Talk: Statue of Taweret/Theories/Identity

delete==Taweret== Taweret is not a valid theory for multiple reasons, but most specifically canon evidence that the statue is male. See main page for details and link. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 04:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please enlighten me: what are the "multiple reasons" Taweret is not a valid theory? Yes, DL used the word "him" in regards to the statue, but that is only one reason. That single reason is not reliable enough to throw out the theory that it could be female --- might I remind you that the writers specifically and in no uncertain terms said "no time travel" and yet there does appear to be some type of "time travel" that is a major part of the plot. Also, you cannot consider something "canon" simply because it was stated in a single interview and has never been confirmed in any episode of Lost (thus far). VvAndromedavV 20:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quick summary of points from the main discussion page:

Tawaret has the body of a hippo, crossed with the features of a highly pregnant woman (Large belly, pendular breasts, etc...), the statue has a proportionally masculine form.
Tawaret is nude. The statue is clothed.
The statue is wearing a Shendyt, which is a male piece of apparel.
Tawaret was not represented with a wig, not a nemes. The statue is wearing a nemes.
The statue is holding ankhs. Taweret carried Sas.
Tawaret was represented either with a crocodile tail extending down from the back of her head. The statue clearly does not have this.
Tawaret had animal feet, this statue has human feet (albeit 4-toed human feet).

As the theory nav states, a theory can be removed if it is "illogical or disproven". Based on canon evidence (on the main page) it is disproven, based on the above points it is illogical. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quick counterpoint to each of your summary points:

We have never seen the statue from the front; therefore, we do not know if it is pregnant nor if it has breasts. Have you never seen a pregnant woman that carries in such a way that her pregnant belly is not visible from the back? Furthermore, how can you say that the statue is proportionally masculine based on the ancient Egyptian style of art? When viewed from the back almost any Egyptian figure could be perceived as "masculine." Taweret was not ALWAYS depicted with the features of a highly pregnant woman; in fact, that was a later depiction of her as the Egyptians' view of her evolved over time.
DL stated in the same interview that you used to throw out the Taweret theory that the statue is clothed ONLY because a nude statue would not be allowed on TV: "...Standards and Practices are trying to find a garment that’s appropriate to cover the statue before we can show it." Furthermore, if the clothing is enough to throw out the whole theory, why not throw out the theory that it's Anubis (still on the theories page) because the ears are NOT pointed and NOT large enough to be Anubis?
The statue is not wearing a Nemes. According to Wikipedia, a Nemes "covered the whole crown and back of the head and nape of the neck (sometimes also extending a little way down the back)." Please look at the statue again; the headdress extends well down the back and resembles hair far more than it resembles a Nemes. Furthermore, a Nemes does not have a cylindrical-type hat at the top.
Taweret carried a SINGLE sa and was later depicted as carrying a sa in one hand and an ankh in the other. Please familiarize yourself with what "sa" looks like --- when viewed from behind it looks very similar to an ankh (the top part of sa and an ankh look exactly the same, and that is all we can see from the statue so far --- the top part).
Taweret was not always represented with a crocodile tail extending down from the back of her head.
They are not human feet if they have 4 toes.

I am posting the picture I had up on the theories page to support these points. Of particular note is the fact that if you viewed this statue from behind, neither the pregnant belly nor the breasts would be visible. Of further interest are the headdress, the ears, and the TWO objects both statues are holding, which you INSIST are both ankhs but as you can see from the statue of Taweret, an ankh and "sa" are very similar.

VvAndromedavV 21:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This case was closed weeks ago. I appreciate that you're new here, but this this isn't just a blog where every idea, no matter how generally disregarded, can be placed. Even the theory pages have a standard of what is allowed there (albeit one that is not always adhered to):

An healthy/ideal female form has a hip to waist ratio of .7, whereas a healthy/ideal male has a hip to waste ratio of .9. The statue shown has a hip to waste ratio .85, which indicates a male.
If the statue had been male then the producers (in trying to figure out how to deal with the FCC) could have selected a piece of female clothing for it (like a gown, for example, that would cover the breasts). They did not; they chose a male piece of clothing.
Even a pregnant woman shows signs of pregnancy from the rear; she certainly does not maintain a taught masculine form.
The nemes is visibly tied on the statue's back. This was common practice (not so much with wigs).
There is a difference between 1 problem (the statue's ears aren't long enough), and all the problems with Taweret.
The so-called "hat" you refer to would be the base of a crown. Crowns were often placed atop nemes.
Sas and ankhs look similar - they don't look the same. See the visuals provided: Sas don't fit. It is concensus that they are ankhs, or else it would not be written as such on the main page.
When Taweret was not represented with a crocodile tail, she usually had an even more conspicuous whole crocodile on her back.
I'm willing to accept that the feet might not be human feet, but they are unquestionably anthropomorphic. Taweret had lion's claws for feet.

The long and short of it is, this idea was one of the first theories to go get splashed across the web, but it has also been justly put away. It is not a valid theory, and does not belong on the theory page. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame when a very likely theory can't even be presented by the powers that be, because it is "widely disregarded". Time travel was widely disregarded when it was ruled out by the producers. Let's rename the "Theories" tab to "Highly regarded theories" so as not to confuse people who think they are just getting a list of very viable theories.

The statue may appear masculine by modern day terms, but the theory is that this is an ancient Egyptian statue. In this light, the gender is certainly ambiguous going by body structure alone.
Tawaret is nude, and the statue is clothed. If we're using the interview with the producers as evidence, then this only reinforces the Tawaret theory as they quite clearly indicated that the statue has not been shown from the front until they can determine a means of covering it up.
How do you know the statue is wearing a nemes?
You can't be any more certain that the statue is carrying ankhs than I can be certain that it is wearing kneepads. You're extrapolating and treating this as fact.
The statue does not have human feet. Human feet have four toes. If you say "albeit 4-toed", that's like saying "The statue is a dog, albeit a human-shaped dog". If you're disputing a theory based on fact, then why not stick to fact?

All in all the Taweret theory is one of many which are promising. There are clues about the statue that suggest this is not Taweret (such as the fact that it appears to be wearing a shendyt). But they are hardly enough to discount the theory entirely. If they were, let's toss out 90% of the other theories on the statue page. Mslade 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

One's userpage is a great place to put things that don't have a place on the main pages. I have a ton of stuff on mine. Perhaps you could put this on yours. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 23:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that "this case was closed weeks ago." When I went to the four-toed statue theory page, I did not see Taweret listed. When I went to the four-toed statue discussion page, I did not see Taweret listed. I even used the site's search feature to search for Taweret, and there weren't any relevant results, and it was at that point that I posted to the theory page. Apparently I missed something --- wikis can get rather unwieldy with all parent articles, children articles, and then discussion tabs for each --- but I honestly did as much as I knew how to do to make sure Taweret was not already suggested before I made a post. I resent that you've accused me of blogging. Did you even read my post before you removed it? It was well thought out, and I supported it with what I consider reasonable evidence. I even mentioned how it would tie into the recurring themes of pregnancy, childbirth, and children. I didn't just have some harebrained idea that I didn't think through and immediately posted on the theories page. You may think that Taweret has been "proven illogical," but I strongly disagree, and to compare my post to blogging simply because you disagree with my idea is completely unfair. There is currently, in my opinion, some pretty ridiculous stuff on that theories page that I would definitely compare to blogging, and yet it remains on the page --- completely against your alleged "standard." Somehow, though, MY theory was blogging? I spent about an hour (sad, I know) researching Taweret --- art of Taweret, the mythology behind Taweret, etc. --- before I posted. I even talked to my husband about my idea before I posted, and he saw the similarities as well.
How can you apply the idea of a healthy/ideal hip to waist ratio to AN ANCIENT STATUE? It's ART, it doesn't have to be 100% realistic --- furthermore, might I remind you that we are not talking about Greek or Roman art (which was very true to life) --- we are talking about ANCIENT Egyptian art which by all modern-day standards was not terribly realistic nor anatomically correct. After all, we are talking about people who, in their artwork, combined human and animal body parts within the same individual. Here's another idea (if we are going with the theory that the statue IS and HAS TO BE anatomically correct, which I don't buy in the first place): maybe the waist is straighter than the stereotypical female waist because the statue is pregnant. Hip to waist ratio is simply not a conclusive argument against the idea that it's Taweret.
I agree that the clothing choice is questionable, but as Taweret should be nude we are talking about an issue of ridiculous American censorship --- Oh, no! We can't have a naked statue! --- and if they clothed the statue based on censorship then ANYTHING they placed on that statue would be inconsistent with Taweret. We have NOT seen the front of the statue, so we do not know for a fact that it is clothed in simply a "skirt." It may be clothed in an open-backed robe. I agree that would not be the best choice and would not fit 100% with the ancient Egyptian theme, but keep in mind we ARE talking about a FICTIONAL statue on a FICTIONAL island. Furthermore, here's an interesting point that Carlton Cuse made in an interview (AFTER we had already seen the back of the statue) when asked why we haven't seen more of the statue: "The problem is wardrobe, really. When it comes to statues, a lot of them are naked, it takes a lot of cloth to cover them, and Standards and Practices are trying to find a garment that’s appropriate to cover the statue before we can show it." Why would he still be talking about "a garmet that's appropriate to cover the statue before we can show it" if the clothing we have already seen was sufficient coverage to clothe a male statue? That seems to possibly be an indication that they may be concerned with how to cover breasts --- and maybe even a pregnant belly --- before they show it from any other angle.
I can tell you from personal experience that not every pregnant woman shows signs of pregnancy from the rear. When I was in high school there was a girl I knew who was short with a very petite frame. When she got pregnant she didn't want anyone to know so she hid it from everyone. Her weight gain was not noticeable, and the only difference was that she started wearing t-shirts (regular sized ones, at that) instead of form-fitting tops. No one knew she was pregnant. No one. Not from the front, side, or back. Granted, she was clothed, so here's another example: I also know a woman who, while she was pregnant, was not visibly pregnant from the back (if she had her arms resting at her side) in a swimsuit. Some woman carry in a more oblong, oval-shaped way and not in a rounded way which is visible from the back --- especially with arms resting at the side of the body. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, this version of Taweret may not even be pregnant at all.
When I look at that statue I do not see a taught masculine form. It is an illogical argument and a fallacy to support the theory that the statue is male because "it looks masculine," when, in fact, it is more androgynous (when viewed from behind) than male or female. The statue does not have bulging, manly muscles; it is merely toned with wide shoulders. I am a woman, and from the back, I actually share quite a few of the features of that statue. I have very broad shoulders and toned arms. Granted, my waist is much smaller but I have already offered multiple suggestions as to why the statue does not have the stereotypical "hour-glass figure" --- that not every woman has, anyway.
I have looked a high-resolution pictures of the statue and I do not see the Nemes/hair/wig as being visibly tied. I believe that you see it, which is fine, because the statue is old and dirty, so I will not be so bold as to argue that it is NOT tied, because the truth is that I cannot say for sure one way or the other. Even if it IS tied, based on the statement you made, wigs were apparently sometimes depicted as tied. To me, the headdress from the back looks almost identical to Taweret. That is actually one of the main things that got me started on this theory in the first place. I don't think it's fair for you to tell me the theory that it matches with Taweret's headdress is any more unsupported than your theory that it is a Nemes.
Yes, there is a difference between one problem and many, but most of the issues you have brought up with Taweret I find to be insubstantial or at least vague enough that it is still open for interpretation based on the fact that we have NOT seen the statue from the front. The strongest problems with the theory is that the clothing is "male" --- but I have given arguments as to why that is not necessarily the case --- and and Taweret does not wear shoes. These are realistically the only good ideas why it isn't Taweret, and isn't enough, in my opinion, to throw out the whole theory (especially when you consider how many other highly questionable theories remain on that page.) All the other arguments are either fallacious at face value or not conclusive enough to say it's not Taweret: the statue is clearly male because it looks masculine, the hip to waist ratio is masculine, it is "accepted" 100% that the statue is holding ankhs, it is 100% certain the statue is wearing a Nemes, the statue doesn't happen to have a crocodile on its back, etc. I have presented good counter-points to all of these "conclusions," and yet they are arrogantly dismissed as "illogical" even though your conclusions are speculative and CANNOT be proven based on current evidence.
Okay, crowns were often placed atop Nemes. I won't disagree with the idea that it COULD be a Nemes with a crown on top. Realistically, no one else should be able to disagree at this point with the idea that it COULD, instead, be a wig with a crown on top. It IS visually very similar to the headdress worn by Taweret (in some depictions) and it even has the same rounded ears as Taweret, but for some reason that just gets thrown out.
With the visuals provided, I find it pretty ludicrous and take issue with the fact that it is written as fact on the main page that the objects are ankhs. The reason why I find it so ludicrous is because you are being highly critical of the Taweret theory and dismissing it (unfairly, in my opinion) when there is good evidence it COULD be Taweret and yet you accept that the objects MUST be ankhs because someone drew an ankh? You are not holding the ankh theory to the same standard with which you are attacking my Taweret theory. Could they be ankhs? Sure. Could they be something else? YES, because they are both partially obscured by trees (the right object more than the left). Yes, an ankh fits with what we can see of the LEFT object, and could fit with the right; however, the right object may or may not be an ankh because most of it is OBSCURED BY TREES. Anyone can open up Photoshop and draw an imaginary shape onto what is, in REALITY, tree canopies and then assert that what they drew is the reality. Open your mind and please look at that picture again. All you can really see of the right "ankh" is a SMALL tip of what may or may not be a bar sticking out of the side of a loop. Couldn't it instead be the tie that is depicted below the top loop on Sa? Isn't that possible? Be realistic. If you closely compare the object in the left and right hand, you could easily argue that the object on the right has a more oblong appearance than the one on the left, thereby possibly making it a different object than the one on the left. I certainly see it as more oblong, but once again, with the angle and it being mostly obscured by trees, I cannot be sure. I am posting three pictures of Sa in order to illustrate that a Sa COULD match up with the right object because we CANNOT see it clearly enough. I could get out Photoshop and draw what I "see" over what is really just leaves, but that doesn't make it a Sa for sure any more than it would make it an ankh for sure if I drew an ankh.
Maybe this Taweret doesn't have the crocodile feature. Isn't that possible, especially given the other theories that are STILL up on the theory page that also have evidence against them? Taweret was also depicted in human form. From my searches it seems more rare that she was depicted that way, but there is at least one example I could find of a statue circa 1100 B.C. of Taweret in human form. No crocodile, no animal features, just human. Doesn't that leave the possibility that it's Taweret open? I am attaching a picture of said statue. Interestingly, she is wearing a robe that appears to be gathered and tied at the top --- since we cannot see the back of the statue, isn't it POSSIBLE that, when viewed from the back, the robe looks like a skirt because in the front it ties around the neck and has an open back? Just a thought. Here's another point: the human statue of Taweret does not match up with your healthy/ideal female hip to waist ratio "proof," and yet the statue is FEMALE --- just further evidence that you cannot judge ancient art by modern-day anatomical standards because the STYLE was not terribly realistic.
Yes, the feet are anthropomorphic and not animal feet. However, doesn't that then rule out the other deities posted on the theories page? Anubis: "Canids, like jackals, have only 4 toes on their rear legs." Really? That's asserting they are animal feet, and yet that gets to stay even though you ruled out Taweret because they are "human feet"? Here's a question: what ancient Egyptian gods were depicted as having HUMAN feet with FOUR toes? Any of them? If you use this as evidence that Taweret is an illogical possibility, you need to apply it to all the other possibilities listed on that page. Most (if not all) of them do not hold up to the scrutiny that "they are human feet with 4 toes." You cannot just pick and choose which theories to apply counter-evidence. Either "human feet with 4 toes" counts against EVERY theory, or it counts against none. You cannot penalize the Taweret theory and then give the other theories a by.
I was not aware of this theory before I posted it yesterday. I was not aware it was "one of the first theories" because I don't spend a lot of time surfing the web obsessing on every single detail of Lost. I certainly was not arrogant enough to assume I was the first person to ever think of Taweret, nor was I arrogant enough to think that no one else had ever mentioned it in the entirety of the web, but I didn't see it here on Lostpedia and so I posted it here. I find it completely absurd that it has "been justly put away." It has been put away unfairly. There is ample evidence to support it as a POSSIBILITY, and not enough valid, concrete evidence to dismiss it at this point in time. I cannot say for sure that it IS Taweret at this point any more than other people can (realistically) say that it isn't. It is every bit as valid based on what we know at this point as any of the other theories on the theory page (all of which have potential "problems," just like Taweret). Obviously I am a nobody and not part of the Lostpedia "clique" so I know that my opinion holds no weight and that I am likely arguing in vain. I am a reasonable person. I know good logic when I see it, but I also can tell when a valid OPINION is being dismissed. Your opinion --- and by your claim, the general consensus --- is that it isn't Taweret. That's fine; people have different opinions. I even admit that it may not be Taweret! However, that doesn't MAKE it wrong because you don't agree. You are basically telling me that a completely justified OPINION is wrong based on flimsy and questionable "conclusions" against the theory.
The long and short of it is that you are not holding the other theories on the theory page to the same level of scrutiny as the Taweret theory which you have dismissed as illogical. Maybe it takes an "outsider" to see that, but I assure you that is the case. You could apply many of these same arguments you have against Taweret to the other theories listed on the page and dismiss them as illogical as well, but for some reason that's not how it works because the "general consensus" is that isn't just not Taweret because... Well... Because you all said so.VvAndromedavV 15:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I rescind my objections. Please follow page format when adding your theory. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 16:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete[]

ABC has confirmed that the statue is Taweret. This page should be deleted. (It's also rather nasty.) If ABC is proven wrong, the page can always be undeleted. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive instead of delete. --Blueeagle islander 09:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The identity has been confirmed by J.J. as well as ABC. Why archive it when we don't archive other theory pages? -- Managerpants Contribs Talk 15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I referenced this in another page, but I was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and I was checking out the Egyptian section. They had a bunch of statues of Taweret, and I don't think that any of the statues match what we've seen on Lost. Here are some links:

Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3 Picture 4 Picture 5 Picture 6 Picture 7 --Drevil877 23:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Once it has been confirmed to be Taweret, there is no point in keeping this discussion. --Forloyo 08:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)