Why Do Thais Believe Angkor Wat Belongs To Them?

[CrossBones]

Im not too good on local history... but I can't understand why Thai people keep telling me Angkor Wat's name is wrong (I forget the name they give it), and claiming that Angkor Wat belongs to the Thailand.. someone even seemed to think the Thais built it - but I understand it was built by the Khmers before Thailand even existed.

Can anyone fill me in? What is their claim to this site?

Thanks

[jts-khorat]

Im not too good on local history... but I can't understand why Thai people keep telling me Angkor Wat's name is wrong (I forget the name they give it), and claiming that Angkor Wat belongs to the Thailand.. someone even seemed to think the Thais built it - but I understand it was built by the Khmers before Thailand even existed.

Can anyone fill me in? What is their claim to this site?

Thanks

Large parts of the Khmer empire fell into Thai hands in the 13th century, leadign to the rising of Sukhothai as Thai capital. Later, in the 15th century, Angkor Wat was repeatedly raided by Thai troops from Ayutthaya and it was abandoned shortly afterwards. Even though, Thai poeple telling you that Angor Wat belongs to Thailand or was built by Thai people are mistaken (but then again I had Thai people telling me that Buddha was born in Thailand).

A short timetable can be found here: http://www.sacred-destinations.com/cambodi...or-timeline.htm

At the last sacking of Angkor Wat, large numbers of Khmer people were removed and brought to Ayutthaya, which became even more heavily influenced by Khmer arts, dance, music and language.

The Thai Royal language is to this day not only heavily influenced by Pali, but also by Khmer words. It could also be argued that many Brahmanic rituals connected to the Thai monarchy (eg the Ploughing ceremony, cult of the king as Devaraja, etc) are derived from Khmer origins.

[tigerboy]

Quoted from wikipedia:

"In January 2003 riots erupted in Phnom Penh when a false rumour circulated that a Thai soap opera actress had claimed that Angkor Wat belonged to Thailand.[14]"

But there is probably much more to it. I recall that the name Siam Reap means something to the effect that "This is the point where we turned back the Thais". A Waterloo or Stalingrad of some sort...

Of course there is a new point of contention between the to countries now!

[tigerboy]

But there is probably much more to it. I recall that the name Siam Reap means something to the effect that "This is the point where we turned back the Thais". A Waterloo or Stalingrad of some sort...

To amend my response above, this is what I recall the locals (in Siam Reap) telling me when I visited there in 2005, i.e. their point of view.

It seems that Siam Reap, when translated, (by google) comes out to be "Siam เก็บเกี่ยว" where เก็บเกี่ยว translates back into "1. Harvest, 2. Reap, 3. Crop". So, seems that the Khmer don't know that they were a crop or that they where harvested...

More truth avoidance???

[WinnieTheKhwai]

As for the name, Ankor Wat is just called Nakhon Wat in Thai. That's not strange in itself, lots of places are called something else in countries other than where the place is located. Like Germans don't call Bavaria that either. The Swiss don't call Geneva that, etc, etc.

[john b good]

Speak to some Thai's and they claim Shwedagon Pagoda to be their's too but that's even more balony.

When has Thailand ever fought to defend anything by deeds and not empty words

It's one thing to lay claim to something e.g the Kurils, but it is another to put your money where your mouth is. Russia is still officialy at war with Japan over the Kurils.

Sakhalin Island was occupied by the Jap's but did Russia just wai and say OK fellas you can have it "you gotta be joking"

Britain could have walked away when Argentina claimed the Falklands but did they? "NFW"

If Thailand thinks they that they have a reasonable claim to Ankor Wat let them "put up or shut up"

[astromash]

But there is probably much more to it. I recall that the name Siam Reap means something to the effect that "This is the point where we turned back the Thais". A Waterloo or Stalingrad of some sort...

also from Wikipedia:

"The name Siem Reap means the 'Defeat of Siam' —today's Thailand —and refers to a centuries-old bloodbath, commemorated in stone in the celebrated bas relief carvings of the monuments."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siem_Reap

[jts-khorat]

But there is probably much more to it. I recall that the name Siam Reap means something to the effect that "This is the point where we turned back the Thais". A Waterloo or Stalingrad of some sort...

also from Wikipedia:

"The name Siem Reap means the 'Defeat of Siam' —today's Thailand —and refers to a centuries-old bloodbath, commemorated in stone in the celebrated bas relief carvings of the monuments."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siem_Reap

Siem Reap and Angkor where actually under Thai rule from 1794 to 1907, then given to the French after ceding parts of Laos to them slightly earlier. During the second world war, Siem Reap province was again annexed under Phibun Songkhram (the same guy who started the 1932 coup and made Thailand a constitutional monarchy). Still, culturally and linguistically the whole region is Khmer.

[Royk]

Im not too good on local history... but I can't understand why Thai people keep telling me Angkor Wat's name is wrong (I forget the name they give it), and claiming that Angkor Wat belongs to the Thailand.. someone even seemed to think the Thais built it - but I understand it was built by the Khmers before Thailand even existed.

Can anyone fill me in? What is their claim to this site?

Thanks

I think the people you talked to need to get the fact straight. Nakorn Wat has always been Cambodian. It doesn't belong to Thailand. All of my Thai friends and colleagues, to whom I asked this question, said this was something they learnt in school. My wife also said the same thing. If this is about the temple at Phra wiharn border dispute, then it's a different story.