After doing a lot of research into the populations of Cambodia, I have come to the following conclusion; the ancient Khmers were in fact Pearic people speaking Pearic languages.
Old Khmer was a Pearic language
All we know about Old Khmer comes from the Old Khmer inscriptions. "Old Khmer" describes the language as it existed until the 14th century. All the people that remained isolated from the main Khmer populations, but lived in what were ancient Khmer settlements, still speak Pearic languages.
1)Battambang (formerly known as Malyang kingdom) is a region where Pearic tribes live and still speak Pearic languages. They call themselves by different names, but most call themselves Samre, Samrai, Somre, Somrai, and Chong (not to be confused with Chong from Eastern Thailand.
2)Preah Vihear province (Prasat Preah Vihear temple) is home to the Pear people, that still remain there and speak pearic language, together with Suoi people who speak Pearic language.
3)Kulen mountain, the holy mountain where Jayavarman II founded the Khmer kingdom and was declared universal monarch is home to the Samre people, who speak Pearic language.
4)Siem Reap, the province of Angkor Wat was primarily populated by Samre people. A French explorer Mouhot visited the province and encountered the Samre people. in the 20th century there was another French explorer Baradat, who also encountered the Samre population as main population there.
5) Chantaburi province (formerly known as Phamniet kingdom) is home the Chong people, speaking Pearic language.
6) Coastal Cambodia is home to the Sa'och people, speaking Pearic language
How is it possible that all these populations still speak their indigenous language? If we take a look at the Champa kingdom, all the peoples living in the vicinity speak Chamic languages, and converted from Austro-asiatic languages. How is it possible that this not happened with the Pearic people, living in 'Khmer' speaking territory since the beginning of ancient khmer kingdoms?
Clues that the ancient Khmer were Pearic
1) All the Pearic people in Battambang have a recollection of having emigrated from the times of Angkor and sent there by the king for commercial purposes (collecting goods, hunting, etc.). Explorer Mouhot wrote that the Samre of Siem Reap were called the 'mother of Samre' since they were the original population.
2) Linguitic evidence shows that pre-Angkor Khmer is similar on all features to Pearic.
3) All Khmer dialects (Central Khmer, Cardamom Khmer, Surin Khmer, Khmer Krom, etc.) all derrived from Middle Khmer, the language that was the main language from the 14th century upwards, just around the time that the country was ruled by Ayutthuyan royalty, when the new monarchs created a new script which was the mother language of Modern Khmer. This script was/is so different from Old Khmer, that readers from one can not read the other.
4)Mouhot wrote that the royalty of his time knew that the Samre were the ancient stock of which his family derrived.
5)Explorer Zou Daguan visited Angkor at the end of 13th century. The description of the culture of the people of Angkor was similar to the description of the culture of the Samre, when Mouhot visited in 19th century.
6) When Angkor was conquered by Ayutthuya in 1431, the two kings captured and brought to Ayutthuya were Pearic, according to the description of being 'Pear' in ancient Ayutthuyan documents and their names.
The modern Khmers did everything in their way to rewrite Cambodian history and erase the past of the Pearic people as the ancient populations. You can read about it here: http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/view ... 36&t=64426
I have tons of other sources and evidence, but I'll leave it to this. Feel free to ask more.
Ancient Khmer were not Khmer, they were Pearic
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 5
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:09 am
Stumbled across some further reading http://sealang.net/mk/pearic.htm
Meum est propositum in taberna mori,
ut sint Guinness proxima morientis ori.
tunc cantabunt letius angelorum chori:
"Sit Deus propitius huic potatori."
ut sint Guinness proxima morientis ori.
tunc cantabunt letius angelorum chori:
"Sit Deus propitius huic potatori."
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 5
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:09 am
Spigzy wrote:Stumbled across some further reading http://sealang.net/mk/pearic.htm
"A 13th century Chinese source describes individual Cambodians owning scores and even hundreds of slaves who were from a distinct race, the Tchouang, which is the Pearic etymon for "people". Unfortunately Pearic people have been actively marginalised and at times exteminated by the Cambodians, who have had a very low regard for ethnic minorities."
I disagree with this statement. In Angkorean times there was not a distinction between Pearic people and Cambodians. All Cambodians were Pearic people. The distinction is between Hinduized/Buddhist Pearic people from the Angkorean cities/kingdoms (Old Khmer), and the animistic Pearic people living in the remote areas.
Also, the term slave is wrongly used in this context. The so-called "slaves" lived below their rulers, they bathed with their leaders, they ate with their leaders. The term corvee-labourer would be way more appropriate in this context. The Pearic tribes all have a supreme ruler, which they call "khvay". This Khvay has extreme authority over their tribe members and is generally accredited with supernatural powers.
All the people living in Angkor were in service of the royal court. There were the Buddhist monasteries with their servants taking care of them, there were the Hindu officials of the king's court, there was the king, his concubines, the general, the commoners were rice farmers and soldiers, and then there were the traders, who were all women. Everyone had a duty withing the borders of the city/kingdom.
Nowadays people like to think of Pearic people as uncivilized and marginalized groups, but they were the same people that were ancient kings and mighty warriors. The comparison can be made with the Aztec vicilization. The Aztecs were not another race than the tribal Amerindians living around them in the jungles, but they conquered and enslaved less civilized people from the remote areas to bring them back to the urbanized kingdom (see the movie Apocalypto to know what I mean).
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 5
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:09 am
The last known Varman king was Jayavarman Paramesvera (1327AD). The first information about the kingdom comes in 1431. The two kings captured by Ayutthuyan king who conquered Angkor were Khvays.
So what happened between 1327 and 1431? We don't know, but now we do know that Hinduism had disappeared and gave way to Pearic culture. This is explained by current historians as a slave revolt in which the Pearic people became the new aristocracy.
Now it is more evident that the Angkorean kings and people have always been Pearic and that Old Khmer was a Pearic language.
When a son of an exiled king from Ayutthuya, named Yat, reconquered Angkor with the help of Pearic tribes, this gave way of a new culture, language, based way more on Mon, Thai, Lao, and to a lesser extend Vietnamese.
7th to 16th century: Old Khmer - Pearic
16th century to 18th century: Middle Khmer - Pearic mixed with Ayutthuyan language (Mon, Thai, lao)
19th century upwards: Modern Khmer
So what happened between 1327 and 1431? We don't know, but now we do know that Hinduism had disappeared and gave way to Pearic culture. This is explained by current historians as a slave revolt in which the Pearic people became the new aristocracy.
Now it is more evident that the Angkorean kings and people have always been Pearic and that Old Khmer was a Pearic language.
When a son of an exiled king from Ayutthuya, named Yat, reconquered Angkor with the help of Pearic tribes, this gave way of a new culture, language, based way more on Mon, Thai, Lao, and to a lesser extend Vietnamese.
7th to 16th century: Old Khmer - Pearic
16th century to 18th century: Middle Khmer - Pearic mixed with Ayutthuyan language (Mon, Thai, lao)
19th century upwards: Modern Khmer
-
- Damn, I just saw my Internet Bill !
- Reactions: 3
- Posts: 4420
- Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:04 pm
Corvée labourer?! Most sources I've read (both primary and secondary sources) say that slavery was endemic and you were indentured. They'd get slaves (both Khners, but also from the mountains of Rattanakiri and Mondulkiri)/ and other areas) and even though your debt or crime could have been very slight, you could end up a slave for the rest of your life. It was also hereditary. It was virtually impossible to get out of slavery as the "owners" would make sure you owed them something else (for example, by gifting you something just as you were about to repay your debt). Corvée labourer is something very different, though similar in it's very feudal type of societal organization.
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 5
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:09 am
Yes, most sources do claim this, and the Cambodian royalty tried to establish this role for the Pearic people. But slavery in Cambodia was way more nuanced than historians and the Cambodian royalty of 18th/19th century like to claim.LexusSchmexus wrote:Corvée labourer?! Most sources I've read (both primary and secondary sources) say that slavery was endemic and you were indentured. They'd get slaves (both Khners, but also from the mountains of Rattanakiri and Mondulkiri)/ and other areas) and even though your debt or crime could have been very slight, you could end up a slave for the rest of your life. It was also hereditary. It was virtually impossible to get out of slavery as the "owners" would make sure you owed them something else (for example, by gifting you something just as you were about to repay your debt). Corvée labourer is something very different, though similar in it's very feudal type of societal organization.
First of all, the army of Angkor was comprised of commoners. This was stated by Zou Daguan, who visited Angkor at the end of 13th century. The king at the time (Srindavarman II) was a (Pearic) commoner himself. Do you honestly think that (Pearic) commoners and tribe members were willing to give their lives because of a tyrannical force? No, they did it, because they believed in the "cause" (religion), and because their effort would be rewarded. There are numerous evidences of low level servants becoming high status rulers. Four examples of Pearic commoners becoming royalty are: Srindavarman II (first non-royal Samre king, also known as Ironwood Bat), the servant Nadha, who became chief of the Khmer army according to a Khmer inscription during the reign of Jayavarman I (657-681), there was the Sweet Cucumber king (known for the temple Banteay Samre), and then there was a Pearic king 'Kurun Malen', a Pearic king with great autonomy from the kingdom Malyang during the reign of Jayavarman I. These are just a few examples.
Yes, there was slavery. But in those times almost any commoner can be regarded as a slave. That doesn't take away from the fact that it wasn't a case of one ethnicity (Khmer) ruling another ethnicity (Pearic). All people in Angkorean times were Pearic, but there was just a difference in status. Were you low status, then your life was dedicated to serving a supreme ruler. Were you high status, then you were able to rule over a large portion of people that were expected to do what was asked from them. This "slavery" was not a permanent duty, but was expected only a certain amount of weeks or months.
Through the eyes of Western racial description and the superiority of modern Khmer aristocracy (that looked down upon hill tribes) it seemed like Pearic people have always been the slaves, but fact is, Pearic people were just the ancient Cambodian population that spoke Old Khmer (Pearic), with (Pearic) commoners being able to become royalty by serving their masters, marrying a royal woman, and Pearic chiefs being in servitude with a large amount of tribe members who were appointed as generals and in some cases kings. The Angkorean kings in general were just Pearic people with a royal bloodline or became royal by marrying into this bloodline.
With the rule of Ayutthuyan royalty these Pearic elite blended in with Ayutthuyan royalty, with ultimately a royal court completely alienated from the ancient royalty, alligned with Cham and later Vietnamese royalty. It was at this point that the the royal court became to view Pearic people as low status and wanted to erase all ties with the ancient Pearic people, who they then looked down upon. Mouhot even stated that the Cambodian king at his time knew that his royal family derrived from primtive stock of Samre/Pear. Again, this rewriting of history and the change of the role of Pearic people I have comprehensively described in this post: http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/view ... 9bcf7a69eb
A great book that goes into detail into the relationship of servants/slaves with the state/royalty/religionous elite, also concluded that slavery is a term wrongly used to describe this relationship. This book is: "Les habitants d’Angkor: Une lecture dans l’espace et dans le temps des inscriptions sociales de populations villageoises installées dans un territoire ancien". I would say, look into it.
Hello, I know this was an old post. But according to your post, does this mean that the current ethnic Khmer person today is a mixed Pearic person? Meaning that they could be descendants of any of the Pearic-speaking ethnic groups?SEAhistory wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:32 amYes, most sources do claim this, and the Cambodian royalty tried to establish this role for the Pearic people. But slavery in Cambodia was way more nuanced than historians and the Cambodian royalty of 18th/19th century like to claim.LexusSchmexus wrote:Corvée labourer?! Most sources I've read (both primary and secondary sources) say that slavery was endemic and you were indentured. They'd get slaves (both Khners, but also from the mountains of Rattanakiri and Mondulkiri)/ and other areas) and even though your debt or crime could have been very slight, you could end up a slave for the rest of your life. It was also hereditary. It was virtually impossible to get out of slavery as the "owners" would make sure you owed them something else (for example, by gifting you something just as you were about to repay your debt). Corvée labourer is something very different, though similar in it's very feudal type of societal organization.
First of all, the army of Angkor was comprised of commoners. This was stated by Zou Daguan, who visited Angkor at the end of 13th century. The king at the time (Srindavarman II) was a (Pearic) commoner himself. Do you honestly think that (Pearic) commoners and tribe members were willing to give their lives because of a tyrannical force? No, they did it, because they believed in the "cause" (religion), and because their effort would be rewarded. There are numerous evidences of low level servants becoming high status rulers. Four examples of Pearic commoners becoming royalty are: Srindavarman II (first non-royal Samre king, also known as Ironwood Bat), the servant Nadha, who became chief of the Khmer army according to a Khmer inscription during the reign of Jayavarman I (657-681), there was the Sweet Cucumber king (known for the temple Banteay Samre), and then there was a Pearic king 'Kurun Malen', a Pearic king with great autonomy from the kingdom Malyang during the reign of Jayavarman I. These are just a few examples.
Yes, there was slavery. But in those times almost any commoner can be regarded as a slave. That doesn't take away from the fact that it wasn't a case of one ethnicity (Khmer) ruling another ethnicity (Pearic). All people in Angkorean times were Pearic, but there was just a difference in status. Were you low status, then your life was dedicated to serving a supreme ruler. Were you high status, then you were able to rule over a large portion of people that were expected to do what was asked from them. This "slavery" was not a permanent duty, but was expected only a certain amount of weeks or months.
Through the eyes of Western racial description and the superiority of modern Khmer aristocracy (that looked down upon hill tribes) it seemed like Pearic people have always been the slaves, but fact is, Pearic people were just the ancient Cambodian population that spoke Old Khmer (Pearic), with (Pearic) commoners being able to become royalty by serving their masters, marrying a royal woman, and Pearic chiefs being in servitude with a large amount of tribe members who were appointed as generals and in some cases kings. The Angkorean kings in general were just Pearic people with a royal bloodline or became royal by marrying into this bloodline.
With the rule of Ayutthuyan royalty these Pearic elite blended in with Ayutthuyan royalty, with ultimately a royal court completely alienated from the ancient royalty, alligned with Cham and later Vietnamese royalty. It was at this point that the the royal court became to view Pearic people as low status and wanted to erase all ties with the ancient Pearic people, who they then looked down upon. Mouhot even stated that the Cambodian king at his time knew that his royal family derrived from primtive stock of Samre/Pear. Again, this rewriting of history and the change of the role of Pearic people I have comprehensively described in this post: http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/view ... 9bcf7a69eb
A great book that goes into detail into the relationship of servants/slaves with the state/royalty/religionous elite, also concluded that slavery is a term wrongly used to describe this relationship. This book is: "Les habitants d’Angkor: Une lecture dans l’espace et dans le temps des inscriptions sociales de populations villageoises installées dans un territoire ancien". I would say, look into it.
Yes, The modern Khmer are a mixture of Pearic like the Samre, Chong, Por etc.]aciras wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:39 amHello, I know this was an old post. But according to your post, does this mean that the current ethnic Khmer person today is a mixed Pearic person? Meaning that they could be descendants of any of the Pearic-speaking ethnic groups?SEAhistory wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:32 amYes, most sources do claim this, and the Cambodian royalty tried to establish this role for the Pearic people. But slavery in Cambodia was way more nuanced than historians and the Cambodian royalty of 18th/19th century like to claim.LexusSchmexus wrote:Corvée labourer?! Most sources I've read (both primary and secondary sources) say that slavery was endemic and you were indentured. They'd get slaves (both Khners, but also from the mountains of Rattanakiri and Mondulkiri)/ and other areas) and even though your debt or crime could have been very slight, you could end up a slave for the rest of your life. It was also hereditary. It was virtually impossible to get out of slavery as the "owners" would make sure you owed them something else (for example, by gifting you something just as you were about to repay your debt). Corvée labourer is something very different, though similar in it's very feudal type of societal organization.
First of all, the army of Angkor was comprised of commoners. This was stated by Zou Daguan, who visited Angkor at the end of 13th century. The king at the time (Srindavarman II) was a (Pearic) commoner himself. Do you honestly think that (Pearic) commoners and tribe members were willing to give their lives because of a tyrannical force? No, they did it, because they believed in the "cause" (religion), and because their effort would be rewarded. There are numerous evidences of low level servants becoming high status rulers. Four examples of Pearic commoners becoming royalty are: Srindavarman II (first non-royal Samre king, also known as Ironwood Bat), the servant Nadha, who became chief of the Khmer army according to a Khmer inscription during the reign of Jayavarman I (657-681), there was the Sweet Cucumber king (known for the temple Banteay Samre), and then there was a Pearic king 'Kurun Malen', a Pearic king with great autonomy from the kingdom Malyang during the reign of Jayavarman I. These are just a few examples.
Yes, there was slavery. But in those times almost any commoner can be regarded as a slave. That doesn't take away from the fact that it wasn't a case of one ethnicity (Khmer) ruling another ethnicity (Pearic). All people in Angkorean times were Pearic, but there was just a difference in status. Were you low status, then your life was dedicated to serving a supreme ruler. Were you high status, then you were able to rule over a large portion of people that were expected to do what was asked from them. This "slavery" was not a permanent duty, but was expected only a certain amount of weeks or months.
Through the eyes of Western racial description and the superiority of modern Khmer aristocracy (that looked down upon hill tribes) it seemed like Pearic people have always been the slaves, but fact is, Pearic people were just the ancient Cambodian population that spoke Old Khmer (Pearic), with (Pearic) commoners being able to become royalty by serving their masters, marrying a royal woman, and Pearic chiefs being in servitude with a large amount of tribe members who were appointed as generals and in some cases kings. The Angkorean kings in general were just Pearic people with a royal bloodline or became royal by marrying into this bloodline.
With the rule of Ayutthuyan royalty these Pearic elite blended in with Ayutthuyan royalty, with ultimately a royal court completely alienated from the ancient royalty, alligned with Cham and later Vietnamese royalty. It was at this point that the the royal court became to view Pearic people as low status and wanted to erase all ties with the ancient Pearic people, who they then looked down upon. Mouhot even stated that the Cambodian king at his time knew that his royal family derrived from primtive stock of Samre/Pear. Again, this rewriting of history and the change of the role of Pearic people I have comprehensively described in this post: http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/view ... 9bcf7a69eb
A great book that goes into detail into the relationship of servants/slaves with the state/royalty/religionous elite, also concluded that slavery is a term wrongly used to describe this relationship. This book is: "Les habitants d’Angkor: Une lecture dans l’espace et dans le temps des inscriptions sociales de populations villageoises installées dans un territoire ancien". I would say, look into it.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
What Would Happen If a Khmer Punched a Khmer Shopkeeper On the Nose for Trying To Cheat Him?
by Aseriousman » Sat May 18, 2019 6:36 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 30 Replies
- 13563 Views
-
Last post by RainMan
Fri May 24, 2019 1:02 pm
-
-
- 1 Replies
- 572 Views
-
Last post by kinard
Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:26 am
-
- 14 Replies
- 2081 Views
-
Last post by The Steve
Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:50 am
-
- 7 Replies
- 1365 Views
-
Last post by Lucky Lucan
Fri Apr 29, 2022 11:40 pm