Stegosaurus in Cambodian Jungle? Ancient Carving.

To me it looks a lot like the Borneo RHino. But chameleon is a good guess too.

But not a stegosaurus..

hmmmm... now, maybe, just maybe, it is a culmination of a number of animals andnot just one. We see what we have been shown to be a stegosaur but are we just seeing what we want? Perhaps it is a chameleon or a, supposed, rhino. However, i guess there a holes in all of those ideas and I can offer no more concrete evidence as to what it is supposed to be. However, rhino it isn't unless rhino have/had an enlarged long tail like that and that "animal" just does not have the "look" of a rhino as far s i am concerned (living in south africa). Perhaps the artist wasn't giving evidence of anything that really existed and was just "carving" an "animal" not unlike deities that are so commonly seen in some religions with heads of animals and arms and legs. Do we look at those and wonder if they too existed in the Cambodian jungles? But again, it could be something we have not yet seen nor will see again, or it is a fake. If it is a fake, a fake meaning what? That the artist tried to deceive us; the artist was just being creative or a fake in terms of someone is messing with our heads. Will we ever know? Perhaps, but i don't believe any of us could ever conclusively say what it is.

the carving's pretty much screaming steggy. i can't see how it could look like anything else, tbh. i'm not sure how viable the chameleon theory is, given that it looks nothing like one, and there are other lizard carvings on the walls that are closer to a chameleon than this one (long tails and reptilian limbs etc). if you look at other areas of the wall you'll notice that this isn't the only carving to be ringed with these blocky-looking decorations. the ones in the steggy carving seem way too close together and deliberate to be simply misleading decoration.
i can't deny there's a strong chance it's a leftover prop,even though the website claims it isn't. but it's definitely a steg.

Originally posted by d60944
I think that those "plates" on its back are not actually part of the animal. if you look, you can see that the sculptor has carved a spiral of similar shapes around the image. I think that the ones above the creature's back are just a continuation of this decorative spiral of the same shapes. You can see what I mean in the image I have highlighted below:

With best wishes.

I think you hit the nail on the head. And the head of the creature definitely looks like a chameleon.

I agree that it is just part of the overall floral design. It's used all over the wall to fill in negative space in various spots. The protruding eye socket was the main reason I came to the chameleon theory. I have a few friends that have had ones from time to time. I don't know of any other animal of that eye and body shape.

Problem one - that doesn't look like a Stegosaurus. Unless, I suppose, your idea of what a stegosaurus looks like comes from children's programming like Barney or somesuch. Big head, humped back, dragging tail...

Problem two - Stegosaurs did not make it even into the middle cretaceous. They went extinct not too long after grasses evolved, resulting in large stretches of grassland opening up - a bad situation for a browsing animal specialized for softer leaves. This grass explosion resulted in a plethora of hadrosaur and cerotopsian niches arising, including more browsers - the stegosaurs were outcompeted in North America and Asia, and lingered on along with Sauropods and other "relics" in South America until the KT event.

Problem three - A relict population of stegosaurs would have evolved and changed in the time since the KT event. 65 million years is a long time. Odds are they would be unrecognizable - for one, having large plates running along the back would be a useless adaptation in a world that hasn't had downward-attacking large predators since, well, the extinction of the dinosaurs. If they were radiator panels, they would again be relatively useless, given that Southeast Asia is a rather warm place with dense forest - solar panels would be ineffective and redundant.

What is it? My money is on it being a hoax. It looks extremely clean and fresh for being an ancient carving in a tropical environment. It resembles a poor rendition of Othniel Marsh's first description of Stegosaurus stenops, and really doesn't resemble much else - if it weren't for the high, but dragging tail, it could be a pig, a tapir, or a rhino.

Problem One- You can't say "that doesn't look like a Stegosaurus", mainly because I am fairly certain that you have never seen a living dinosaur.(If you have, let me see a pic please!) There is always a good chance that I am wrong though.

Problem Two- Who has the right to say that anything has gone extinct? There may be evidence pointing toward that conclusion but there is no way to prove it at all. Unless of course, you know everything about everything.

Problem Three- The whole point of this post is in response to people saying things as though they truly know instead of it being just their opinion. No matter what the evidence may point toward no one knows for sure what these people may or may not have seen, or for that matter what happened to the dinos. Also, there are many examples of "useless adaptations" in existence.

I believe that we and everything else was created by God. But I am not here to preach.

Now on to my opinion. I agree that the head of the carving does look like a chameleon. It is also a very good possibility that it is a left over prop. What I don't agree with is that the "plates" are just a filler for the carving. Although I do see a similar design on the outside of many of the other rings on the carving, this is the only one that I see that has it on the inside of the ring. In my opinion the plates are a part of the depicted animal. What animal it is I can't say. I wasn't there. Could be a dino, could be a chameleon that we just haven't discovered yet.

Originally posted by adamneldon
I believe that we and everything else was created by God. But I am not here to preach.

But you did.

Originally posted by adamneldon
What I don't agree with is that the "plates" are just a filler for the carving. Although I do see a similar design on the outside of many of the other rings on the carving, this is the only one that I see that has it on the inside of the ring.

The one on the bottom left in the original picture and the one right next to it on the bottom middle of the original picture (just one down from the carving in question)...

No, I wasn't preaching. If I was preaching I would be trying to show you why you should believe.

The one at the bottom left appears to be a face and the designs you see looks to be his/her hair. The one just below it is said to be a swan and this design is its wings. Like I said before, I think it is a part of the animal.

Originally posted by Batty
i can't deny there's a strong chance it's a leftover prop,even though the website claims it isn't. but it's definitely a steg.

It can't be a "left-over" movie prop... Unless it's all lies...

Because:
Tomb raider was shot in 2000. They were in Cambodia in December 2000.
Source

At least two books testify to the authenticity of the stegosaurs carving before the movie was shot... Ancient Angkor was first published in Thailand in 1999 by River Books Ltd., Bangkok. A small picture of the carving is seen at the bottom of page 143. On page 144 we read:

Along the vertical strip of roundels in the angle between the south wall of the porch and the east wall of the main body of the gopura there is even a very convincing representation of a stegosaur

and Angkor, Cities And Temples (first edition 2000) , by the same author and photographer, includes a half page picture of the stegosaur sculpture. On page 213 the author describes it as

an animal which bears a striking resemblance to a stegosaurus

This was, however, the same temple in which Tomb raider was shot. But why "build props" when there are in fact wonderful, existing "props" all around the temple?

As for the Chameleon idea, as I said earlier, it's much more believable than living dinosaurs, BUT something to think about: Most typical chameleon images show the typical spiral tail of the chameleon... This "animal" carving has a pretty short and straight tail...

Originally posted by Gemwolf
This was, however, the same temple in which Tomb raider was shot. But why "build props" when there are in fact wonderful, existing "props" all around the temple?

Because Hollywood is full of ignorant morons.
Your post convinced me that it is not a prop, though. Good job!

As for the Chameleon idea, as I said earlier, it's much more believable than living dinosaurs, BUT something to think about: Most typical chameleon images show the typical spiral tail of the chameleon... This "animal" carving has a pretty short and straight tail...

Actually, there are many species of chameleons without curled tails. The animal's tail is kinda short though. Perhaps a new species of chameleon? That's what I think it is now.

Originally posted by Uplifted
Actually, there are many species of chameleons without curled tails. The animal's tail is kinda short though. Perhaps a new species of chameleon? That's what I think it is now.

I think the tail "shortness" is most likely due to the artist running out of space within the area he was carving in. It doesn't appear to end, but "run off the page" so to speak.

They also poseted a picture at the creationist site of a "swan" that contains the same stegosaur plate like "patterning" behind the bird.



What I find both interesting and sort of funny, is that if this is depiction of a stegosaurus, then they are in a way also confirming that all the "Gods" also depicted are real as well. Because if one carving is said to be "real" why are the carvings of Indra, and other gods ect not real? It just seems like they will take whatever suits thier ideology but then toss the rest.

It's bad science either way, we know humans have been around for more than 50,000 years...not 6000 or whatever they want to make us think.
[edit on 29-5-2007 by LordBaskettIV]

[edit on 29-5-2007 by LordBaskettIV]

I have seen this carving in Cambodia with my own eyes and I can tell you this - it is not a hoax. I also have one of the book saying that it look like a stegosaurus. Interestingly I am came upon this carving before I read the book, and have conclude that it is a stegosaurus myself.

Its hard to agree with the thought that the plates were not part of the animal but part of the circling vein. You see, the plates obviously stem from the animal, not the circling vein. The circling vein has some protruding design on the other side but you can tell that it stem out from the vein. Unless - the sculptor made a mistake of executing the direction of the plates wrongly and the plates were really supposed to stem from the vein. Maybe he were afraid that he would be punished for making such mistake that he had adapted it to look that way. This is again not likely as the other circle do not have anything growing from the circling vein on the inside of the circle enclosure.

Each section of the wall carving tell a story. Carving of myth god tell one story but this story is about the living animals in the kingdom, namely monkeys, deers, swan etc - real animal. I think the sculptor indeed see something that look like a stegosaurus. Or a evolved version of one? My guess is it could be some sort of comodo lizard. But I also trust that the sculptor is brilliant enough to carve a lizard leg like a lizard leg. The leg of this animal is really stocky. Intriguing.

Weird and I have an open mind but I can't help but think that it's a fake. After looking at the other animal carvings for quite some time, it looks like the "dino" is new. The other animal's carvings look older and their surface looks grainy whilst the "dino" looks to have a smooth surface.

That and comparing the other carvings which look expertly done, the "dino" looks like a novice tried to carve it. Does anyone know where I'm coming from with that? The other carvings look to have a great more detail done to them while the "dino" carving looks.....well.....plain.



But, you never know.......

The plates on the creatures back are shaped different from the floral
plates that adorn the ribbon like frame. The last plate on the animal is
turned slightly to follow the line of the tail. I don't think the similar structures
are meant to be a continuation as you have indicated. Also why would the
artist only do this to this carving? Not to the other five. This isn't even the first or last carving. So no, I think you are wrong with this theory.

Originally posted by adamneldon
Problem One- You can't say "that doesn't look like a Stegosaurus", mainly because I am fairly certain that you have never seen a living dinosaur.

If that is the case, then you can't say it does look like one either, since you have not seen a living one either. The only thing we have to go on is current models in paleontology, which by the way look nothing like this carving.

Originally posted by adamneldon
Problem Two- Who has the right to say that anything has gone extinct? There may be evidence pointing toward that conclusion but there is no way to prove it at all.

This is just rhetorical nonsense. Yes, you can conclusively say that these animals are extinct, if nothing for the fact there is no record anywhere in human history of someone encountering the creatures, and the fact they disappear from the fossil record 145 million years ago.

But, if you find one, I'll be more than happy to print out this post and eat it.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I think the sculptor indeed see something that look like a stegosaurus. Or a evolved version of one?

Or perhaps he never saw the animal he was carving; perhaps the sculptor crafted the image based on a living animal that had been described to him.

For instance, in a cathedral in Manchester, I saw wood-carvings of a group of animals. The artist had designed the elephants' ears to look like batwings, complete with finger-like bones in them. He was carving a real-animal, but was obviously misinformed.

The Angkor Wat artist could have been carving what to him was an accurate depiction of a rhinocerous, because that was how it was described to him.

i think people are missing the point here, the question isn't "is this a stegosaurus?" but "why is this stegosaurus riding a dolphin backwards?"

I like to think that ancient peoples were not retarded and did paleontology of their own. I mean in the dark ages people found dino skulls and said there were dragons nearby, but the ancient peoples were smart, I think they knew what they were doing.

Its possible it was an animal seen, who's to say what scale its on? Maybe it was a 2 foot long baby stego? That drank the waters of immortal life 100 million years ago? I've seen ancient pictures of rhinos that look more like metal and all kinds of strangely described things. Then again, it could be similar to a Lindorm.

ALSO - I think the 'swan' looks a lot like a Dodo!

Considering none of the carvings are a 100% accurate representation of the animal they depict. I think the carving is a rhinocerous. Not an adult rhino, but except for the tail it does bear a resemblence to a baby.