News Forum - Cambodia upset over Thai temple’s resemblance to Angkor Wat

[SnapDragon]

9 hours ago, Thaiger said:

Temples are generally known to inspire peace and tranquillity, but a new 100 million baht temple complex in Northeastern Thailand has launched a feud with Cambodia which claims the temple is copying Angkor Wat, the largest temple complex in the world and the pride of Cambodian history and culture. The cultural official in Buriram, the site of the new temple, says that the design is based on Khmer stone castles that are common historical features through the Isan area where the temple is located. Angkor Wat was built in the same style, hence the similarities.

What does is matter if someone is influenced by another? A lot of churches look pretty much the same the world over. Same with buddah builds.

Big upset over nothing.

 

[Smithydog]

I too am an admirer of Angkor Wat. Make sure you go for sunrise. Brilliant to see and great for pictures, especially as the sun comes up over the main temple area. Even now, I often use the one below as a screensaver!

We made sure to have breakfast with us as most of the tourist buses returned to the hotel after the sunrise and came back later. That way we were at the head of the queue to get into various parts that are often favoured by tourists.

Not sure I would be that interested in a replica, more modern built one, as one of the interests for me is understanding how such ancient structures of scale were built with the technology at hand at the time they were built.

But, I think it would be hard to replicate the entire area of Angkor Wat and the surrounding areas as there are simply too many things to see and duplicate. 

[kmc]

just googled the pics...looks nothing like angkor wat (and doubt it would detract from those wanting to actually visit angkor wat)

[Stonker]

5 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Angkor Wat is not Cambodian - it is Khmer.

There's really no answer to that

It's like saying someone from London isn't a Londoner or English but British

5 hours ago, AussieBob said:

 Those I know who have visited Angkor Wat were not that impressed with everything ...

Wow. No chance of them appreciating Torquay then ...

[kerryd]

I've been to over 63 ancient Khmer temple sites and historical parks in Thailand, as well as the temple complex of Siem Reap.
(Travelling around and photographing ancient Khmer sites is kind of my hobby these days. Pre-covid that is.)

Khmer temples stretch as far West as Muang Sing in Kanchanaburi. Many early "Thai" period temples, like those in Kamphaeng Phet, Sukhothai and Si Satchanalai were heavily influenced by the late period Khmer style (after the Khmer had transitioned to Buddhism).
Khmer/Hindu influence can also be seen as far south as Bali.

Due to the limited signage at many of the temples, it can be hard to date them but certain features tend to stand out (on the temples that still have identifiable features that is) such as the base, the position of the prangs, ponds, libraries, walls and pavillons as well as any surviving ornamentation and engravings.

Not all temples have all features. Or have features that have survived the test of time at least. Many old temples were "repurposed" and are now part of more modern Thai Buddhist temples. Some have simply collapsed and been covered over by a thousand years of organic material.

No two temples are the same.

Cambodia does not "own" the Khmer style (or heritage for that matter) anymore than the Syrians (or Iranians/Iraqis/etc) "own" the Persian style or the Mexicans with regards to the Mayan style.

One would hope that they don't make a gaudy concrete replica full of dumb concrete statues like they have at a lot of temples.

Went to one (Wat Somdet Phu Ruea) last fall in Phu Reua that looked like it was half Thai temple and half Flintstone's village, complete with concrete caves and hidden passages.

 (Note - there is a hidden concrete passageway with secret rooms that follows along the left side of the main passageway in the center of the pic, and another concrete passageway that starts off to the right of the main passage and extends off to the side a fair ways.)

(And that is not a guy riding an elephant beside the concrete copy of the "Buddha head in the roots of a tree" from Wat Mahathat in Ayutthaya.)

[Yinn]

56 minutes ago, kerryd said:

I've been to over 63 ancient Khmer temple sites and historical parks in Thailand, as well as the temple complex of Siem Reap.
(Travelling around and photographing ancient Khmer sites is kind of my hobby these days. Pre-covid that is.)

Khmer temples stretch as far West as Muang Sing in Kanchanaburi. Many early "Thai" period temples, like those in Kamphaeng Phet, Sukhothai and Si Satchanalai were heavily influenced by the late period Khmer style (after the Khmer had transitioned to Buddhism).
Khmer/Hindu influence can also be seen as far south as Bali.

Due to the limited signage at many of the temples, it can be hard to date them but certain features tend to stand out (on the temples that still have identifiable features that is) such as the base, the position of the prangs, ponds, libraries, walls and pavillons as well as any surviving ornamentation and engravings.

Not all temples have all features. Or have features that have survived the test of time at least. Many old temples were "repurposed" and are now part of more modern Thai Buddhist temples. Some have simply collapsed and been covered over by a thousand years of organic material.

No two temples are the same.

Cambodia does not "own" the Khmer style (or heritage for that matter) anymore than the Syrians (or Iranians/Iraqis/etc) "own" the Persian style or the Mexicans with regards to the Mayan style.

One would hope that they don't make a gaudy concrete replica full of dumb concrete statues like they have at a lot of temples.

Went to one (Wat Somdet Phu Ruea) last fall in Phu Reua that looked like it was half Thai temple and half Flintstone's village, complete with concrete caves and hidden passages.

 (Note - there is a hidden concrete passageway with secret rooms that follows along the left side of the main passageway in the center of the pic, and another concrete passageway that starts off to the right of the main passage and extends off to the side a fair ways.)

(And that is not a guy riding an elephant beside the concrete copy of the "Buddha head in the roots of a tree" from Wat Mahathat in Ayutthaya.)

Good post sir!

[Soidog]

4 hours ago, Malc-Thai said:

So you saying my ฿2000 amani suit is not real !

As long as it’s real to you @Malc-Thai

[Bluesofa]

15 hours ago, Thaiger said:

But, the official also concedes that the head monk who had dreamed he had been one of the original builders in the 12th century constructing Angkor Wat in a past life, and followed that vision in making this temple.

Surely he's getting his religions mixed up. It was Martin Luther King who had a dream.

 

15 hours ago, Thaiger said:

Cambodia upset over Thai temple’s resemblance to Angkor Wat

Have the Cambodians got Pat. Pending on it?

[Cathat]

Will the new wonder of the world have dual pricing for admission I ask myself.

 

[Bluesofa]

8 minutes ago, Cathat said:

Will the new wonder of the world have dual pricing for admission I ask myself.

More expensive for foreigners and Cambodians you mean?

[Guest1]

7 hours ago, kmc said:

just googled the pics...looks nothing like angkor wat (and doubt it would detract from those wanting to actually visit angkor wat)

On top of that: It is made  from concrete!

[Blogosopher]

No one should be surprised with this Thai behavior, it's in their DNA now. I bet there's thousands of government entities (especially schools) still running pirated software.

[Chaimai]

13 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Angkor Wat is not Cambodian - it is Khmer.  The Khmer empire covered all of Cambodia and it included many parts of Thailand and Myanmar and Vietnam and China. There are many ruins of Khmer temples in Thailand and I believe there are also many in all those other current day countries.

Khmer temples in Thailand (renown-travel.com)

But of course it was built to attract tourists - and so it will.  Those I know who have visited Angkor Wat were not that impressed with everything - the temple complex itself was good - but not all the other stuff.

 

I loved Angkor Wat - my favourite temples were Bayon and Ta Prohm. 

 

Not sure what you mean by the "other stuff" but I also loved Siem Reap (translated as Siam defeated) - a cultural oasis compared to my part of Isaan.

[Convert54]

Angkor Wat is  amazing big and biggest Hindu religion site in the world.

Thailand  Buddhists wants build a tourist place same as many already but broken inside Thailand too so what prblem really? Sukothai has amazing old place too and so  big !

Wat Rung Khun is same like as tourist place and some not like because it is not a real temple. Not was made to be. But has many visitors because not have to play games with Monks .

Angkor Wat Not Buriram ? Neighbors PTT , 7/11, Amazon Cafe , nice toilets ?

 

 

 

[BlueSphinx]

10 hours ago, Chaimai said:

I loved Angkor Wat - my favourite temples were Bayon and Ta Prohm. 

Not sure what you mean by the "other stuff" but I also loved Siem Reap (translated as Siam defeated) - a cultural oasis compared to my part of Isaan.

Bayon and Ta Prohm are indeed fantastic, they are part of the most popular 'small 1-day tour' which also includes the Angkor Wat itself.  Of course the temples on that 1-day Highlights tour are the most visited, but I would recommend anybody visiting SiemReap to buy a 3-day visit pass (no need to take these 3 days in a row, you can take relax days in between) and surely also do the 'large 1-day tour' that takes you to the lesser known temples, which are imo equally impressive and beautiful.  And you can use day 3 to visit Beng Melea, 80 kms away and reminiscent of Ta Prohm (but larger), tucked in the jungle and appropriately nicknamed the Indiana Jones temple. 

[BlueSphinx]

10 hours ago, RanongCat said:

Angkor Wat is  amazing big and biggest Hindu religion site in the world.

Thailand  Buddhists wants build a tourist place same as many already but broken inside Thailand too so what prblem really? Sukothai has amazing old place too and so  big !

Wat Rung Khun is same like as tourist place and some not like because it is not a real temple. Not was made to be. But has many visitors because not have to play games with Monks .

Angkor Wat Not Buriram ? Neighbors PTT , 7/11, Amazon Cafe , nice toilets ?

Have you ever been to Siem Reap?  

I like beautiful Sukothai very much (visited it twice) and you can easily visit the whole park by bicycle or motorcycle in less than 1 day.  But it is in NO WAY comparable with the Angkor Wat temple complex, which is at least 20 times bigger both in area as well as in temples to visit...

[Chaimai]

On 8/30/2021 at 8:24 AM, EdwardV said:

   Other stuff being Siem Reap? Yeah it’s nothing to speak off, kind of dumpy really. However, it’s really just there to house and feed those going to the temple. It’s not too bad, you can eat well and there is plenty of entertainment at night. Still it’s not somewhere you go in and of itself. 

 

Yes you do if you live in Buriram/Surin.

 

Siem Reap is a veritable oasis after Isaan and (ignoring the excessive touristy element) offers a wide variety of international food and drink at a huge discount on Thai prices. 

 

I am not a templer and have never done more than a half day trip (although I done about 10 of them to various locations + Banteay Saray and up to Kabal Spean) but I appreciate the overall ambience of the complex - and also the town.

 

When I had a restaurant in Buriram I arranged regular 4 day visits to Siem Reap as the Cambodian border was less than an hour away, with Siem Reap another 1.5/2 hours. I have probably visited over 30 times in the last 15 years. 

 

I would recommend Angkor Wat to anyone who comes to South East Asia and I can understand why it is regarded by many (not just Asians) as the Eighth Wonder of the World. Take Siem Reap as you find it and either stay in one of the big hotels on the fringes of town, or get into Pub Street etc and enjoy the cuisine and nightlight. If you take a Thai partner make sure they take a supply of chillies as Cambodian food is mainly bland, characterless - and certainly not spicy.

 

 

[Rain]

46 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Have you ever been to Siem Reap?  

I like beautiful Sukothai very much (visited it twice) and you can easily visit the whole park by bicycle or motorcycle in less than 1 day.  But it is in NO WAY comparable with the Angkor Wat temple complex, which is at least 20 times bigger both in area as well as in temples to visit...

Very true that Sukhothai and other grand grounds are not even close in comparison, in scope, beauty, mystery and historical significance. 

Very few similar in the world.

[NumbNut]

On 8/30/2021 at 9:32 AM, Guest1 said:

Wouldn't this work better?

Perfect!

[kerryd]

I've read that archaeologists estimate that at one time, the Angkor Complex at it's height may have had upwards of 1 million people, making it the largest city on the planet at the time.

Too large for it's own good. The stripping of the natural resources around the area, the ever increasing demands on the water, no doubt a lot of trash (and "cra.p") accumulating, all may have contributed to the collapse of the city, to the point it was totally abandoned and taken over by the jungle for hundreds of years.
(As with the great Mayan cities, some scientists think that the overpopulation and drain on the natural resources may have contributed to events like droughts that lasted years, resulting in the populations being forced to move away from the cities to find water and food.)

Keep in mind that the temples and palaces were made of stone, as were the walls of some other buildings, but the majority of the open spaces in and around those temples would have been a beehive of bamboo structures with thatched roofs.

Homes, shops, restaurants, markets and offices would have cluttered almost every open area around all of those temple sites. 

When I wander around places like Sri Thep or Muang Sing or Sadok Khok Thom or the historical parks in Sukhothai and Kamphaeng Phet, I imagine what it might have looked like when all those places were first built and all the open spaces were filled with all manner of life.

In other places, like Phimai and Muang Tam for example, civilization has continued to build around the temples and any traces of "outbuildings" or old roads is long gone of course but in other places you can see the remnants of old buildings sticking up from the ground, with no real idea what they may have been used for "back then".

But of course, "back then" buildings made of stone (but still having roofs made of bamboo poles and thatched mats made with grass or palm fronds) would have belonged to the rich and powerful.
Senior monks. Military commanders and senior gov't officials. Lesser members of royal families. Rich business people and the like.

Common folk couldn't afford luxuries like walls made from stone, but after awhile, even common material like bamboo and grass mats would have had to have been hauled in from a long distance, making them more expensive as time went by.

The large barays around/near many of the temples are thought to be the Hindu representation of the ocean that surrounded Mount Meru but I suspect they were more meant to be reservoirs, not just for the rice crops but for the masses of people to use in their daily life.

Even many small, "village" temples that consist of little more than a single structure often have a wall surrounding it and some kind of small pond nearby. In many cases, I've found the ponds to be little more than overgrown depressions. In some, the remnants of old laterite blocks can still be found around the edges.

These small ponds may have had some symbolic meaning as well, but were more likely used as a water source the the monks and for various religious ceremonies.
Some barays are "frikken huge". Today, many old barays are simply reservoirs for irrigation, with people having no clue as to their original purpose.

(Most Khmer era barays I've seen are distinctly rectangular in shape with raised embankments. That's one of the clues I look for when I'm searching for old temple sites. Even if the temple itself is (mostly) gone, the baray usually survives as everyone still needs water.)

The small "ponds" found within the temple grounds are often lined with stone and don't have raised embankments. Some may have been rectangular while others are built to "bracket" the temple.)

Note -  Most "modern" reservoirs are simply square holes dug in the ground with all the dirt hauled off elsewhere. Some are dug in odd shapes and almost none have raised embankments.

This is a panorama pic I swiped from Wiki showing the ponds at the Muang Tam temple in Buriram.


This is one of my pictures of a section of the same pond.  It is in remarkably good condition considering it was constructed somewhere between 900-1100 AD (which - lol - makes it approx 1100-900 years old now).



Note: Many of the old temples had to be reconstructed, Where possible they use the original stones but in some cases they've replaced them with concrete blocks which really stand-out from the originals. Large sections of the outer wall (in the "back corner") of the temple at Phimai are like that.

And in some cases, like at Sadok Khok Thom, the reconstruction was poorly done with many stones being placed in the wrong positions because they "fit" better even though the engravings don't match up.

However, many appear to be pretty much just as they might have been a thousand years ago, minus some bamboo poles and grass mats.

(Interesting to note as well. Many of the sites I've visited had to be excavated down over a meter down to get to the "bottom" or what would have been the "ground" a thousand years ago. 
In many cases, they will leave a living tree and excavate around it which really shows how much accumulation there's been in the last 1,000  years.)

[King Cotton]

24 minutes ago, kerryd said:

I've read that archaeologists estimate that at one time, the Angkor Complex at it's height may have had upwards of 1 million people, making it the largest city on the planet at the time.

Too large for it's own good. The stripping of the natural resources around the area, the ever increasing demands on the water, no doubt a lot of trash (and "cra.p") accumulating, all may have contributed to the collapse of the city, to the point it was totally abandoned and taken over by the jungle for hundreds of years.
(As with the great Mayan cities, some scientists think that the overpopulation and drain on the natural resources may have contributed to events like droughts that lasted years, resulting in the populations being forced to move away from the cities to find water and food.)

Keep in mind that the temples and palaces were made of stone, as were the walls of some other buildings, but the majority of the open spaces in and around those temples would have been a beehive of bamboo structures with thatched roofs.

Homes, shops, restaurants, markets and offices would have cluttered almost every open area around all of those temple sites. 

When I wander around places like Sri Thep or Muang Sing or Sadok Khok Thom or the historical parks in Sukhothai and Kamphaeng Phet, I imagine what it might have looked like when all those places were first built and all the open spaces were filled with all manner of life.

In other places, like Phimai and Muang Tam for example, civilization has continued to build around the temples and any traces of "outbuildings" or old roads is long gone of course but in other places you can see the remnants of old buildings sticking up from the ground, with no real idea what they may have been used for "back then".

But of course, "back then" buildings made of stone (but still having roofs made of bamboo poles and thatched mats made with grass or palm fronds) would have belonged to the rich and powerful.
Senior monks. Military commanders and senior gov't officials. Lesser members of royal families. Rich business people and the like.

Common folk couldn't afford luxuries like walls made from stone, but after awhile, even common material like bamboo and grass mats would have had to have been hauled in from a long distance, making them more expensive as time went by.

The large barays around/near many of the temples are thought to be the Hindu representation of the ocean that surrounded Mount Meru but I suspect they were more meant to be reservoirs, not just for the rice crops but for the masses of people to use in their daily life.

Even many small, "village" temples that consist of little more than a single structure often have a wall surrounding it and some kind of small pond nearby. In many cases, I've found the ponds to be little more than overgrown depressions. In some, the remnants of old laterite blocks can still be found around the edges.

These small ponds may have had some symbolic meaning as well, but were more likely used as a water source the the monks and for various religious ceremonies.
Some barays are "frikken huge". Today, many old barays are simply reservoirs for irrigation, with people having no clue as to their original purpose.

(Most Khmer era barays I've seen are distinctly rectangular in shape with raised embankments. That's one of the clues I look for when I'm searching for old temple sites. Even if the temple itself is (mostly) gone, the baray usually survives as everyone still needs water.)

The small "ponds" found within the temple grounds are often lined with stone and don't have raised embankments. Some may have been rectangular while others are built to "bracket" the temple.)

Note -  Most "modern" reservoirs are simply square holes dug in the ground with all the dirt hauled off elsewhere. Some are dug in odd shapes and almost none have raised embankments.

This is a panorama pic I swiped from Wiki showing the ponds at the Muang Tam temple in Buriram.


This is one of my pictures of a section of the same pond.  It is in remarkably good condition considering it was constructed somewhere between 900-1100 AD (which - lol - makes it approx 1100-900 years old now).



Note: Many of the old temples had to be reconstructed, Where possible they use the original stones but in some cases they've replaced them with concrete blocks which really stand-out from the originals. Large sections of the outer wall (in the "back corner") of the temple at Phimai are like that.

And in some cases, like at Sadok Khok Thom, the reconstruction was poorly done with many stones being placed in the wrong positions because they "fit" better even though the engravings don't match up.

However, many appear to be pretty much just as they might have been a thousand years ago, minus some bamboo poles and grass mats.

(Interesting to note as well. Many of the sites I've visited had to be excavated down over a meter down to get to the "bottom" or what would have been the "ground" a thousand years ago. 
In many cases, they will leave a living tree and excavate around it which really shows how much accumulation there's been in the last 1,000  years.)

So much interesting info there, @kerryd, that will keep me engaged till lunchtime, at least . . . thanks a wot for that!

[billywillyjones]

If they get the same contractor to build the Buriam temple that does the roads in Pattaya it will come out looking more like Stonehenge.

[billywillyjones]

22 hours ago, kerryd said:

I've been to over 63 ancient Khmer temple sites and historical parks in Thailand, as well as the temple complex of Siem Reap.
(Travelling around and photographing ancient Khmer sites is kind of my hobby these days. Pre-covid that is.)

Khmer temples stretch as far West as Muang Sing in Kanchanaburi. Many early "Thai" period temples, like those in Kamphaeng Phet, Sukhothai and Si Satchanalai were heavily influenced by the late period Khmer style (after the Khmer had transitioned to Buddhism).
Khmer/Hindu influence can also be seen as far south as Bali.

Due to the limited signage at many of the temples, it can be hard to date them but certain features tend to stand out (on the temples that still have identifiable features that is) such as the base, the position of the prangs, ponds, libraries, walls and pavillons as well as any surviving ornamentation and engravings.

Not all temples have all features. Or have features that have survived the test of time at least. Many old temples were "repurposed" and are now part of more modern Thai Buddhist temples. Some have simply collapsed and been covered over by a thousand years of organic material.

No two temples are the same.

Cambodia does not "own" the Khmer style (or heritage for that matter) anymore than the Syrians (or Iranians/Iraqis/etc) "own" the Persian style or the Mexicans with regards to the Mayan style.

One would hope that they don't make a gaudy concrete replica full of dumb concrete statues like they have at a lot of temples.

Went to one (Wat Somdet Phu Ruea) last fall in Phu Reua that looked like it was half Thai temple and half Flintstone's village, complete with concrete caves and hidden passages.

 (Note - there is a hidden concrete passageway with secret rooms that follows along the left side of the main passageway in the center of the pic, and another concrete passageway that starts off to the right of the main passage and extends off to the side a fair ways.)

(And that is not a guy riding an elephant beside the concrete copy of the "Buddha head in the roots of a tree" from Wat Mahathat in Ayutthaya.)

Nice.  I was expecting Fred Flinstone to walk out but he is busy posting on Thaiger lol.

[Kes]

On 8/30/2021 at 8:19 AM, Guest1 said:

"But, the official also concedes that the head monk who had dreamed he had been one of the original builders in the 12th century constructing Angkor Wat in a past life, and followed that vision in making this temple."

You  can't make this stuff up!

They just did. 

[HolyCowCm]

Well I might as well chip in. Yes I have been to Angkor Wat, and no I do not plan to go see something newly built as even in the slightest of a copy, but yes I do plan on going back and seeing more of the Angkor 
Wat surroundings as did not see them all. I think next time is with my kids when ever that is possible.