Talk:Khmer people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities.If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:


Contents

[edit] Wikify April 2006

Don't have time now but this article needs to be subsectioned, wikified, copyedited and sourced.--WilliamThweatt 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


That, it does. NeoApsara 19:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
For now, I'll just delete the part about Khmers chewing betel nuts. I mean many do, but it reads more like something you find in descriptional guide books for travelers than that of an encyclopedia. David P. Chandler's work would be good references, but I don't have them with me now. Otherwise, I'd be all over this one.NeoApsara 19:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Information

Migrations into the mainland regions of Southeast Asia from the north continued well into historic times. The Khmer came with earlier waves following in the wake of the proto-Malays. The Khmer are closely related to the Mon who settled further to the west. Based on linguistic and anthropoligic evidence, most scholars believe the proto-Mon-Khmer peoples originated around the area of the Brahmaputra River valley (present-day Assam, India and Tibet).

This is incorrect, first of all this say Khmers followed in the wake of proto-malays, why ealier waves? Are khmer not relatively late in southeast asia? They came to present day southeast asia only or at least less then 3200 years ago. And as for the Assam part, Mon-Khmer most likely have their origins in the southern Yangtze, seeing as The Mon-Khmer came down because of the expansion of Han westwards into Mon-Khmer territory. Please provide more sources or change the article.

http://www.myanmar.gov.mm/Perspective/persp1997/9-97/mon9-97.htm

There was a linguistic paper by Professors Jerry Norman and Tsu-Lin Mei presented to the 3rd Sino-Tibetan Conference in 1970. The authors stated that ancient South China was almost exclusively populated by non-Chinese people. They also stated that the Austroasiatic family of languages includes Munda in northern India, Khasi in Assam; Palaung-Wa in Upper Myanmar and Yunnan; Mon-Khmer in Lower Myanmar and Combodia; as well as in parts of Vietnam, Laos and Thailand.

As the Chinese came down from their homeland in the Yellow River valley they met Mon-Khmer in the middle of the Yangtze region between 1000 and 500 B.C, when the Chinese adopted the Mon-Khmer word Krung/Krong/Krag which has evolved to the modern Chinese word Kiang or Chiang for river.

All the statements support the assumption of taking Yangtze Kiang Valley as the original homeland of the Mon-Khmer. In the Mon language, the word Krung/Krug means river in ancient literature and old Mon inscriptions but it means creek or stream in modern Mon. Because the Mons had obtained the Sanskrit word Mahasamudra for sea or ocean their own word for ocean labi subsequently changed to river and their word for river, to creek or stream.

--user:Leaki 12:53, 20 August 2006

If these suppositions are correct, all that means is that at the time of the Han Chinese expansion there were various Mon-Khmer groups present in Southern China. It doesn't mean that is where they originated, only that this is where they were at the time in the process of their migration. Where were they before that? More solid linguistic, anthropoligical, genetic and archaeological evidence and even origin-myths of various Mon-Khmer cultures point to an origin further east for the Proto-Mon-Khmers. As for the part about "earlier waves", I'm sure you'll agree that the various Mon-Khmer tribes didn't just march en masse into the peninsula. The most accepted migration model is that they trickled in in waves, settling in small communities where ever they could (out of the way of the Proto-Malays already present), until after probably generations they were numerous enough to become a political/military force. The various hill tribes still extant today are most probably remnants of these earlier Mon-Khmer migrations that were eventually displaced by the Khmer. If you can word this better, then by all means do so, but the current version, as you altered it today, is not just incomplete, but incorrect.--WilliamThweatt 20:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you tell me more? I had no idea that there were proto-mon-khmer. I have little doubt that the Yangtze was probaly home to the Mon-khmer people, seeing as the khmer were quite young while compared to malays, as you say east, what do you mean? East as far as the middle yangtze? And I agree that they didn't march in masses, but I think it is more appropiate to put that in a seperate article, maybe you'll like to create ones for proto mon-khmer because the khmers, whom are in cambodia today are not protos, so it would not belong in this article. Khmer whom inhabit Cambodia today are of the same linage as modern mon-khmers, maybe only the khasi people are protos? Khmers themselve are relatively late if there were proto mon-khmers, but when compared to malays whom were the first to inhabit Southeast asia, they themselves are late, I guess at 2300 b.c? Because that is when Mon-khmer started divergance from other groups. But I think any information on proto-mon-khmer should stay out of modern Khmers. I'll edit, and add proto-mon khmer article. But you have more knowledge on protos, so i hope you can help write it. --leaki
My mistake, I was writing in a hurry, on my way out the door, so to speak. I meant to say further west as in the Brahmaputra River Valley, not east. And, by your reply, I'm not sure you understand the terminology used in studying historical population migrations/classifications. "Proto-Mon-Khmer" is not a designation of a separate ethnic group, but rather is used in reference to the "original" Mon-Khmer population (ie before differentiation into separate sub-groups such as Mon, Khmer, Pear, Katuic, etc.). As I said earlier, the Mon-Khmer peoples most probably "stopped over" in the area around the Yangtze Valley, but this can not be their original homeland, this was just one place that they settled along their migration. That area of Southern China was home to the Tibeto-Burman and Tai (Daic) peoples. Analysis of both Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA shows that the Tibeto-Burman and Tai (Daic) people have ancient origins tied to the people of East Asia while the same genetic research shows that the Austro-Asiatic peoples, which include the Mon-Khmer, share the ancient DNA markers of Southern Asia (Dravidians and other people groups in mountainous eastern India). The genetic evidence alone rules out the posibility of the Yangtze as the homeland of the Mon-Khmers. It may have once been a "home", but not their original "Homeland".--WilliamThweatt 23:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I doubt the proto mon-khmers actually came from the brama river, where is all these information coming from, you have to provide somthing. And I doubt also that mon-khmers are closer to dravidans then tai or chinese, munda genes are not to be account for because they are no longer wholly related to their ancient ancestors, they have been absorbed by dravidians, but if the brama river is home to the munda not mon-khmer. As for their origins in South India's mountains, it can not be true since we know taht the mongoloids race originated in east, or possibly central asia.
Since school started back up, I don't have as much time to devote to Wikipedia as I would like. I will try to dig up the current literature from which this is taken. Until then I will not place it back in the article. However, I think you misunderstand both the information I placed in the article and the nature of genetic studies. First of all, the Mon-Khmer are not mongoloids. The "mongoloid" phenotypes that currently manifest themselves in the Khmer population are due to relatively recent admixture of Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai genes. Secondly, the genetic research allows us to look back in time and gives an account of when certain "racial-specific" (for lack of a better term) markers were introduced into the populations being studied. Setting aside the more recently introduced markers (as in the case of the Munda, since you mentioned them) we get a picture of the "core" Mon-Khmer population. And that "core" is much more similar in genetic make up to peoples like the Dravidians and those of far-Eastern India than to the other people groups presently in Southeast Asia. I will get the source up for you as soon as I can, but I can't say for sure how soon....it's a lot of material to wade through in addition to my other duties.--WilliamThweatt 21:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
O.k, now its just blatant stupidity. Khmers, or mon-khmers were originally mongoloids and like most of southaeast asians originated in china. The hill tribe mon-khmers have absolutely no indian gene, and as for the munda they could not have been the core of mon-khmer because they themselve have mongoloid blood, which is strange since they live mainly with dravidians and have dravidian bloods. Vietnamese themselves are mon-khmer, and they ahve been sinicized to a certain extant. The mon-khmer race, or better understood as AA people have lived and range from Tibet to central china southern of the Yangtze river. They bordered the Daic people who lived to the east. The sino-tibetans are proven to be of northern mongoloid origin, they first came in contact with AA people at least 4500 years, due to their westward expansion from china. In fact, modern linguist and ethnologistn research speculate that the cantonese are of AA origin intermingled with sino-tibetan speakers.
Here is what I found regarding DNA -

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16788903&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15772853&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum


NeoApsara 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Spam" Links

I removed the whole of External Links. Some of these sites serve do not help with learning more about the Khmer people. And some of them were added to support their agenda or advertise their site (such as the Khmerdoctors and that weblog link). Feel free to add better links that do not have an agenda or are personal pages. External links should be informative in regards to the article (i.e. provide information on Khmer people) with no bias and unverified information. --Hecktor 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic groups in Vietnam?

Should that infobox for Ethnic groups in Vietnam be removed from this article? The term Khmer Krom is used to refer to Khmers in what is now southern Vietnam (and there is an infobox there already in that article). --Hecktor 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

I rated the Khmer people article: B-Class, with the following comments (see link to Comments page in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):

  • A lot of good work on this page.
  • Good coverage of topic.
  • Could definitely use some wikifying and more in-text citations associated with references in the reference section.

You can give this article (and any other article) a rating, as described below.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closely Related?

The article says Khmers and Mons are closely related, really? I know of three Mon-Khmer sub grouping, Northern, Eastern and Southern and the Khmers are in the Eastern group along with the Bahnars, Pearics, and Vietic. Mon are in the southern group, which the nicobarese are also. Althought clearly related, it is like saying the Germanic and Romance are closely related. I suggest taking this one out. --CanCanDuo 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/h/m/Talk%7EKhmer_people_c3a4.html"