Another theory (deleted and reposted with a correction)
It looks diferent from the rest of the stone, so i agree its probably repaired, but i think the resemblance may be a mistake;
Notice that the other animals depicted have something going on in the 'background' as well (though i should mention im not familiar with wether the creators had a background-foreground concept in their art), but if you take it as a stegosaurus, then that panel has nothing in the background/surrounding - unless the plates are actually background elements, like leaves.
Also, the stegosaurus looks like it has horns... or long bunny-ears.
My theory is that, if its not photoshopped, it's an armadillo; it has a thickened tail and those pointy ears, with a high smooth curving back. Although i admit the back legs are longer than the front, it could probably be explained by it being a fairly unspecific stylised image - and possibly a slightly warped reconstruction (on the other hand, if an ancient Incan actually did see a stegosaurus, i doubt their tendency to stylise would extend to adding horns... thats a post-Flintstones Western stylisation).
------------------- Edited to say... oops... i missed the "Angkor Wat" part and just looked at the picture... it isn't Incan, it's South-East Asian, isnt it?
Which means, no armadillos.
So... South-East Asian mammals with long ears and thick tails? Any thoughts?
Re: Another theory (deleted and reposted with a correction)
This carving looks to me like an Borneo Rhinoceros against a big-leafed backdrop. The rhino was on the mainland in historic times.
Firstly, the head is big and heavy, and shows the same kind of horn that they have.
Secondly, the tail is short and stubby. The stegosaur had large spikes on it - one would well imagine that being especially important to a stone carver.
Both characteristics make the Stegosaurus identification spurious at best. The only thing speaking for the ID as a stegosaur is that it does look a bit like the claymation stegosaur in the first King Kong film of 1933.
Did you know that the stonemasons snuck in a gargoyle that looks like Darth Vader in the National Cathedral in DC? As they carved, they included many things from popular culture. Why should the stonemasons who maintain that temple do any different?
To us, monuments are things that should be maintained and preserved as they are. To other cultures, they are working buildings that keep up with the times.
The only real reason to include these things is because that's what the stonemason wanted.
If I had to guess, I'd say that they were put in during the earlier rounds of dino-mania, around 1910-1930.
Hi, I search pictures of this dinosaurs in hight definition for the picture bank Melon Rouge. If somebody can send me it. It's professional, you would have a contract, of course.
I went to Angkor Wat last week after being in Cambodia for 3 weeks and the carving is real, our tour guide said the carving has been there since Angkor was re-dicovered around 1850 and it is the original stone!!!!
I was at this site in October 2009. The photo posted here is particularly pixelized. This piece looks exactly like the surrounding stone on the column - it is definitely NOT a photoshop retouch!
There does not appear to be any signs of repair work or change from the surrounding carvings. There is no sign that this section was added at a later date.
The plates on the back do not appear to be background elements (such as leaves) and from the carving appear to be attached to the animal.
As for proportions not being exact, the column contains other animals which, although recognizable, are not exact in proportion either.
It would appear that this was a real animal that the carvers had seen.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
June 19 2007, 16:09:11 UTC 4 years ago
Yes, those old temples need repair.
June 19 2007, 16:37:15 UTC 4 years ago
June 19 2007, 18:12:29 UTC 4 years ago
I agree, it looks like a repair/vandalism job, or possibly someone doodling around in photoshop.
Deleted comment
June 20 2007, 18:04:15 UTC 4 years ago
Re: And....
I suppose that'd work too. :}June 20 2007, 05:04:11 UTC 4 years ago
Another theory (deleted and reposted with a correction)
It looks diferent from the rest of the stone, so i agree its probably repaired, but i think the resemblance may be a mistake;Notice that the other animals depicted have something going on in the 'background' as well (though i should mention im not familiar with wether the creators had a background-foreground concept in their art), but if you take it as a stegosaurus, then that panel has nothing in the background/surrounding - unless the plates are actually background elements, like leaves.
Also, the stegosaurus looks like it has horns... or long bunny-ears.
My theory is that, if its not photoshopped, it's an armadillo; it has a thickened tail and those pointy ears, with a high smooth curving back. Although i admit the back legs are longer than the front, it could probably be explained by it being a fairly unspecific stylised image - and possibly a slightly warped reconstruction (on the other hand, if an ancient Incan actually did see a stegosaurus, i doubt their tendency to stylise would extend to adding horns... thats a post-Flintstones Western stylisation).
-------------------
Edited to say... oops... i missed the "Angkor Wat" part and just looked at the picture... it isn't Incan, it's South-East Asian, isnt it?
Which means, no armadillos.
So... South-East Asian mammals with long ears and thick tails? Any thoughts?
June 20 2007, 05:39:39 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Another theory (deleted and reposted with a correction)
hmm... Cambodian mammals with long ears and thick tails . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhole
I'm drawing a blank on anything else. Tapirs are a fair match but don't have tails.
June 20 2007, 05:55:17 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Another theory (deleted and reposted with a correction)
This carving looks to me like an Borneo Rhinoceros against a big-leafed backdrop. The rhino was on the mainland in historic times.Firstly, the head is big and heavy, and shows the same kind of horn that they have.
Secondly, the tail is short and stubby. The stegosaur had large spikes on it - one would well imagine that being especially important to a stone carver.
Both characteristics make the Stegosaurus identification spurious at best. The only thing speaking for the ID as a stegosaur is that it does look a bit like the claymation stegosaur in the first King Kong film of 1933.
From:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-ne
June 20 2007, 05:08:01 UTC 4 years ago
And...
I'm being mammal-chauvinist.Chameleons have horns, commonly arch their backs like the carving, and have thickened tails.
It could be a chameleon.
In fact, the more i look at it, the more i think that. It also has bulbous eyes, which are another chameleon feature.
So there you go. Chameleon posing as a dinosaur.
June 20 2007, 05:41:00 UTC 4 years ago
Re: And...
Well, it's got a mammally hindquarters, not really a lizardy hindquarters so you're not being *that* mammal-centric.June 21 2007, 19:51:03 UTC 4 years ago
To us, monuments are things that should be maintained and preserved as they are. To other cultures, they are working buildings that keep up with the times.
The only real reason to include these things is because that's what the stonemason wanted.
If I had to guess, I'd say that they were put in during the earlier rounds of dino-mania, around 1910-1930.
June 21 2007, 20:13:12 UTC 4 years ago
Anonymous
August 22 2008, 03:26:20 UTC 3 years ago
pictures
Hi,I search pictures of this dinosaurs in hight definition for the picture bank Melon Rouge.
If somebody can send me it.
It's professional, you would have a contract, of course.
Thank You et vivo il sogno !
Alexandre
melonrouge@melonrouge.fr
Anonymous
January 5 2010, 22:41:59 UTC 2 years ago
Re: pictures
I went to Angkor Wat last week after being in Cambodia for 3 weeks and the carving is real, our tour guide said the carving has been there since Angkor was re-dicovered around 1850 and it is the original stone!!!!Anonymous
February 1 2010, 15:25:34 UTC 2 years ago
There does not appear to be any signs of repair work or change from the surrounding carvings. There is no sign that this section was added at a later date.
The plates on the back do not appear to be background elements (such as leaves) and from the carving appear to be attached to the animal.
As for proportions not being exact, the column contains other animals which, although recognizable, are not exact in proportion either.
It would appear that this was a real animal that the carvers had seen.