cave on the Kulen Mauntain in the 15 century.. and the Return of King Orng Chan in the 16th century.. and He had finish caving some of the gallary in Angkor and he also leave the inscription which tell very clear that Khmer is always there!!!
http://www.khmerenaissance.info/heritage_h...enaissance.html

More then 36 scholars from all over the world have come to Cambodia and work together to learn about Khmer civilization.. you should trying to find their work... I give some clue to you here: go to the Center of Khmer Study

here is from Radio Free Asia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHookmKYkL8...feature=related for recently research. A lot of Evidence have been found which link the Khmer King as well as Khmer people back to the empire time!!! ^^ But it is just not existed in your nationalism brain!!

It's right that Khmer are not Khom. LOL I don't know why you wanna be khom that bad. Sorry to say that Old Siamese never consider you Khmer as Khom. Never once! LOL They differentiate Khom and Khmer. Khom and Khmer never can be interchangeable. Why? Becos you Khmer are not Khom. If Khmer are the ruler of Angkor why there is NO 'Khmer' mentioned in Siamese's stone inscriptions? But there are many 'Khom' appeared in those stones instead. Is this surprised you that 'Khmer' is only seen once in Khom's stone inscriptions, and it's found in Thailand. LOL

Khom identity is not a fairly tale. It's real. It's historically recorded. It's same identiry like 'Chenla' or 'Funan' that were recorded by Old Chinese, or Syam/Lavo identity, recorded by Angkoreans in Angkor wall . You can't just have your normal cheap Khamen lips to say Khom is fairly tale.

lolzzz and it only existed in Thailand and well, that why your government can wast ur brain. Lol so Chinese record about Khorm too?? Lolzzz

Obviously not because it is a local term used by local people. Are you really that stupid to not understand? Do the Chinese even use the name Khmer? lol nope.

Only your people claim that Khom are Khmer. And this is against the people who actually use the word Khom lol This is just stupid, no if's or buts.

Khom is a word used by ancient Lanna people to refer to the people south of their location. Whether those people called themselves Khom or not does not matter. Its a name used by the Ancient Lanna people to refer to those people.

Oh and we know those people were not Khmers. There was no mass migration or colonisation of the central areas by Khmers. This is why there are no traces of Khmers at all to this day!

Your dreams of an empire is false. Your belief your people were all over SEA is false. Your people never ventured far from the mekong delta valley. Even then you were forced north by Jayavarman II.

Khom are the Mon of central and eastern Thailand. Dvaravati and Lavo are Khom. Who the hell is Khmer? Even the Ancient people never identified a group as Khmer. It is all your own imagination that every AA group is yours.