[foldup_gryphon]

I always believed Pyu was established before the appearance of Mon in Southeast Asia. Pyu was ancient starting Before Christian Era with Mon only appearing only in the medieval age. Now from some quarters Mon have been promoted as more older than Pyu. Which is correct and what is the difference between them? My own understanding is Mon is more Sino Tibetan and Pyu is more Sanskrit.

[Sawa]

The name 'Suwarnabhumi' which were claimed to be Mon's, was the first mention area in SEA, appearing in the Ramayana and Buddhist lore. Whether it should be considered as the whole of mainland SEA or just northern Burma is up to perspective. Going with northern Burma, I doubt it was a kingdom, it was probably an area of various city-states, and therefore the 'racial make up' is not proven.

[foldup_gryphon]

Sawa, on Sep 19 2005, 02:09 PM, said:

The name 'Suwarnabhumi' which were claimed to be Mon's, was the first mention area in SEA, appearing in the Ramayana and Buddhist lore. Whether it should be considered as the whole of mainland SEA or just northern Burma is up to perspective. Going with northern Burma, I doubt it was a kingdom, it was probably an area of various city-states, and therefore the 'racial make up' is not proven.

Is it possible for you to provide a specific date for the first appearance for the Mon as mentioned in your reply above? Further more how do this relate to Pyu in regard to date. I do not know if this will hold out but I suspect all Mon could have originated from South China. My curiosity is aroused in relation to Guangxi and Guangdong as North Vietnamese, people and language, is Austro-Asiatic Mon. The name Viet could only be a once upon a time political imposition from a minority Chinese group who though once dominated North Vietnam has now disappeared into obscurity. The Sinitic archaic name Viet is in contradiction to the native Austro-Asiatic people and language of North Vietnam.

This post has been edited by foldup_gryphon: 19 September 2005 - 04:51 AM

[Sawa]

foldup_gryphon, on Sep 19 2005, 04:49 PM, said:

Is it possible for you to provide a specific date for the first appearance for the Mon as mentioned in your reply above? Further more how do this relate to Pyu in regard to date. I do not know if this will hold out but I suspect all Mon could have originated from South China. My curiosity is aroused in relation to Guangxi and Guangdong as North Vietnamese, people and language, is Austro-Asiatic Mon. The name Viet could only be a once upon a time political imposition from a minority Chinese group who though once dominated North Vietnam has now disappeared into obscurity. The Sinitic archaic name Viet is in contradiction to the native Austro-Asiatic people and language of North Vietnam.

No I can't.. it was a claim from someone that 'Suwarnabhumi' was Mon, which could be possible. From what I know the Mon somehow existed with in Pyu by the time Nanchao sacked it in the 9th century.

Hmm if your saying the Mons came from South China you might want to take a look at Nanchao, where various ethnic groups were supposed to be ruled over, various interactions appeared, and that the kingdom was supposed to relocate various groups.

As mentioned, in the 9th century Nanchao invaded northern Burma, conquered Pyu (where the Mons also lived in) the Slaween basin and Irrawaddy basin. The people were moved to Nanchao, and were forced into Nanchao's economic production, which relocated them again. Eventually this led to new Mon settlements in northern, central and southern region of Burma and northern Thailand along with vaious other ethnicities, including Tai.

Now, the Tais in northern Vietnam was likely relocated by Nanchao as well, so its possible that Mons might be relocated to northern Vietnam also.

[foldup_gryphon]

Reliable traditional text books stated it was the Mon who first over run much of Pyu kingdoms in Southeast Asia. The Tais came next. The Tais do have a very interesting part to play in the history of the region but I want to concentrate on the Pyu Mon history and not want to be side tracked into another highly complex language family. The Mon is different from the Pyu. The time line between two was clear until recent speculation that the Mon were older than the Pyu.

[Sawa]

foldup_gryphon, on Sep 19 2005, 09:31 PM, said:

Reliable traditional text books stated it was the Mon who first over run much of Pyu kingdoms in Southeast Asia. The Tais came next. The Tais do have a very interesting part to play in the history of the region but I want to concentrate on the Pyu Mon history and not want to be side tracked into another highly complex language family. The Mon is different from the Pyu. The time line between two was clear until recent speculation that the Mon were older than the Pyu.

Yes I'm sure the Mon is different from the Pyu, I'm just saying that Nanchao could play a big role in the relocation of ethinic groups/culture/language through out the area.

The Tai ethnic was just a part of the various groups in Nanchao, not the dominant Nanchao elite.

[foldup_gryphon]

Please refer to http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...&gopid=4759728&